The OWH published a biiiiiiggg story on Sunday about how the Heineman administration had made it a point to stop pursuing the death penalty.
Except they had to step back on that story, after they actually got more info and Governor Heineman said the opposite.
Of course the first story also said that former Governor Dave had “no comment”. But now…
“Sunday’s story incorrectly stated that Heineman declined to comment.”
As it turned out, they just never got ahold of Heineman — as opposed him saying he WOULD NOT comment. Big difference there.
So they retold the story today, Tuesday. But let us just note the difference in the placement of these two articles:
Here’s the first story:
Sunday paper, front page, above the fold — nay, above the mast!
And here is Tuesday’s version:
Midlands (2nd) section of the paper. With the actual Correction not until the second page of the that second section — in the 11th paragraph of the story.
So, a touch of credit to the OWH for at least stepping up to make this correction, and research the story further.
But how about next time putting the correction in the same place as the original?
Oh, what that isn’t sensational enough? Doesn’t sell enough papers? Oh, and it doesn’t jibe with the OWH’s narrative? Oh well.
Back on June 26th, the question was asked here on Leavenworth St.:
Will Democrats continue to hold “Jefferson-Jackson” dinners honoring their favorite Democrats, who also happened to be slave-holders?
Well, the answer for Georgia, Connecticut, Missouri…and now Iowa is NAY!
Iowa will be changing the name, because those two old white men no longer “align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party.”
So what WOULD align with them?
My vote for them would be the Kennedy-Clinton dinner.
Then they could just switch around Kennedys and Clintons, depending on how their “values” aligned.
Today we are FOR abusing interns.
Tomorrow we’re FOR destroying evidence.
Soon we’ll be FOR lying under oath.
And of course, eventually, we’ll all be pantsless.
See how malleable it is?
@RepBradAshford has taken to the Twitters much like a 7th grade girl passing a note in class:
Should I vote for the Iran deal?
In the mean time, GOP #NE02 candidate General Don Bacon is having none of it:
“I call on Congressman Ashford to make his position known unambiguously.
This is a grave national security issue, and straddling the fence and shifting positions will not be acceptable. I urge him to clearly oppose the agreement.
His vacillation to date is an affirmation as to why we need more folks in Washington DC with real world national security experience and less career politicians.”
Oh, what does Bacon know?
So he’s an Iran expert???
Well, as it turns out…
“I’ve read the agreement and have studied the analysis of those supporting and those opposing this agreement.
I’ve studied Iran in multiple assignments, helped stand up ballistic missile defense capabilities in Israel, been part of our intelligence community, been deployed four times to the Middle East and have seen the nefarious actions of Iran close up during my year in Baghdad.
The end result of this agreement is crystal clear… Iran will become a recognized nuclear power, will grow economically and militarily, will grow as a regional power, will have increased abilities to fund terrorist groups in the region and world, and will become a larger threat to Israel and to our nation.
Therefore, I oppose this agreement and recommend we continue the economic sanctions and weapons embargo.”
No but Brad wants to know, seriously.
Do you just like the Iran deal? Or do you like-like the Iran deal?
Want a concise, clear and understandable video explanation of the faults of the Iran Nuclear Deal?
Watch this 5 minute version by Dennis Prager:
And I’d add that most of the stuff from Prager U. is very good.
National Review’s Kevin Williamson has an interesting (short) piece on emerging technology — and how it was viewed back in the day.
He points to a sort of meme going around how back in 1985, the New York Times was mocking the laptop computer — “Who would want to carry one back from the office with them?”
But Williamson doesn’t harp on the NYT. Instead he just notes how difficult it is to predict any sort of technology in the future. That’s because with free-markets, things constantly get better and usually cheaper.
Pivoting, he contrasts that with nearly anything run by the government.
Social Security, the public education system, public pensions — all run pretty much the same way going on a hundred years.
Yet for some reason, people think government takeover of a system is a good thing.
Anyway, Williamson is almost always insightful (and funny) and this is no exception.
I appreciate that Warren Buffett needs to keep buying bigger and more expensive companies.
But I think we can all — in the wake of the murder of Cecil the Lion — how inappropriate it is for him to keep calling these “elephant hunts”.
The majestic elephant is for admiring at a distance — or occasionally keeping penned in a zoo — not for “bagging” with an “elephant gun”.
(Unless of course, you’re stopping by Ole’s Big Game bar in Paxton on the way to Colorado…)