« Who You Gonna Call? | Main | An Hypothesis» Don Boudreaux
September 04, 2008
"Sex Is Pleasurable, Studies Show"
Don Boudreaux
Yahoo! News
Dear Sir or Madam:
The headline of one of your reports today (Sept. 4) from the Associated Press reads "Sarah Palin and her fellow RNC speakers weren't completely truthful at times." Wow.
Why not also run a report with the headline "Law of Gravity Still Working," or one screaming "Julius Caesar Remains Dead!"? Deceitful politicians are as newsworthy as ants at a picnic - although much more avaricious and annoying.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics, Reality Is Not Optional | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e554fdc8ed8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Sex Is Pleasurable, Studies Show":
Comments
Were I not sitting in a library, that would have elicited one hearty chuckle. Well done, sir.
Posted by: Kyle M. | Sep 4, 2008 2:53:21 PM
Note the absence of such headlines during the DNC. Deceitful politicians are only worth noting if they are not from the party that the overwhelming majority of the media shills for.
Posted by: Methinks | Sep 4, 2008 3:14:17 PM
Methinks --
Let's not get on the subject of deceitful media. Nobody's said anything about Obama's ability to be a father and President at the same time, yet somehow the feminists are all up in arms about Palin's ability to be a mother and VP at the same time.
And, let's not even get on the subject of the timing of Oliver Stone's movie. If there was ever evidence that McCain was wrong about campaign finance reform, that's it.
Posted by: Chris | Sep 4, 2008 3:24:01 PM
Don, I'm no economist, but I love reading this blog. So much so that I think I'm beginning to really share your distrust of politicians.
Here's an article (linked from your link) that reflects the spirit of this entry. And also exemplifies the godliness of Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/jon-stewart-hits-karl-rov_n_123852.html
Posted by: Patapon | Sep 4, 2008 3:27:36 PM
After clicking on the link and then going to and reading the "news" on the deceit, I had to feel sorry for the democrats and the MSM. Their complaint and rebuttal is as sad as their financial and cultural policies.
Maybe Dan Rather can come out of retirement and bring some "newly discovered" documents showing Palin was actually a ...........draw your own picture.
The MSM made Gore's campaign. The MSM made Kerry's campaign, and you can bet your ass that it will do its best to continue making Obama's.
The MSM was comfortable and fair with G. W. Bush prior to that day in September 1999 when a major poll showed that in a head to head presidential race between Bush and Gore, Bush would win with 48% of the vote to Gore's 36%. From that day on, even before Bush declared his candidacy, Bush was suddenly discover to be really really stupid, in the pockets of big oil, and he had made an environmental wreck of Texas. Those are just three of the scurrilous attacks on the man...all the while ignoring or glossing over the known short-comings of Gore.
Poor Palin has no idea of what she is going to undergo now.
Posted by: vidyohs | Sep 4, 2008 4:48:10 PM
Chris,
Why even call it "campaign finance reform" and buy into their language?
They want to increase our taxes to pay for their own political ads, while continuing to limit the political free speech of non-politicans. There's a better name for that, isn't there?
I think there's a lot of people who haven't begun to think through the ramifications of the tax-financed system. You'll have to have a Board of Moneys that allocates the funds to the appropriate candidates. If you've got 12 candidates running in a primary, how much does each get? What do you do about third parties in a general election? And so on.
It's an unworkable bureaucratic mess that will siphon off tax dollars into a black hole....which is why it'll no doubt become law within 2-3 years.
Posted by: tw | Sep 4, 2008 4:58:06 PM
Note the absence of such headlines during the DNC.We're discussing an article on Yahoo News. Here's one from Newsweek titled "FactCheck: Obama's Speech Sometimes Stretched the Facts".
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156246
Took me all of 30 seconds on Google to find it.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Sep 4, 2008 6:18:58 PM
Right, Martin. You had to google to find it, while the Palin article was screaming front page, above the fold (as it can be on the internet) news on Yahoo. And you'll note the subtle but important differences in the titles. No surprise. What percentage of the members of the media are self described Democrats? 85%? 95%? I forget the exact figure.
Chris,
As long as we're on the subject....what about the hullabaloo because Palin's husband registered as (of all the shocking things!) an INDEPENDENT a few times? SHOCKING!
The worst part of this is I do everything in my power to avoid all coverage of politics and I'm still aware of this BS just because Yahoo is my home page.
Posted by: Methinks | Sep 4, 2008 7:12:41 PM
Not so sure about that gravity thing you mention: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512?issue=4228&special=2005
:)
Posted by: Nikhil | Sep 5, 2008 12:34:25 AM
Methinks,
Obama's speech was last week. Why would you see last week's news on today's front page?
Posted by: Patapon | Sep 5, 2008 1:45:46 PM
I saw the word “SEX”....... like a moth attracted to light I “clicked” the link.
So where is the SEX?
Posted by: John Smith | Sep 5, 2008 2:51:02 PM
Chris, what Oliver Stone movie are you talking about? Does he have something new coming out between now and the election? It's not in imdb.
-dk
Posted by: Dick King | Sep 5, 2008 5:51:35 PM
"We're discussing an article on Yahoo News. Here's one from Newsweek titled "FactCheck: Obama's Speech Sometimes Stretched the Facts"."
The article on Yahoo is a lot longer, but of course those wascawy wepublicans have a lot more lies to cover.
Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Sep 5, 2008 10:40:27 PM
Shut the fuck up.
We’re talking sex here….
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Sep 5, 2008 11:09:36 PM
Why would you see last week's news on today's front page?
You wouldn't. You didn't see anything but fawning and sighing over Obama from the media during the DNC. Anything negative was buried in the back pages. The coverage is extremely biased. That's my point.
Posted by: Methinks | Sep 7, 2008 11:01:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
