Bias? What bias?

There’s no secret about which party is preferred by the mainstream media: identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans.

I always wonder how that famous training to be objective works. Do they all wear a shock collar in J-school that zaps them every time they express an opinion? And how long does the objectivity training last? Do they ever take refresher courses?


Can anyone find me a copy of Domitius Ulpianus’s actuarial tables? I keep finding references to them, but I need the actual tables.


Another request: from what book or article does this Dawkins quote come? I need the page number too.

“If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. The trick is to want the right things, then science will provide you with the most effective methods of achieving them.”

The Battle for Britain, part II

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard finally realizes that Britain must leave the European Union:

If Europe’s political leaders succeed in ramming through a barely disguised remake of the same European constitution rejected by the French and Dutch people, I for one will come off the fence after years of hesitation and join the fight for total British withdrawal from the Union….

I was at the Laeken “razor-wire” summit in December 2001 when Europe’s bruised leaders chewed over Ireland’s “No” to Nice, and Denmark’s “No” to the euro, and vowed henceforth to listen to the people.

There would be an end to the “creeping expansion of the competences of the Union”. Power would flow back to the nations. I lived and breathed every moment of the betrayal thereafter: the hijacking of Laeken by Franco-Belgian diplomats to rush through an EU constitution before the Poles, Czechs, and Balts arrived; the charade of a Philadelphia “Convention” of parliamentarians, when the real drafting was done by Commission lawyers answering to a Euro-imperialist.

Gisela Stuart, Britain’s sole voice on the Presidium, called the process a stitch-up from start to end, moulded by an “unaccountable political elite”. Dissent was ignored. Documents were slipped through in French late at night. “Not once did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want,” she said.

Pritchard explains his 15-year hesitation to come out and directly oppose the Fourth Reich on his blog. They’re all reasonable and understandable, and as events have proven, ultimately irrelevant. One must oppose the centralization of power for its own sake, because those who seek it are usually intelligent enough to provide a half-way reasonable case to delay the potential opposition. And as Pritchard has learned, they are always lying in order to buy enough time to advance the process to the point of no return.

UPDATE: Lest you think I’m indulging in science fiction by identifying the EU as the Fourth Reich, this comment from a Europhile sort of gives the game away:

If the EU can complete the process of continental integration that wars failed to complete in 1914 and 1939, then that would be a very good thing. An EU of continental countries would be able to create a European consciousness as well as a European economy.

The EU is simply an attempt to do what Hitler did, using banks instead of tanks. And the Brussels bureaucrats are not much fonder of Jews than their predecessors in Berlin were.

Someone else finally noticed

Instapundit picks up on it quicker than most:

THE DRIP, DRIP, DRIP ON OBAMA: It’s as if his real purpose were to get some people excited about a Democrat, then fade just in time for Hillary to win the nomination.

It has been obvious that the Magic Negro’s campaign is a fake one from the start. Doesn’t anyone ever think these things through? Although his campaign was not so much to get people excited about a Democrat, but to prevent the nomination from looking like an automatic coronation of Clinton. Because the nominee has to reflect the will of the people… it doesn’t look like much of a choice when only one option is presented, after all.

So, they’re given a few, and then the rug is pulled out from under the incorrect choices. As someone on NRO pointed out, Obama is merely playing the Bill Bradley role of the nice Democrat about whom everyone can write nice, positive things and who will not come anywhere close to winning the nomination. Edwards is Hillary’s only genuine rival, but he has too many strikes against him to pull off the nomination even though he’d probably do very well against Thompson, Giuliani, McCain or Romney.

Ideology vs evidence

Auguste at Pandagon is offended by the notion that women don’t tend to rob banks by themselves:

Feminism says: Women can handle crime sprees all by themselves, thank you

Yes, you read that right. The FBI believes that the “ponytail bandit” must have an accomplice, because she’s a woman, and women can’t handle this kind of thing.

Apparently he never stopped to consider the fact that the FBI has amassed a fair amount of experience regarding bank robbers and their modus operandum. Interestingly enough, the FBI often makes use of this experience as a guide in the way they go about pursuing wanted criminals. A serial killer is usually a social outcast, a killer of homosexuals is usually gay, and attractive young girls who rob banks are usually doing so at the behest of an older male accomplice with a criminal background with whom they are sexually involved.

This doesn’t mean that the historical norm is necessarily applicable to every specific case, only that it gives the investigators a reliable basis on which to begin their hunt. It is called a hypothesis, which is a part of the scientific method which is increasingly anathema to both the feminist mind and the feminized mind.