This is what passes for journalism?  Give me a break!  The title and story synopsis of this story published in the Britain-based Independent suggests a rise in U.S. food stamp usage means the nation is in the grip of a "depression."  The first paragraph uses the term "recession," and the last sentence of the "story" states that the unemployment rate is "up to perhaps 5 percent," a low number as far as unemployment is concerned.

There's no doubt that high gas prices and problems attendant within the financial sector have hindered the economy in some respects.  It may also be true that food stamps are being used more frequently, which is what the story is really about.  Instead of simply reporting on food stamps, the author and editors of The Independent chose to adorn the article with drama and shock value, including the picture of people standing in what is reminiscent of a breadline (I'm sure these lines are present even when the economy is firing on all cylinders).  If only this shoddy journalism were restricted to our friends across the pond!

It's no wonder people don't understand economics when a newspaper uses the terms "depression" and "recession" interchangeably in the same article.  And we don't even know for certain if we are actually in a recession.  A "recession" is defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.  If the first quarter of 2008 sees a decline in GDP, it would be a singular quarter of decline and wouldn't qualify as a recession.  If quarter number two also sees a decline, then we officially have a recession on our hands.  It's always been a pet peeve of mine when the term "recession" gets bantered about so loosely, particularly by politicians and journalists.  Folks, we have an official definition...use it!

The Independent could have written a fairly informative article on food stamp usage in the United States.  Perhaps they could have produced a chart to illustrate how food stamp use has fluctuated over the years, or compared usage in the United States with an equivalent benchmark in England or European nations.  They could have even done more to explain how the program works in more detail.  Instead, they decided to blur the line between "hard news" and "op-ed" in a manner that doesn't let facts get in the way of their agenda journalism and subjective measurements of economic health.

The Chicago Tribune publishes a quasi-defense of Reverend Wright.  From the article:

Not long after a Democratic front-runner emerged from the pews of Wright's church, the pastor's long-winded oratory found itself at odds with the sound-bite culture that feeds the 24-hour news cycle and YouTube. Thirty-second snippets of 30-minute sermons led pundits to question how Obama could remain a member of Wright's flock.

Examining the full content of Wright's sermons and delivery style yields a far more complex message, though it's one that some will still find objectionable.

Dennis Byrne has a spot-on column in the Chicago Tribune about the woeful and helpless state of the Illinois Republican Party.  It's a must-read for anyone interested in the prospects for a GOP rebound in an important mid-western state.  This line really hit home for me:

It's time for the proven failures who are running the party to, if not step aside, then build a major league farm system. That means support the promising, bright and honest young candidates with money, organization and enthusiasm.

I have an anecdotal story to add to the mix.  I was actively involved (meaning almost every day) as a volunteer in the Illinois Secretary of State race back in 1998.  The incumbent Secretary of State, George Ryan, was running for Governor, leaving the Secretary of State seat open.  My candidate, a conservative from the Chicago suburbs, was facing off against a Chicago Democrat.   This was the year in which Republicans were confident of a groundswell of support in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair.  We had a popular Governor retiring and a popular Secretary of State running to replace him.  The tide looked favorable for our prospects to hold onto the Office of the Secretary of State.  This is an extremely important office for party building in Illinois.

My candidate was enmeshed in what we believed to be a very competitive race as the summer months wore on toward fall.  Despite having defeated the incumbent Lieutenant Governor in a 1996 U.S. Senate primary (only to lose to Dick Durbin) and having also beaten the establishment candidate in the GOP primary for Secretary of State, my candidate was never accepted by the GOP power brokers in Illinois.  Just a few scant months before the election, GOP gubernatorial candidate George Ryan took a swipe at my candidate by suggesting to the media that our Democratic opponent had more experience for the Secretary of State office.  The impact of that  statement hurt our campaign badly and seemed designed to give the GOP establishment permission to forgo support for my candidate.  Rumors, unsubstantiated to be sure, were also afloat about a deal cut between George Ryan and the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State.

As it turned out, it wasn't the GOP year we expected it to be.  That, along with changing political demographics in Illinois, denied us victory in the fall.  Still, the failure of the GOP establishment to fully support my candidate did us no favors.  My candidate was young (in his thirties) and seemed to have a bright future ahead of him in Illinois politics.  Instead, he was ushered off the state.  Meanwhile, George Ryan went on to become a scandal-plagued Governor and now sits in a federal penitentiary in Indiana.  Gravely wounded, the Illinois GOP went on to nominate another establishment figure named Ryan, this time popular Attorney General Jim Ryan (no relation to George), who was himself brought down in the General Election by a combination of George Ryan's scandals and the unfortunate coincidence of his last name.

The saga gets much worse for the Illinois GOP, but I won't post on it now.  The overall point of my post is that, given the opportunity to bring along a young, bright and charismatic GOP candidate, the party establishment instead threw him overboard...and that's but one example.  No wonder the Illinois GOP doesn't have a farm team capable of capitalizing on an embarrassing and astoundingly high level of Democratic corruption and malfeasance.   

If anyone's interested, here's a previous post I wrote about the state of the Illinois GOP. 

The online editions of both Chicago papers are leading today with stories about Obama-Rezko.  The Sun-Times story can be read here and the Tribune story can be read here.

Obama's response to the revelation that his campaign benefited from more Rezko money than initially believed?  It's difficult to keep track of all political contributions.  Obama even acknowledged that more Rezko money given to him may yet be discovered in the future.

From the Sun-Times article:

This is the breakdown Obama provided for Rezko's fund-raising:

•          About $160,000 for Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate election. Obama has given that    money to charity.

•          From $50,000 to $60,000 for Obama's failed attempt to unseat U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush in 2000.

•          Between $10,000 and $15,000 for Obama's first election, in 1996, to the Illinois Senate.

•          "Somewhat less than that'' for Obama's re-elections to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002.

It's certainly good news that the Chicago papers are finally digging into the Obama-Rezko connection with seriousness and depth.  The criticism remains, however, over what took them so long to take this story seriously and put pressure on the Senator to answer some questions? 

Democrat Bill Foster has won the seat vacated by former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.  Because it was a special election, the seat will be up for grabs again in November.

McCain clinches and Huck exits.  Will Hill upend Barack and begin the "buyers' remorse" and "voters are having doubts" headlines?  Republicans can only rejoice if the struggle for the Democratic nomination goes on.  Nothing says victory in the fall like a Democratic Party fractured after a bitter, drawn out fight.

The desperate effort by the Clinton campaign to tarnish the image of Barack Obama by circulating pictures of him wearing traditional Kenyan garb smacks of a political campaign on its last legs.  This has to be one of the most pathetic, non-stories one could imagine.

A couple of nameless sources told me that the New York Times was involved in a discreet relationship with journalistic integrity.   My sources were bad, however, and the story turned out to be false.

There's really no need to go into much detail on the New York Times smear of John McCain.  No conservative voter who follows politics closely should have expected anything less from the supposed "paper of record."  The Times has been engaged in journalistic jackassery and smear jobs against Republican figures and issues for years.  This latest stunt is simply in keeping with the character of the paper.  If you're wondering why I haven't linked to the original story, it's because I'm not going to dignify the Times by connecting my blog to their site.

My only question for the Times is this:  Don't you people realize that the circumstances of your "story" undermine the credibility of your paper more than the symphony of criticism directed your way over the years in response to your naked, brutal agenda journalism ever could?  In this regard, the Times is playing the Hillary Clinton role opposite the candidate running against the "old politics of attack."  Just as Hillary's line about Obama speaking "change you can Xerox" fell flat and received a chorus of boos, this unsubstantiated and recycled eight-year-old non-story about John McCain, vomited out right after he seems well on his way to clinching the GOP nomination, will fall flat and further marginalize the source.

The folks at the Times really aren't very intelligent.  Ah, but we already knew that. 

File this under the misleading and irrelevant information category: 

"We also have to reward work more," Clinton told a small group of Ohio residents today. "and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million dollars, than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That's very discouraging to people."

Is it lost on Mrs. Clinton that, while some investment bankers may pay a lower percentage of their salary in taxes than teachers, nurses, etc, they are actually contributing far more money in a year to the federal government than the individuals in the aforementioned professions are ever going to contribute in the same time period?  I mean, where does she think much of the money for lavish and irresponsible federal entitlement programs actually comes from?  It's not like the investment bankers are benefiting from those programs!  The "percentage of their income" comparison is simply laughable.

The unholy alliance between politics and scientific inquiry leads to possible global warming indoctrination in California schools.  Why don't I trust any curriculum developed to discuss climate change to present all sides of the issue equally?

As it stands right now, Virginia is too close to call.

Is Mike Huckabee about to give John McCain a bloody nose in Virginia?  I have no doubt that McCain will end up with the nomination, but the conservative wing of the GOP may give him a bad case of indigestion along the way.  It makes one wonder what would have happened had the conservative vote not been split between the end of December and the present.