If you feel threatened by Arabs, consider this.

How far outside the box can the rejuvenated Bears management think?

The time has come Chicago Bears. It’s time to ignore the media. It’s time to upgrade your club at little cost. It’s time. Tebow time.

You’re kidding. Nope:

Tebow is a winner. He will run through a wall for you. He is tough as nails. Best of all, you’d be playing with house money. What’s the harm? You haven’t won the whole shebang since 1985. So if you brought Tebow in, the worst case scenario would be, well, status quo. A great sports city still yearning for that elusive second shuffle.

Besides, consider the situation:

Right now, after bidding adieu to Jordan Palmer, the Bears are left with Cutler and journeyman Josh McCown as their only signal callers. Adding Tebow to the mix at little cost is pure gravy. It can only help. You can have a man with the same amount of playoff wins as Cutler for next to nothing.

So Bear down. You have nothing to lose.

It’s spelled out here, in detail, a story of media manipulation and weakness if not malevolence.

The media?

Jennifer Rubin, the conservative Washington Post blogger who became Romney’s most outspoken advocate in the press, accused members of the news media of failing to take the Republican’s arguments seriously, while allowing the incumbent skate through the race untouched.

“As for the media, they are the least self-reflective people I know,” Rubin said. “The left-leaning media has carried the president’s water faithfully, eschewing the least bit of critical analysis. Now they don’t like the result?

Not sure about how much some of them don’t like it, but the lemming instinct remains.

This is what you call jumping in:

CWN (Catholic World News) – September 04, 2013

From Our Store: Moral Issues (eBook)

The worldwide leader of the Jesuit order has said that US-led military intervention in Syria would be an “abuse of power.”

Father General Adolfo Nicolas said that action by the US and France would “certainly increase the suffering of the citizens of that country, who, by the way, have already suffered beyond measure.”

He added that the proposed military action was based on incomplete information about the use of chemical weapons.

Some irreverent stuff here which might make your day.

From smartertimes.com a look at bias:

The Times has been running a series of questions and answers with the New York mayoral candidates that is unintentionally illuminating about the bias of the Times newsroom (not the editorial board, since this seems to be a newsroom project.)

Today’s three questions “about the economy,” for example, includes “What measures would you support to address income inequality?” but no question about economic growth.

An earlier installment featured three questions about “public health”; it asked about sugary sodas and birth control in schools, but no question about what, if anything, the candidates would do to try to reduce the number of abortions in New York City.

The bias isn’t particularly in how the Times reports on the answers to the questions, but in the framing and choice of the questions themselves. [italics added]

Same for coverage. Facts straight (not all the time), but about what? Choosing what’s news and what isn’t is the best criterion of bias.

The one about the well-married woman:

Two senior ladies met for the first time since graduating from high school. One asked the other, “You were always so organized in school, did you manage to live a well planned life?”

“Oh yes,” said her friend. “My first marriage was to a millionaire; my second marriage was to an actor; ,my third marriage was to a preacher; and now I’m married to an undertaker.”

Her friend asked, “What do those marriages have to do with a well planned life?”

“One for the money, two for the show. three to get ready and four to go.”

Th-th-that’s all for now.