But “this is CNN” so we have to describe those who favor protections for the unborn not as pro-life but “anti-abortionists”. Ace notes how misleading the headline is:

If the candidates made appeals to “anti-abortionists” that is, people particularly opposed to abortionists over and above those simply opposed to abortions, it’s not evident from the report. And that’s a key distinction.

Indeed. Anyone who’s been paying attention to anything outside of DNC talking points would know that pro-life individuals oppose abortion, not “abortionists”.

I actually think it’s a shady attempt to link pro-life Americans to the horrid activities of a select few, like the guy who murdered a famous abortion doctor a few years back.

I think she’s more smarter, I think she’s more on foreign policy, I think all of the things she’s done an debates very impressed. She’s older and more established and been a member of Congress for a very long time. She is very experienced and knowledgeable. she comes across as the thinking person’s Sarah Palin.

I’d find this less enjoyable if Meggy Mac weren’t one of those Republicans who would like her fellow Republicans if only they were Democrats.

If I remember correctly, she wasn’t even a registered Republican until her father got the nomination. But now she’s supposed to be the voice of young Republicans, or something.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

They also name John Boehner, though their explanation focuses on blasting his politics and base rather than really explaining why the Speaker of the House is one of the least influential. The man has stopped Barack Obama’s lefty agenda cold turkey.

Obama comes in at number 25, and unsurprisingly their entry goes on about how he’s refusing to do the awesome things he could do, you know, if the rest of America outside of Berkeley disappeared tomorrow.

Okay, so we’re cheating a bit with this one. He did order the raid that wiped Osama bin Laden off the face of the earth. But then he used that surplus of political capital to let everyone in Washington stick a boot in his ass. This is a man who should be the most transformational figure of the century. Hell, he promised to be that. Instead he wields all the power of a substitute teacher at night school.

As inclined as I am to side with GQ when they name Obama one of the least influential people, they’re just wrong here. Not about the fact he’s far less influential than presidents usually are, but instead with the idea that he could use the Osama capital to ram through his agenda.

First of all, he doesn’t have Osama capital outside of credentials in the war on terrorism. No one outside of the progressive caucus is going to fall for “let’s pass even bigger government policies because he ordered Osama’s killing back in May”. Not gonna happen. The same bump in the polls he got? Long gone. Voters are looking for a new president, not rallying around the incumbent.

Second, he has no choice in how he yields his powers these days. He long ago chose to pursue a far-left agenda. He long ago threw it all in for the extreme left, so much so that he’s now tied to those failed policies no matter what he does. He would have to admit he was wrong and change course. Until then he can’t even get the full support of his own party’s caucus, much less enact transformational policies. And even if he changed course…that wouldn’t be what GQ would want. They want more of the same. Not gonna happen.

DNC National Press Secretary Melanie Roussell issued this statement, attacking Tapper’s credibility and honor — all for telling the truth.

If you had only done your due diligence, you might have learned that Mitt Romney expressed his support for the Recovery Act on more than the one occasion. In fact, one week after the President-elect released his plan, Mitt Romney had the following to say on Morning Joe:

“The president’s plan for economic recovery, including a stimulus bill which includes a very healthy dose of tax reductions, is something which I think showed a willingness to actually listen to some of his own economic advisers that have pointed out in their research that tax reductions have a bigger economic stimulus impact than spending money on infrastructure does. That’s encouraging.”

We know you are always in such a hurry to hit “post” that you rarely have time to finish your fact checking, but this is not even a close call. Jake, if you really believe that Mitt Romney hasn’t been trying to mislead voters on this and other issues—well, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Actually, Tapper explicitly mentioned that quote in his post. Perhaps the Democratic National Committee should have done its homework before attacking Tapper. Romney, as anyone who read the quote can see, was praising the tax cut elements and not the spending, which is says is far less helpful than tax reductions. Politifact, usually known for a left-wing bias, largely agreed with Tapper’s conclusion that the attack was false.

The Democratic National Committee has now quietly removed the above attack on Tapper from its website. The poor babies got smacked in the face with reality. Again.

Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder today demanded The Daily Caller stop publishing articles about the growing calls in Congress for his resignation because of the failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program.

As Holder’s aide was escorting the attorney general offstage following his remarks Tuesday afternoon at the White House, a Daily Caller reporter introduced himself and shook Holder’s hand. The reporter asked him for a response to the growing chorus of federal legislators demanding his resignation.

Holder stepped towards the exit, then turned around, stepped back toward the reporter, and sternly said, “You guys need to — you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

Yeah, because everyone was in love with Eric Holder and failed, deadly operations before the Daily Caller came along. Or something.

“Stop this” refers to the coverage, of course. Most of the media has done its best to continue the narrative of a scandal-free administration, but certain outlets like the Daily Caller and CBS News have refused to stay quiet. Holder would really like them to join their fellow news organizations in a conspiracy of silence.

That’s not going to happen, as evidence by the fact DC spends seven paragraphs of the story reminding readers of what the scandal involves: The deaths of American Border Patrol agents and innocent civilians on both sides of the southern border. Keep up the great work, DC and CBS. Holder is sweating — as he should be.

About an hour ago, Aaron Blake of the Washington Post took to Twitter to crowd-source opposition research on Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich. He tweeted:

Hey Tweeps: Looking for outlandish/incorrect predictions and quotes from Newt Gingrich’s past. Any ideas for me?

You mean like predicting the $820 billion stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? Or that Gitmo would be closed within a year? Or that America’s involvement in the Libyan conflict would last just days?

Or declarations that presidents can’t wage war without Congress, and then proceeding to wage war without Congress? Or the insistence that increasing the debt by trillions of dollars is unpatriotic, right before doing just that?

Oh, wait, those were all outrageous quotes and incorrect predictions by Barack Obama. Oddly enough, Mr. Blake doesn’t seem interested in those. Just in dirt on the Republican frontrunner. Odd that.

I warned y’all. Barack Obama is unpopular and facing a tough reelection campaign. His allies in the left-wing media will kick the attack dog operation into high gear. They’ll throw everything and the kitchen sink to save their boyfriend in the White House.

They only way Obama will win reelection is if he gets the media to destroy the Republican candidate while lying about the incumbent’s record. Any last shreds of dignity will be tossed out the window in defense of The Cause. They will out-and-out act as the Democratic National Committee’s newsletter. Nothing will be off-limits.

Buckle up. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Funny how this woman inevitably shows up when a Republican candidate is about to upset the status quo. Or really whenever there’s a camera around and a story with sufficient mainstream media interest. Then she suddenly has a witness to something related to the story — one inevitably with a sob story or supposedly juicy insight. Rarely credible, yet a seemingly endless supply.

RadarOnline notes two settlements during the 1990s but fails to note the settlements were relatively small, the women quickly accepted and agreed to confidentiality requirements, and the terms were in line with those usually seen when the claims are baseless but the company doesn’t want to waste more money fighting in court. Funny how that’s left out of the serial attention whoring, too.

Click to Enlarge

Balls.

(Reuters) – A French satirical weekly whose office was fire bombed after it printed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad has reproduced the image with other caricatures in a special supplement distributed with one of the country’s leading newspapers.

The weekly Charlie Hebdo defended “the freedom to poke fun” in the four-page supplement, which was wrapped around copies of the left-wing daily Liberation on Thursday, a day after an arson attack gutted Charlie Hebdo’s Paris headquarters.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place hours before an edition of Charlie Hebdo hit news stands featuring a cover-page cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.”

The weekly, known for its irreverent treatment of the political establishment and religious figures, bore the headline “Charia Hebdo,” in a reference to Muslim sharia law, and said that week’s issue had been guest-edited by Mohammad.

If you back down in the face of thuggish intimidation then you’ve let those engaging in thuggery win. Editors at Charlie Hebdo decided to stand up for free speech and stress that the freedom to speak freely also means the freedom to insult. No one in a free society has the right to insult but not be insulted.

Here’s the front cover that Islamists determined justified firebombing newspaper offices and threatening death and destruction:

Oh the humanity!

“Hell, I kinda liked New Twitter, and Google has a history of stylish design, so why not try it,” I said to myself.

I quickly came to regret that decision.

New Gmail isn’t just bad — it’s atrocious. Like “gauge out my eyeballs with a hot poker” atrocious. Like “oh, how nice of them to let blind squirrels try to design something” atrocious.

And now I’m informed that this Design of the Devil will soon be forced upon every unwitting sole who came to Google for a clean, easy-to-navigate interface with a spacious inbox. We shall pray for them.

On a completely unrelated note, Steven C. Anderson — the man who took over as chief executive officer of the NRA after Cain’s departure — is a big Romney supporter. It’s entirely possible — likely even — that he would have been privy to information regarding the settlement.

Then, after smearing the right, he gets to this:

So there are two factors at work here. One, the cultural history, which suggests that conservative voters will rally to Cain more forcefully than ever. Two, the fact that in each case, the public-opinion verdict comes down to the particulars. Right now, there are no particulars in this story. But let’s face it, that’s what it takes for these stories to achieve real lift-off. Long Dong Silver videos. Pubic hairs left on Coke cans. Wide stances and lascivious toe-tappings. Details that intensify the “ick” factor.

Yeah, oddly enough people actually want specifics of an accusation before deciding to dislike a person. Go figure. Those kooky Americans with their insistence upon stuff like “facts” and “details”.

Tomasky apparently comes from the Jonathan Martin, Ken Vogel, and Mike Allen School of Journalism. Lesson number one: Don’t let facts and details get in the way of a juicy story that has the potential to destroy your political rivals.

Oh, and as for lefties being compassionate towards the female victim? Explain why Occupy leaders are directing women who have been raped to keep the matter internal rather than report the incident to police. The protest leaders have been quite open about that, saying they don’t want police involved in their community.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Mike Allen, you had Cain defenders yesterday seizing upon a line that Politico wrote about gestures made by Cain toward these women that were, quote, non-sexual in nature. Just to confirm you have evidence as well of sexually inappropriate behavior?

MIKE ALLEN: What the women said was that he said things that made people feel uncomfortable in that way. This story clearly resonated with people. There’s an estimate out there that this is the biggest single Twitter controversy of the campaign. 48,000 mentions of Herman Cain on Twitter yesterday. That’s more than the mention of any Republican candidate ever.

Allen is a reporter for Politico. And while he may not be able to do fancy stuff like “give details” or “provide the whole story”, he certainly can track how much attention his friends are getting on Twitter. And he’s gosh-darn excited that his outlet’s story is breaking records for smearing Republicans online.

Allen took the Jonathan Martin route here: Make the allegation of wrongdoing but refuse to provide even a single detail. You’re just supposed to believe him because he’s Mike Allen of Politico — a certified reporter. And reporters wouldn’t lie to you just to hurt Republicans, right? Of course not. They have the legacy of Dan Rather to live up to. Oh, wait, bad example…

First, the publication prints a four-page-long allegation that Herman Cain sexually harassed two female employees during the 1990s. The intent being, of course, to turn people off from Cain and destroy his candidacy. The same publication that ignored the John Edwards affair/lovechild allegations while he was being considered for Vice President devoted four reporters to the Cain story.

Next, we discover that Politico‘s not big on the details of its allegations. Jonathan Martin refused to tell MSNBC exactly what Cain is accused of doing. He proclaims they’re, “not going to get into the details of exactly what happened”. Right, because what do details matter to allegations of sexual harassment?

Now we discover Politico will not reveal the source of the story or even if the tip came from a rival campaign with political and financial interest in destroying Cain. It’s a journalistic transgression so absurd that even CNN’s Wolf Blitzer can’t believe it.

Can you tell us, without getting into the specifics of who tipped you off, was it another campaign?

VOGEL: We got a tip and it was from someone outside. We managed to corroborate all of the details and more. We have to be clear here that this tip was sort of a general tip. And we through dogged reported, talked to dozens of people, both within the Restaurant Association, on the board, former staffers, people who knew the women who made these allegations and corroborated all of the details that we reported on the case.

BLITZER: But it would be significant — you are a good reporter — if it came from a political campaign, another Republican campaign. And when you say outside, maybe someone from the National Restaurants Association or whatever. You understand the interest where you got that original tip to go check this out?

VOGEL: Certainly.

And I would say that what’s more significant are the facts of the situation. And we independently corroborated and verified them.

BLITZER: I know, but you don’t want to tell us if — you don’t want to say whether or not opposition research from another campaign provided the initial tip?

VOGEL: That’s correct. We don’t think that’s — the original source is as important as the actual information…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I know the actual information is important, but the original source is important as well, if we’re looking at the whole political environment, what is going on among the Republicans, because you know we have covered a lot of campaigns. Opposition research always provides reporters, journalists, you go check out this, go check out that, you may find something good.

And I’m just curious because it is part of the presidential campaign right now whether another campaign helped you begin this reporting.

VOGEL: I mean, politics are politics, as you said. And certainly there are people who are digging up opposition research. I’m just not going to do anything that would identify — that would point towards the identity of our original source.

Why? I understand journalists protecting their sources when there could be retaliation against the source. But we’re talking a political story handed over by another political figure. No one is going to prison or placing their life at risk here.

The public does, however, have a justifiable interest in knowing whether Politico devoted four reporters to writing a four-page, detail-free allegation against the Republican frontrunner, based on a tip-off by a political rival with power and financial interest in the story going national.

And I don’t really expect Politico to reveal its specific source. But why not reveal whether the source was a rival political operation? Those are basic disclosures that protect the public from being misled. But then, Politico doesn’t care much about whether people are misled. It’s all about destroying the Republican candidates. They’re a bunch of hacks running a Democratic newsletter with a fancier name.

If a church broadcasts the word of God on TV without closed captions, it risks incurring the wrath of the FCC.

Some 300 small- to medium-sized churches can expect letters from the commission within the next few days explaining why their closed captioning exemptions were lifted for TV shows like “Power in the Word” and “Producing Kingdom Citizens.”

See, religious institutions were ruled exempt from the closed captioning requirements in 2006. Such requirements place financial strain on institutions and arguably violate the whole “government shall not regulate religion” thing.

But now another commission, which was lobbied by special interest groups representing deaf and hard-of-hearing people, has overturned that rule, imposing more costs and regulations on religious institutions. Hey, First Amendment? Go eff yourself.

Now the only way out of the regulations is a case-by-case review. And the only way to get approved is by showing that the regulations would basically destroy you financially. But whether a religious institution is burdened by those costs will now be up to unelected bureaucrats who can approve certain institutions they like and disapprove others they don’t.

The View women, bitter over the rejection by other Republican candidates who don’t feel like getting bashed for an hour, spend the time talking about how Huntsman is the only “reasonable” Republican in the race. By which they mean he has a habit of bucking Republican ideals and acting like a Democrat. In short, he doesn’t challenge their plans for the country.

Megan McCain then writes an article, one proclaiming it was a big mistake for Republicans to skip a big opportunity to present themselves to the all-important demographic that is women who watch an almost all-liberal talk show at 11am. Because women who watch mostly liberals ranting against conservatives are totally open to voting for a Republican over Barack Obama.

The end result will be a few blog times, a video clip or two on nightly commentaries, and absolutely no impact on the race. Everyone’s time wasted, the show’s viewers will still overwhelmingly vote for Barack Obama because he’s cute and smart, or something. And no Republican will ever again agree to a “debate” on that God-awful show.

There I’ve saved us the time and trouble. Can we move beyond this stupid idea now? Thank you.

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reports:

 On Friday, a senior administration official held a briefing with a select group of reporters that assessed the state of campaign play in even more explicit detail. The condition of the briefing, which was held at the White House, was that the official could be summarized but not quoted directly. In exchange for those ground rules, the discussion was more candid.

In other words, it was a great opportunity for “select” reporters and the Obama campaign to get on the same page. The campaign told these “select” reporters that the Republican nominee will likely get 48 to 49% of the vote right off the bat, and that Obama will have a more difficult time energizing his base.

What does that mean? The left-wing media will have to work overtime to accomplish two goals: 1) Smear the Republican as much as humanly possible, regardless of whether the allegations are true; and 2) Simultaneously, the media will have to scare Obama’s 2008 voters into believing the election of a Republican would signal end-times, so get out and vote.

We have to prepare for Obama to get desperate and his supporters in the media to throw everything — including the kitchen sink — at our eventual nominee. As I said at the beginning of this post, buckle up, ladies and gentlemen. ‘Cause it’s gonna be a wild ride.

Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, who co-wrote their article on Herman Cain, told MSNBC this morning that he just isn’t “going to get into the details” of what Cain allegedly said, did or “gestured.” Martin cites an incident that may or may not have happened where Cain may or may not have invited a woman up to his hotel room. Cain’s chief of staff said this morning that these charges are questionable at best. Relevant transcript below:

Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “And also, what actually happened to these women as well, we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures.

“These women felt uncomfortable, and they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain’s on the road … We’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what’s in the story.”

So they’ll publish four pages of story alleging sexual misconduct, but you want details? Sorry, no can do.

Jonathan Martin’s a “reporter” — he doesn’t provide silly things like “details” and “facts”. He just makes an allegation and expects you to believe it on face value. Because do you know who he is? He’s Jonathan Martin of Politico. I bet you fell pretty silly asking him for “facts” and “details” now, huh?

Politico, an outfit so pro-Democrat that lefty hack Greg Sargent claimed them to be the DNC’s favorite outlet for leaks, devoted four reporters to write a four-page story claiming Cain was accused by two women of sexual harassment during the 1990s. Cain denies the accusation and the charges were never proven. The women’s names? Politico won’t say. The story relies largely on unnamed sources. Cain has denied the allegations and the two women allegedly involved aren’t talking.

This is the same media, by the way, which ignored the John Edwards affair/lovechild story until gossip outlet National Enquirer literally produced photos of the affair taking place. It’s also the same media that ignored allegations about Bill Clinton until someone at Newsweek leaked the story to Matt Drudge. Even then the media covered up for Clinton’s perjury and insisted the matter was private. They painted Republicans as prudes on a witch hunt to get their political enemies.

And remember the Anthony Weiner story? The bureau chief for The Daily Beast and host of CNN show Reliable Sources ignored the story until he decided to declare it fake and something to be dismissed. Tonight he linked the Cain story without suspicion, without apprehension, without even a shred of skepticism. His Twitter profile says:

Media Guy, Beast boy

Hey, Howie, you misspelled “Democratic hack”.

The same media that ignored Jeremiah Wright…the same media that ignored Bill Ayers…the same media that ignored Anthony Weiner…the same media that ignored John Edwards…the same media that ignored Bill Clinton…that same media is now devoting multiple reporters to create front-page smear jobs on Herman Cain.

Do they get paid to serve as hacks for the Democratic Party? Or are they just doing it for free?

Apple could be set to unveil five new MacBook Pros and a range of AirPort Express refreshes as early as next week…

The new MacBook Pro range will likely include a 17-inch model (MD311LL/A), two 15-inchers (MD318LL/A and MD322LL/A) and two of the 13-inch variety (MD313LL/A and MD314LL/A) that will retail at the same price points as the models in the current lineup, according to 9to5Mac.

In addition to the MacBook Pros, it seems that Apple is gearing up to release new AirPort Express refreshes as well. We have seen no fewer than eight new model numbers for AirPort devices surface in Apple’s database and aren’t quite sure what to make of them yet.

Reports indicate the new Macbooks could be shipping in November — just in time for the holiday season. Makes sense.

I’m more of a PC man myself but I’m recently open to persuasion. It’ll really depend on just how great of a product Apple releases. It’s got to be good to get me to spend upwards of a $1k on a laptop, as I suspect is the case with most people.

The vote was 50-50, falling well-short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.

Republicans only hold 47 seats in the Senate, meaning three Democrats joined them in opposition to the unfunded legislation.

Meanwhile, the left-wing media is kicking its shilling operation into hyperdrive.

The Associated Press calls it a Republican filibuster while labeling a massive tax increase on businessmen and investors as a “surcharge”.

They’re coming up with all sorts of interesting terms to avoid repeatedly saying “tax hike”. How creative and helpful of them.

More: Interestingly, a Republican proposal to end 3% withholding on contractors also failed cloture attainment this evening. But that vote was 57-43, just three votes short of cloture.

Put another way, Republican jobs legislation is now getting closer to passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate than Barack Obama’s proposals. That should have the White House concerned.

Because that’s clearly what Republicans want. They want citizens to face deadly threats without the assistance of law enforcement. Especially in extreme cases like tigers breaking into homes.

It’s not that Republicans want the government to stop wasting money on bad investments like Solyndra, never-ending welfare programs like ObamaCare, and deadly operations like Fast and Furious.

No, Republicans clearly want citizens to stare down escaped tigers alone. That’s the first place they demand cuts to government spending: Local law enforcement, which is funded — oh by the way — by local and state taxes.

National Public Radio host Lisa Simeone appears to be breaking the taxpayer-subsidized network’s ethics rules by acting as a spokeswoman for Occupy D.C. group “October 2011,” which is currently “occupying” Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.

Simeone hosts NPR’s nationally syndicated “World of Opera” program and “SoundPrint,” a program that airs on NPR’s WAMU affiliate at American University in Washington, D.C.

When Roll Call asked Simeone about the conflict of interest and the apparent ethics violations, she replied, “Well, I work in radio still, but this is totally different” because she says she’s a “freelancer.”

NPR’s ethics policy for journalists forbids them from “engag[ing] in public relations work, paid or unpaid.”

She’s acting directly as a spokesman for the protests.

Simeone has appeared in several news stories in recent weeks as a spokeswoman for the left-wing anti-capitalists protests. “Our main focus is that we are against corporatism and militarism,” the radio host said, adding that the protesters plan to “occupy” Freedom Plaza for a long time.

“I do know whenever it ends, we are not going to stop acts of civil disobedience, and various acts of civil resistance and organization,” Simeone said. “That will be done in the myriad of ways around the country, and again, this is not the end, but only the beginning.”

Two possibilities here: 1) NPR granted an exception so she could do work for the Occupy Movement; or 2) She’s doing the work in violation of her organization’s ethics rules.

Neither option is better than the other. In the first case we have a taxpayer-subsidized organization helping out an extreme partisan protest movement, in the latter you have hosts for the same exposing their biases.

Keith Olbermann is not in the witness protection program, but he might as well be. His show on Al Gore’s Current TV (America’s least watched network) has lost nearly a third of its viewers in four months.

Pretty impressive result for $10 million a year. That’s just his salary.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann was a major draw when it was on MSNBC. On January 21, the network took a big hit when Olbermann announced on air that that would be his last show for them. Then in June, Current launched Olbermann and Countdown.

It was no surprise that Olbermann drew a big audience for its early shows – averaging 106,000 viewers a night. Unfortunately, by August it was down to 79,000. Last month’s numbers were even worse. Olbermann’s average was down to 46,000 viewers and was in no danger of coming close to breaking into the top 30 cable TV news shows.

So he gets paid about $217 per average viewer. And all he has to do is rant about evil corporations and Republicans.

Nice work if you can find a sucker to hire you.

Actress Susan Sarandon called Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi during a discussion session at the Hamptons Film Festival over the weekend.

Sarandon, who won an Academy Award for her role in the 1995 anti-death penalty film “Dead Man Walking,” said she had sent a copy of the book on which the movie is based to the Pope.

“The last one. Not this Nazi one we have now,” she reportedly told Newsday, referring to the German-born pontiff. She later repeated her remark at the Ciroc vodka-sponsored panel.

She’s referring to the fact Joseph Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth at age 14. Conscripted. As in “forced”. Which was typical for young boys in Germany at the time. Ratzinger was not a willing participant and in fact brought hardship to his family by refusing to attend meetings and take part in other activities.

The Anti-Defamation League, which fights antisemitism, slammed Sarandon for her ignorant remarks. In a statement, the group said her remarks were, “hateful, vindictive and only serve to diminish the true history and meaning of the Holocaust”. The group is calling for Sarandon to apologize.

PBS, which receives millions of dollars each year from the federal government, has announced plans to launch a new channel in the United Kingdom. Programing will include documentaries by Democrats like Ken Burns and featuring a liberal spin on news through the Newshour block, which will air a full day behind events.

The president and chief executive officer of PBS, Paula Kerger, says it would be nice to make money through the venture but it’s not a priority of hers. Of course not. Who cares about making a profit when you’re playing with other people’s money? And when Congress lacks the balls to cut off your wasteful and inappropriate spending.

But this has to be my favorite part:

 PBS chief executive Paula Kerger tells The Guardian she hopes the new UK channel — sans Sesame Street — will “give people here in the UK a sense of how news is reported in the United States,” as well as the big issues affecting Americans.

As a commenter at Talking Points Memo asks, is PBS really representative of how news is reported in the United States? Um…no. Unless she’s talking about the liberal spin most networks put on news, in which case — yes, PBS will do a fine job showcasing that.

At taxpayer expense, of course.

The most severe BlackBerry service disruption in the history of Research In Motion Ltd. could cost the Canadian mobile device maker more than US$100-million in lost revenues.

As some argue the damage to RIM’s future ability to brand its smartphones as immensely reliable is near total, Wall Street is focusing more specifically on the financial impact from the three-day outage. RIM charges wireless carriers a monthly fee for each active BlackBerry user, Rod Hall of JPMorgan Chase and Co. reminded clients on Friday.

While acknowledging a large margin of error in his estimates as the specifics of carrier agreements are private, the analyst is nonetheless convinced RIM will have to give at least some of those fees back. Expecting a little over US$1-billion in service fee revenues for the company’s third quarter, set to end in November, Mr. Hall estimates 5¢ in lost earnings per share is possible.

“We calculate that each 1% lost at the top line represents about a penny of lost EPS,” he said.

“Given a large portion of global traffic looks potentially affected we believe that a 5% impact to service fee revenue is plausible though likely worst case.”

In fact, one analyst tells the Financial Post it’s the “worst outage the company has experienced” and could cost “a month’s worth of BlackBerry fees to its carrier partners for half of its subscriber base”. He estimates costs as high as $117 million. Network problems can be costly.

You can read through the leaked emails here, while Big Journalism has screencaps of some more interesting ones.

We can’t be surprised. The media was frustrated over their failure to define the mid-term election and they’re even more frustrated by their inability to save Barack Obama’s image. In a last-ditch effort they’re coordinating with Marxist activists to frame these anti-American, anti-capitalist protests as the voice of angry people everywhere.

The American Nazi Party should feel right at home thanks both to the virulent antisemitism and pro-socialist attitude at the protests, while the communists will love the movement’s open admiration for Che and Marx.

These extreme-left protests are everything the left claimed the Tea Party protests were, and more. But do you think the media will note the Nazis are supporting these lefties? I doubt it. They already downplay the fact that Nazi stands for “National Socialism“.