By now, you have probably seen the cover of US Weekly magazine with Sarah Palin’s picture accompanied by the caption, “Babies, Lies & Scandal.” For those who may not have had the pleasure, here it is:

Now let’s contrast it to this one of Barack and Michelle Obama:

No lack of objectivity here right?

Megyn Kelly takes a gentleman from US Weekly to task in no uncertain terms:

You need look no further than the above examples to understand the media in our country today.
Their agenda is becoming more than just a bit obvious. Journalists are well aware articles don’t sell magazines or newspapers, headlines do and if you are hedging your bets on one side or the other winning an election, well why not thrown them a bone once in a while?

If rumors (substantiated or unsubstantiated) are the basis of your story, why not then a picture of Senator Obama with Reverend Wright or William Ayers? Instead, a striking picture of him and his wife explaining their affection for one another?

It appears Sarah and Todd Palin also love each other so why not afford that same courtesy to them?

Fairness? The press has divorced themselves from that word.

Watch as members of the troupe known as “Pilobolus” transform into various objects in an art form which requires the nimblest of bodies:

Paul Simon performs the classic “Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover.”

Or should we say fifty-one?

A Russian woman in St Petersburg killed her drunk husband with a folding couch, Russian media reported on Wednesday.

It’s like they are making up the rules as they go.

The Bush administration argued in court papers this week that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as part of its effort to fend off a civil lawsuit seeking the release of internal documents about a large number of e-mails missing from White House servers.

The claim, made in a motion filed Tuesday by the Justice Department, is at odds with a depiction of the office on the White House’s own Web site. As of yesterday, the site listed the Office of Administration as one of six presidential entities subject to the open-records law, which is commonly known by its abbreviation, FOIA.

a nonprofit group, filed a lawsuit in May seeking Office of Administration records about the missing e-mails, including when they were deleted from government computer files. CREW said it understood that internal White House documents had estimated at least 5 million e-mails were missing from March 2003 to October 2005.

The Bush administration has not provided a number publicly. Some of the records may have been subject to a document preservation law administered by the National Archives and Records Administration. Congress has sought access to them as part of its probe into the administration’s firing of nine U.S. federal prosecutors in 2006.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that “one has to wonder if this is an effort by the White House to keep secret the details of how millions of White House e-mail suddenly went missing. The OA’s disingenuous claim that it is not subject to the FOIA is contradicted by its own actions and statements.”

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel declined to comment yesterday.

Much of the White House, including the offices of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, is not subject to FOIA, which allows the media and the public to demand disclosure of federal public records. But the Office of Administration, which was formed in 1977 and handles various administrative and technology duties, responded to 65 FOIA requests last year and even has its own FOIA officer, records show.

In its 20-page motion, the Justice Department argues that past behavior is irrelevant, pointing to a 1996 appellate court ruling that found the White House-based National Security Council was not covered by FOIA even though it had complied with the law previously.

Story

You can find the cowardly liberals Here
this is a story that J. referenced in her comment on Democrats see Clinton as strongest, most experienced leader.
I wonder if these are the same Democratic leaders that keep giving in to President Bush. They need to be replaced anyway.

WASHINGTON: Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarising for much of the country. She could jeopardise the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavourable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag” on many candidates, said Democratic state Reprenstative Dave Crooks.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton’s political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator’s campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination - despite privately held fears. The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

Can you believe this?

Congressional investigators set up a bogus company with only a postal box and within a month obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that allowed them to buy enough radioactive material for a small “dirty bomb.”
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who will ask the NRC about the incident at a Senate hearing Thursday, said the sting operation raises concerns about terrorists obtaining such material just as easily.

Nobody at the NRC checked whether the company was legitimate and an agency official even helped the investigators fill out the application form, Coleman said in an interview Wednesday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged that more checking is needed in such licensing and said that since being told of the GAO sting operation it has tightened licensing procedures.

“We’ve fixed the problem,” said NRC Commissioner Edward McGaffigan in an interview Wednesday. He said that such licenses now will require visits to the company or in some cases company officials will have to come to NRC offices.

The license that was obtained allowed for the purchase of up to five portable moisture density gauges widely used in construction, in which are encased small amounts of cesium-137 and americium 241, two highly radioactive isotopes.

Individually, these devices pose little threat because of the small amount of radioactive material, radiation experts say. Still the devices require an NRC license to be purchased and must be closely safeguarded by companies that use them to avoid theft.

But the investigators from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, found a way to purchase as many as 45 of the gauges and could have bought many more because they duplicated the NRC-issued license and removed the restrictions on the amount that could be purchased.

“With patience and the proper financial resources, we could have accumulated from other suppliers substantially more radioactive source material than what the two supplies initially agreed to ship to us,” says the GAO in a report prepared for Thursday’s hearing.

Coleman, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee, said the NRC “still has this good-faith assumption. The problem is there are bad-faith people out there.”

Story