Links and Minifeatures 2008 07 21 Monday

Carnival of Real Estate

Last week, the New York Times accepted an editorial from Barack Obama. I linked it so you could read directly, and tore it apart.

Today, they refused an editorial from John McCain on the same point. They made noises like it's an editorial change they're looking for; the truth is that it doesn't fit their narrative, which at this point is to bury the good stuff that's happening over there with all the minutiae and troubles of the returning troops. At roughly 150,000 troops per year, mostly young and all with normal human foibles, it would be a miracle if they couldn't find enough examples of trouble to distract the public.

The New York Times is entitled to control the contents of their editorial page, even more so than others, as an argument might be made that this is their official position. Nor do I want to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" in any way shape or form. The only gripe I have with this situation is the the New York Times does everything they can to aid Barack Obama while pretending to be neutral, which they are not. I'm fine with them supporting Barack Obama. People have the right to support the presidential candidate of their choice. That's just a small (if critical) part of the First Amendment, and it protects you, me, and everyone else as well. What ticks me off is them pretending they are balanced, fair, neutral arbiters, when in point of fact they are the furthest thing from it.

You can read the editorial at The Drudge Report, but Senator McCain's critical points:

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

and

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war�only of ending it. But if we don�t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.

I can give at least 4125 American reasons (and roughly 150,000 Iraqi ones) why Senator McCain is right and Senator Obama is wrong.

Hot Air has the text of the rejection from the Times. Obama's editorial didn't have several of the alleged requirements.

More people are catching on to this sort of double standard. Rasmussen: Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win

Ya think?

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

This should have been done a long time ago: Bush law chief seeks new Qaeda war declaration

Congress should explicitly declare war against al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the conflict lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.

The Democrats are saying they don't want to cooperate while Bush is still in office. Gee, you might think it was political or something.

Buyer Beware: The Many Ways Retailers Can Trick You

It's not news, it's Scrappleface: Sen. McCain Announces Late White House Bid

But like all good satire, there's quite an element of truth in it.

Inartful Dodd-ger

Faster, Washington! Drill, drill!

One option, we were told, was to make gas artificially expensive, forcing our ignorant, energy-gobbling neighbors to alter their destructive habits.

Well, here we are. At $4 a gallon for gas, we already have a flailing economy. Isn't it glorious? And isn't it exactly what many environmentalists desired?

and

Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.

A consequence of illegal alien "sanctuaries"

How reliable is DNA evidence?

Encouraged, Barlow subpoenaed a new search of the Arizona database. Among about 65,000 felons, there were 122 pairs that matched at nine of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci. One matched at 11 and one at 12, though both later proved to belong to relatives.

Barlow was stunned. At the time, such matches were almost unheard of.

That same year, Fred Bieber, a Harvard professor and expert in forensic DNA, testified in an unrelated criminal case that just once had he seen a pair of profiles matching at nine of 13 markers, and they belonged to brothers. He had heard of a 10-locus match between two men, but it was the result of incest -- a man whose father was also his older brother.