Ted Cruz vs. Wendy Davis and `Media Bias 101`

Via Dylan Byers of Politico:

Sen. Ted Cruz has been speaking on the Senate floor for almost 19 hours, as of this post. The talk is not technically a filibuster — he can’t actually block the Senate from going about its business — but symbolically, it’s more or less the same thing. The point is to show one’s opposition to something through a demonstration of physical will.

Which is why you can forgive conservatives for being upset with the mainstream media’s coverage of the Cruz affair. When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an “embarrassment” in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.

“Gee I wonder why NYT and WaPo and everyone else gave ecstatic coverage to Wendy Davis but not to Ted Cruz. I just can’t make sense of it!” John Podhoretz, the conservative columnist, tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Yes, the difference between filibustering and grandstanding plays a part. Equally important is the fact that Cruz’s theatrics are frustrating members of his own party. But, part of the disparity in coverage is due to the fact that the mainstream media, generally speaking, don’t admire Cruz the way they admired Davis — or rather, they admire him only insofar as he makes for tragicomic theater, whereas they admired her on the merits.

Cruz is portrayed in the media as “aimless and self-destructive” (NYT ed board), elitist (GQ) and likely guided more by presidential aspirations than principles (CNN). Josh Marshall, the editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, had no qualms about coming right out and calling Cruz, his former Princeton colleague, an “arrogant jerk” — and worse.

These portrayals may be accurate or inaccuarate — Cruz certainly has an elitist strain and he certainly has political ambitions. But that’s not the point: The point is that the coverage of Cruz has been critical, and in some cases unforgiving, from the outset. At least initially, Davis wasn’t viewed through a critical lens at all. Her willingness to stand for 11 hours was evidence of the American dream in action. Period.

After Davis’s filibuster in June, she got a glowing Vogue profile and was interviewed by nearly every major network and show that deemed her the new superstar from the Lone Star. 

In an interview shortly after her filibuster in June, CBS News’s Charlie Rose highlighted Davis’s history.

“You’ve met tough things before in your life as single mother, one who went form community college, to TCU to Harvard Law School and back to practice law, so this seems to be another challenge for you,” Rose said.

Davis was the “Sunday Spotlight” for ABC’s This Week after the filibuster and was interviewed by Jeff Zeleny in the dinner theater where Davis once waitressed….

`Drones` vs. `Hope` // `Then` vs. `Now`

(To express in a short way my feelings on the matter… if we can take out Islamists with drones and our men and women in uniform do not get hurt… more power to Obama.) In an interesting segment, TMZ asks the artist who drew the now famous poster of Obama a question about what if anything he would change the word “hope” with, here is his answer:

Some artistic ideas using “drones” via Unsavory Agents:

A “Grand Attack” on Philosophy ~ Dr. Craig and Koukl

William Lane Craig and Gregory Koukl Talk About Stephen Hawking’s New Book

William Lane Craig Talks About Stephen Hawking’s New Book

Obama Bragged About Bringing Down the Debt More Than Any Other Administration ~ Rick Santelli Explains the Washington `Shell Game`

  1. Still largest deficit compared to other admins;
  2. Lowered the most because he increased it the most;
  3. see “1”

Three Question Liberals NEVER ask:

  1. compared to what?
  2. at what cost?
  3. what hard-evidence do you have?

 

HHS Healthy Young America Video Contest ~ ReasonTV

Via Gateway Pundit:

Because spending $1.1 to $2.6 trillion on Obamacare over the next ten years isn’t enough, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a $30,000 video contest to promote Obamacare. That’s right, you could win fabulous prizes! All you have to do is convince young Americans to sign up for something they don’t want or need (and probably can’t afford)!

Why the push? Without lots of healthy young people buying health insurance they don’t need, Obamacare doesn’t work. That’s why they’ll be forced to enroll.

The good people at Reason submitted this video

Missing Science in the IPCC Report (+Dr. Krauss Caught Lying)

I will post a normal topic first, in this case it is a discussion on “Climate Change” (Global Warming), and it comes via The Heritage Foundation — a conservative/libertarian think tank. Great information prepping for the recent release of the latest climate report from the U.N. (Again, I cannot recommend enough a documentary entitled, “U.N.Me.” A great and actually funny look at the uselessness of that body.) Here is the discussion entitled, “Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the U.N. Will Exclude from Its Next Climate Report.”

IPCC REPORT

LYING

The second part is the ongoing debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Lawrence Krauss. This ends the debate — effectively — any discussion of Craig’s use of the BGV Theorum. Two places to go to read the dialogue of this debate ending in full — which shows Dr. Krauss to be intentionally misrepresenting Dr. Vilenkin’s work. The first place to go is of course one of the principle players site, Dr. Craig:

The second place to go has a good summary and bullet point addition to the above, and where I found this nugget… which shows Dr. Kruass apparently wanted to hide what he knew was, a) a trouncing of himself in a public debate (yes, Dr. Craig is that good), b) willfully trying to hide his willful miss-characterization of Dr. Vilenkin’s work, or c), both.

  • (Via Wintery Knight) ~ “UPDATE: Dr. Craig reports that Dr. Krauss refused to let the organizers live-stream the three Australia debates, as well as refusing to let the Australian Broadcasting Corporation live-broadcast the three debates.”

Wow. As an ex-con, and someone who has raised boys that are actively wanting to be in law enforcement ~ (the oldest is part way done getting into the Sheriff’s … although he may be going active duty soon if they accept him into EOD, versus if he is going to stay in the airwing of the Corp as a reservist) ~ I know intimately what covering up a lie looks like. Dr. Krauss fits the criteria — fidgeting with which drink he is going to choose while Dr. Craig responds, to his mannerisms setting up the email, to his trying not to have the debate go public — he is truly “busted”!