So we have a health care reform entitlement now, along with various unfunded liabilities, courtesy of the federal government. The next question is – how are we going to pay for all of it?

Last week following the passage of health care legislation, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer predicted a value-added tax (or VAT) could be in the works, which is a consumption tax that is placed on a product whenever value is added at a stage of production and at final sale.

However, former Fox News "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume, now a senior political analyst for network, said there was a possibility the VAT could be pushed into law during a lame-duck session of Congress, if loss for the Democratic Party are steep enough to force them to relinquish their control following the 2008 cycle.

"I think the projected savings, if they actually came to pass, would be in the order of 140 some billion dollars," Hume said. "That is a drop in the bucket against these levels of debt and particularly against the levels of entitlement debt, which is why I think after the news on social security and after the difficulty selling government bonds last week with lifted interest rates – you may start, as Charles Krauthammer fears, to hear about a value-added tax, a form of sales tax. You could hardly get it through the Congress right now, but you might be able to slip it through after the election, with the old Congress still seated, the new Congress not yet here during the so-called lame duck session. I don’t think it is yet likely but I wouldn’t rule it out."

A VAT could be detrimental for the U.S. economy and it wouldn’t be a cure-all for government debt, as Chris Edwards pointed out for Cato @ Liberty last year. Instead, this would encourage more spending and higher tax rates, causing an impediment to U.S. economic growth.

"In sum, a VAT would not solve our deficit problems because Congress would simply boost its spending even higher, as happened in Europe as VAT rates increased over time," Edwards wrote. "Also, a VAT is not needed to cut the corporate income tax rate because a corporate rate cut would be self-financing over the long-term as tax avoidance fell and economic growth increased."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the mainstream media consider the Tea Party capable of violence. Let’s take a look at those who have committed most of the political violence, both in the United States and abroad.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews today jumped on a statistic regarding Census participation in Texas to argue that anti-government sentiment from TEA Parties is hurting the Lone Star State in the decennial head count and hence could shortchange the state in congressional reapportionment and redistricting:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, "Hardball" host: Time for the "Big Number" tonight. It speaks to the unintended effects of sowing distrust about the federal government. Thirty-four percent of Americans nationwide have filled out and returned their U.S. Census forms. But what’s the number like in Texas, one of the more conservative states out there? According to the Houston Chronicle, just 27 percent. Well below the national average…

However, the Chronicle article that noted the 27 percent statistic also noted that:

In Harris County, the response rate is 23 percent. Houston’s returns are running at 21 percent.

Those jurisdictions, particularly the city proper of Houston, are more liberal in electoral habits than the state writ large, and yet they have a lower response rate when it comes to Census participation. That sure doesn’t fit Chris’s meme.

What’s more, it appears that the Chronicle’s numbers –which are from Friday afternoon — are outdated, according to none other than the U.S. Census Bureau. The Bureau’s Web site as of 5:55 p.m. EDT today noted that the national "participation" rate is 46 percent, whereas Texas clocks in at 39 percent. 

Again, more liberal jurisdictions like Harris County and Travis County — home of liberal capital city Austin — clock in below the statewide average at 35 and 34 percents respectively.

What’s more, while the much bluer (politically speaking) state of New York has a 41 percent participation rate, New York City proper has a paltry 32 percent, a full seven points below Texas’s statewide average.

Two Useful Idiots and the Man Who’s Using Them

In light of our recent look at Venezuelan thug dictator Hugo Chavez and the FCC Diversity Czar Lloyds who love him, we now bring you this. 

The intrepid Steve Forbes took last Wednesday to FoxNews.com to analyze Chavez vis a vis a report by the Organization for the American States (OAS).  Forbes writes about:

(A) new and discouraging, but not unsurprising (OAS) report about the troubling anti-democratic trend in Venezuela, as Hugo Chavez continues to crack down on those who oppose him – be they in the judiciary, opposition parties or the media. The OAS’s 300 page report by jurists and civil rights activists from Antigua, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United States points out the increasing role that violence and murder have played in Chavez’s consolidation of his power, including the documented killing of journalists.

Again, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd has praised Chavez for taking "very seriously the media in his country." Again we ask, is the above what Lloyd has in mind?

More from Forbes:

Many of Chavez’s most ardent supporters here in the U.S. come out of the “media reform” movement, which believes that our corporate media has been thoroughly co-opted by capitalists bent on destroying the benevolent leadership of the likes of Chavez. They think that our capitalist-plagued media world is in dire need of reform.

The chief proponent of this thinking – which amounts to an unprecedented government intrusion into our own country’s media — is Professor Robert McChesney, founder of the Orwellian-named Free Press, one of the most influential organizations in the growing “media reform” movement on the far-left.

Ahh, Robert McChesney and Free Press.  About whom (as the links indicate) we ourselves have oft-written.  In fact, much of what follows from Forbes we have previously reported (and can be found at the links just provided).

Free Press’ curious stance on media reform can best be summed up by McChesney who suggests that, "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

Such radical hyperbole coming from the founder of a group called "Free Press" drips with irony. But it’s a rhetorical flourish that Dr. McChesney is apparently quite comfortable with. He has employed it repeatedly to argue that his version of media reform is the first step in the struggle to remake American society in a socialistic fashion. In his attack on the existing media "power structure" in the U.S., he calls for a "class struggle from below…In the end there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."

If any of this sounds eerily familiar, it should. It’s right out of Hugo Chavez’s playbook. Like Chavez, Free Press’ call for "media reform" harkens back to a bygone era when the radical left’s doctrinarian opposition to a genuinely free press was rooted in the totalitarian political theories of Marx, Lenin, Hitler and others.

All of this could be ignored as the comical rantings of a loony leftist professor safely ensconced in the tenured halls of academia, were it not for Free Press’ astonishing — and growing — influence on policymaking within the current administration and Congress. 

As hard as it may be to believe, McChesney and his indefatigable band of media revolutionaries are being taken seriously by some policymakers in Washington. They are granted regular audiences with those overseeing our nation’s media policy at the FCC and FTC, and meeting regularly with members of Congress.

That last statement is very sad, but all too true.  The Media Marxists at Free Press are dictating much of what is currently transpiring at the FCC.  Jen Howard went from being the spokesman ofree Press’s to being the spokesman for the FCC.  It was so seamless a transition, it seems she and others sometimes forget that it actually occured. If in fact it did.

Their latest plan to defacto nationalize the media calls for the federal government to bail out newspapers with $60 billion in new government subsidies.  

Ahh, yes, the government funding of journalism.  Translation: Here’s yet another attempt to subsidize and/or bail out liberal allies who are utterly incapable of making a go of it in the free market.

There is no faster way to convert a watchdog to a lapdog (as if the transformation hasn’t already taken place) than to have the government buy the dog food.

But the Media Marxists say that concern is silly:

…Free Press tells us not to worry. Such media reform will have safeguards in place to protect the freedom of the press from government influence.

So how committed is Free Press to enforcing such safeguards once the government is invited into the media business? Judging from McChesney’s defense of Chavez’s media crackdown in Venezuela, not much.

In full-throated defense of Mr. Chavez in 2007, McChesney laments Western media’s skewed portrayal of theVenezuelan regime.

"Regrettably," he notes, "U.S. media coverage of Venezuela…says more about the deficiencies of our own news media than it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again…how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter."

And according to McChesney, the truth of the matter is that everything’s fine with Chavez. In Venezuela, McChesney notes, "aggressive, unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own."

That last assertion is one so patently absurd that it needs no analysis.  But should you in fact require it, I again refer you to today’s earlier essay.

Forbes finishes with yet another bang:

But most galling in light of Free Press’ assurances that we have nothing to worry about by inviting the feds into the media business, is McChesney’s defense of Chavez’s crackdown on opposition media in Venezuela. Regarding Venezuelan broadcaster RCTV, a persistent Chavez critic whose license was revoked by the president himself, McChesney suggests that if the station were broadcasting in the United States, "its license would have been revoked years ago," and that "its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason."

All of this begs the question: Once the federal government starts subsidizing our own free press, how long until the feds start revoking broadcast licenses of government opponents and bringing pesky reporters up on charges of say, "corruption" or "subversion"? According to McChesney and the Free Press folks, it apparently can’t happen soon enough.

So we have two Chavez-lovers – Mark Lloyd and Robert McChesney – holding either positions or powers of influence (or both) at the FCC, which is currently working to broaden it’s domination of all avenues of information delivery.

Warms the free speech cockles, does it not?

Former Red Sox pitcher and baseball legend Curt Schilling is finding out that starting a small business in the state of Massachusetts is more taxing than 50,000 heckling Yankee fans could ever be.

Schilling and wife Shonda were interviewed on Fox Business Network’s "America’s Nightly Scoreboard" March 26 (Video available here). After discussing Shonda’s health problems and their son’s Asperger’s Syndrome Schilling shared his thoughts on politics and running a businesses in Massachusetts.

"You see the country moving into the wrong direction, and you’re trying to get it moving in the other direction. What beyond Scott Brown are you doing now?" host David Asman asked.

"I own a company called 38 Studios, a gaming company which has now got me involved in politics on the state level in a way I never dreamed possible," Schilling said. "There’s film and tax credits for the film industry around the country – around the world. The industry that I’m in was a $60 billion a year business last year."

Schilling explained his search for state help and the offers from other states and countries that entice business owners to leave Massachusetts.

"So we went to the state over a year ago – Massachusetts – to begin discussions about tax credits and potential other of being funded through the state because we’re at a hundred-fifty jobs looking to move to five-hundred to a thousand jobs," Schilling said. "We’re a pre-revenue company, I put $30 million of my own money into this thing – we’re looking for the state’s assistance to make sure we maintain the ability to ramp up, hire and create new jobs in an incredibly lucrative industry. Now there are other states – other countries – who are offering tax credits and financial incentives to move." 

Prompting Asman to chime in, "You don’t want to, but when you lose money…"

Schilling interjected: "No! No you don’t want to, but as a pre-revenue company, you don’t lose money – you go out of business or you launch. Right now for us, it’s anywhere from a $25 million to $100 million offer you know somewhere out there."

According to Christine McConville of the Boston Herald, there are nine different states and one country that have tried to woo Schilling’s business to relocate. 

Asman also sought Schilling’s opinion of health care reform and its impact on small businesses in particular.

"What about health care? The whole issue of health care, we know what’s just passed – well we don’t know what just passed – very few people could actually understand the thing even if they bothered to read it. How is it in your life, how is it in your business this new change that’s happened?" Asman asked.

Schilling admitted the plan would probably cost his business.

"Well it’s disappointing," Schilling stated. "You know, again – we go back to the fact that we own a small company and we offer what would be considered a Cadillac health plan to our employees because that’s how you draw new people."

"But now if you’re a small business owner, you can send them off to the government. And it’ll be free! Nobody will have to pay," Asman replied sarcastically.

With his wife by his side, Schilling also dismissed Asman’s question about running for political office:

"For fourteen years she gave her life to baseball so I could be committed the game and be as good as I can be – my kids did the very same thing. But to retire and go into a life that would be twice as public as professional sports could ever be, twice as intrusive, twice as mean-spirited, angry and nasty as anything – it’s not fair to them."  

Photo via espn.go.com.

Put up or shut up, Barnicle . . .

Mike Barnicle has accused "talk radio" of serving as "allies" and a "megaphone" for the worst fringe elements on the right.   That’s how the former Boston Globe columnist justified the MSM’s focus on the right-wing fringe while downplaying that of the left. [H/t reader Ray R.]

Barnicle floated his defense of the MSM on today’s Morning Joe.  To their credit, Mika Brzezinski and Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NY Times argued that the fringe left has historically received a pass from the MSM.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle, was the Eric Cantor story [about death threats he and his family received from a Barack Obama donor] on the front page of the newspapers?

MIKE BARNICLE: I don’t think it was. It was in the body of a lot of news stories.  I don’t think it was on the front page of the newspapers.  Are we seeing balance in this?  No. But we cover the moment. Right now we’re covering the fringe of the Tea Party movement: the loudest, the most vile, the most expletive-filled things that come out during these demonstrations.

. . .

BRZEZINSKI: I have a sense that when it comes to violence and crazy-talk, the fringe, that the left doesn’t get seen–they get a pass.  Would you agree with that?

BARNICLE: They’re getting a pass right now. Because they are not in the forefront.  The Tea Party movement is.

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: I can’t remember a moment where the left actually had this sort of, completely, where we covered it in the same way that we cover the fringe element of the Tea Party.

BARNICLE: No, I agree with you on that.

SORKIN: I don’t remember ever a moment where there was sort of this, where there was such a view of crazy-talk coming out of the left in that respect.

BARNICLE: The left never had the megaphone that the right now has with talk radio. They just never had that.  Listen: you have to be truthful about it.  They have allies in talk radio that echo what you hear on the sidewalk.

Barnicle’s argument fails for at least two reasons:

1. he justifies the MSM’s focus on the right on the basis that the left is not in the "forefront" and "right now we’re covering the fringe of the Tea Party movement." That reasoning is entirely circular, of course. It amounts to saying "it’s fair for the MSM to focus on the right because that’s what it’s focusing on."
2. the alleged existence of "allies" in talk radio should have nothing to do with news judgment as to what gets covered.  Whether or not Norman Leboon had a media "megaphone," his threat to kill Cantor was inherently newsworthy.

Finally, there is the matter of Barnicle’s accusation that "talk radio" serves as "allies" and a "megaphone" for the dangerous right.  Let’s recall Limbaugh’s line: "when they say ‘talk radio,’ they mean Rush."  Was Barnicle referring to Rush?  If so, say so, and back it up, chapter and verse, with ways that Rush echoed or encouraged fringe elements.  If Barnicle can’t substantiate his allegation–and I don’t believe he can–he should apologize for his slur.

If Barnicle was alluding to others, again, he has an obligation to get specific, rather than letting his amorphous accusations remain on the record.

And while liberal talk radio has largely been a failure, surely Barnicle is aware that the kook left has its "allies" in talk . . . television. Did Mike never tune into his own network to hear Olbermann going on endless rants about George Bush & Co. being fascists and needing to be removed from power?  The fringe also has its megaphones in the halls of Congress, as when House Dem whip James Clyburn recently accused ObamaCare opponents of "aiding and abetting terrorism."

Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller has two big articles in this week’s issue. "The Bad Shepherd" is another piece trashing Pope Benedict over the sex-abuse charges emerging in Europe. But Miller even trashed Jesus Christ as a "typically cranky" religious figure. This came in an excerpt from Miller’s new book on Heaven, as she explained how implausible the religious concept of resurrection is:

Resurrection presented credibility problems from the outset. Who, the Sadducees taunted Jesus, does the man who married seven wives in succession reside with in heaven? The subtext of their teasing is obvious: if the resurrection is true, as Jesus promised, then in heaven you must have your wife, and all the things that go along with wives: sex, arguments, dinner. Jesus responds in a typically cranky way: "You just don’t get it," he says (my paraphrase). "You are wrong," he said in Matthew’s Gospel, "because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God."

It’s easier to pitch Jesus as "typically cranky" when one paraphrases the Bible in contemporary lingo. Miller concluded that she doesn’t buy this tall Easter tale:

Resurrection may be unbelievable, but belief in a traditional heaven requires it. I think often of Jon D. Levenson, a Jewish scholar at Harvard Divinity School who hopes to bring the idea of resurrection back to mainstream Judaism, where it has been lost in practice for generations. I visited him one cold November afternoon because, as a literal-minded skeptic, I wanted him to explain to me how it works. How does God put bodies—burned in fire or pulverized in war—back together again? Levenson looked at me, eyes twinkling, and said, "It’s no use to ask, ‘If I had a lab at MIT, how would I try to resurrect a body?’ The belief in resurrection is more radical. It’s a supernatural event. It’s a special act of grace or of kindness on God’s part." For my part, I don’t buy it. I do, however, leave the door open a crack for radical acts of grace and kindness—and for humbling ourselves before all that we don’t understand.

I wouldn’t define dismissing Jesus as typically cranky as an act of humbling oneself before the sacred mysteries. But at least she’s upfront about her disbelief.

In her article on the pope, Miller’s just as clear about how the sex-abuse charges are a moment for bringing the church in line with secular progressives:

It is a reforming moment, an opportunity to sweep away centuries of Vatican culture—to articulate values, engage with the laity, and shine a light into the church’s secret corners. Benedict could actually turn it to his advantage by leveraging the qualities for which he is both criticized and admired—his deep familiarity with the Vatican bureaucracy and his passion for theological orthodoxy. But those who’ve studied the pope, and even many who applaud his other virtues, say he is not the man to rise to this occasion….What’s needed, really, is a new vision for a church that is more human. Is Benedict the man to provide that? Alas, probably not.

Why would a man for with a "passion" for orthodoxy "leverage" it to dissolve orthodoxy and create a new, hip Newsweek Catholic Church?

Miller allowed a mild rebuttal from Vatican reporter John Allen, but her vision of the Pope is very dark, indeed, as she explored a meeting in Boston that the Holy Father had with sex-abuse victims:

Benedict read a 10-minute speech offering an apology on behalf of the church. Then each victim had a private five-minute audience with the pontiff, who stood, unmoving, before an altar. [Bernie] McDaid says he told the pope what happened to him in detail and warned the Holy Father that sex abuse was "a cancer" in the church. Benedict just listened and nodded. "He would only speak to me when I pushed him for words," says McDaid.

The image is apt: Benedict, frozen and mute as a ferocious desperation spreads through the Roman Catholic Church.

He’s not very human, this bad shepherd:

One reason Ratzinger may not have recognized the human trauma in these cases is that his experience with actual humanity is so narrow. He has spent almost his entire life in the rarefied world of academia in Germany or the antique corridors of power in Rome. "He was a priest in a parish for one year," says the Rev. Thomas Rausch, a Jesuit professor of Catholic theology at Loyola Marymount University. "I’m worried that he doesn’t have more direct pastoral experience."

For such a man, the desire to protect fellow clerics can be so deep as to be instinctive: the Vatican’s bureaucratic elite, the Curia, is perhaps history’s first old boys’ club. "It’s a culture of secrecy and hierarchy and doing what you’re told," says Peter Manseau, author of Vows: The Story of a Priest, a Nun, and Their Son.

Miller doesn’t tell readers that Manseau is that son, of a priest who wanted to shred the celibacy requirements of the Catholic priesthood. She also omits another of his books, Killing the Buddha: A Heretic’s Bible.

With Miller at the religion desk, Newsweek could also be subtitled A Heretic’s Bible.

Although diabetes has long been a serious health problem in the United States, it’s now reaching epidemic status in other countries.

A new report shows that more people have diabetes in China than in any other country. With one-in-10 people diagnosed with diabetes, China’s battle against diabetes is now one of the top public health priorities for the country.

The recent Diabetes in Asia Study Group International Conference, which was created to promote diabetes awareness and encourage research, called for Asia-oriented diabetes research and studies.

Among the major hurdles that Asian health experts face is the age of diabetes diagnosis. In Western countries, patients are diagnosed between ages 60 to 79. In Asia, they are diagnosed at 20- to 59-years old.

Check out AOL Health for more diabetes information.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

NBC on Monday night squeezed in a few seconds for the arrest of “a Philadelphia man for threatening the life of the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor of Virginia.”

Yet after the networks led last week with less-immediate threats against Democrats, they weren’t so interested in a real case of a death threat against a Republican as neither CBS nor ABC aired a word about the arrest and NBC’s Brian Williams gave it short-shrift after leading last Wednesday with Democrats as the victims: “It’s getting ugly as anger over health care reform erupts into some over-the-top rhetoric, including threats now against members of Congress.”

The next night, Williams still portrayed opponents as the only ones with miscreants amongst their ranks: “While the White House continues to celebrate its largest-ever legislative victory, opponents of health care reform have reacted to the final vote with anger, a few of them with threats of violence.”

CBS last week started with “threats of violence against Democrats who voted for health care reform” as Nancy Cordes relayed how “Democrats complain Sarah Palin is also using violent words and imagery.” On Monday, the CBS Evening News devoted a full story to fretting over a “loophole” which insurance companies may use to delay providing coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions and Katie Couric spent half a minute on how the New York Yankees are “the best-paid team in all of sports,” with the NBA “the highest-paid league” followed by cricket’s Indian Premier League.

Though Cantor’s district is beyond metro DC, ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, WJLA-DT, led its 6 PM news Monday night with the arrest of  Norman Leboone, but a half hour later World News didn’t mention it as Diane Sawyer began with “homegrown hate, extremists from a Midwestern, Christian militia under arrest.” Five days earlier, a dire Sawyer warned “opposition to health care turns menacing,” asserting “angry opponents of the [health] bill unleashed threatening phone calls, scathing words, even bricks thrown through windows.”

Wednesday night, March 24: “Nets Lead with ‘Ugly’ and ‘Menacing’ ObamaCare Opponents Fueled by Palin’s ‘Violent Words and Imagery.’”

Thursday night, March 25: “Nets Not So Excited About Violence and Threats Aimed at ObamaCare Opponents.”

The short item from Williams on the Monday, March 29 NBC Nightly News:

The FBI said today they’ve arrested a Philadelphia man for threatening the life of the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor of Virginia. 38-year-old Norman Leboone made a profanity-laced video that called Cantor evil and then some. He’s being held without bail pending a psychiatric evaluation. The arrest is not related to a bullet hole found in Cantor’s district office which police now say was caused instead by random gun fire.

Conservative author Ann Coulter found herself embroiled in controversy last week after she spoke at a Canadian university.

According to numerous American media outlets, when asked by a seventeen-year-old Muslim student at the University of Western Ontario last Monday, "[S]ince I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes [of transportation] do you suggest," Coulter responded, "Take a camel."

What the Coulter-hating media ignored is that she spent almost two full minutes giving a rather thoughtful, fact-based answer to the first, more serious part of Fatima Al-Dhaher’s question, and was badgered by others in the crowd who clearly didn’t like her response.

At that point, Coulter heckled the hecklers (video embedded below the fold with rough transcript due to sound quality):

FATIMA AL-DHAHER: On September 14, 2001, you said that America should invade Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity. You also said that all the Muslims should boycott all the airlines. When asked what alternative modes of transportation were, you suggested flying carpet.

(CROWD LAUGHS AND CHEERS)

ANN COULTER: Hang on, she’s reading my lines. Go on.

AL-DHAHER: Question, first of all, as a seventeen-year-old student of this university, Muslim, should I be converted to Christianity? Second of all, since I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes do you suggest?

COULTER: First, you dropped a line from the first quote. It was "invade all countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." And, you know, by the way, this shows, I thought it was just, you know, American public schools that produced ignorant people. This is what America has done, after World War II, after the Korean War. After we won in World War II, the emperor went to MacArthur and said, "Okay, we’re ready to convert." And MacArthur said, "Well, actually, we don’t convert people forcibly." Also, as he’s described, he said he didn’t know whether to convert them to Protestantism or Catholicism. But he put out the call for Christian missionaries to come to Japan, and they poured in. And, you don’t convert people forcibly, but missionaries have been operating throughout Japan for years, and we certainly have religious freedom in Japan, and I would add we haven’t heard a peep out of them.

(CHEERS AND BOOS FROM CROWD)

After the Korean War, the exact same thing happened. A call was put out for Christian missionaries to go into South Korea. The Christian missionaries poured in, and this is one of the greatest success stories of Christianity. You’ll see in at least on a American university campuses…

CROWD: Answer the question. Answer the question.

COULTER: What mode of transportation? Take a camel.

HECKLER: Are you going to convert her now?

COULTER: No, there are some people I’d just as soon not convert. I’m kind of a mean Christian.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t how America’s media reported this incident. Instead, they ran with a video that conveniently omitted all of Coulter’s answer EXCEPT the camel comment.

Here’s CNN’s Rick Sanchez during Wednesday’s "Rick’s List":

RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: Ann Coulter in Canada, her speech last night canceled because of protesters who say that she’s a spokeswoman for hate.

Let’s catch up. If you weren’t with us then, let — let’s bring it into this now. This is Ann Coulter Monday. This is an exchange I’m going to show you now. It’s — it’s incredible, what she says. It’s with a — it’s — it’s an exchange with a student at the University of Western Ontario after Coulter suggested Muslims should not be allowed to fly on airplanes and should travel only on flying carpets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a 17-year-old student of this university, Muslim, should I be converted to Christianity?

Second of all, since I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes would you suggest?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "GODLESS: THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM": What mode of transportation? Take a camel.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: "Take a camel." "Take a camel." That’s what Ann Coulter told that student, who happens to be a Muslim. We are accustomed to that here in the United States. There, they are not. They don’t have Ann Coulter, know not that much about her.

As you can see, he skipped almost a full two minutes between Al-Dhaher’s question and Coulter’s "Take a camel" comment.

Is that what passes for journalism today?

But Sanchez wasn’t alone, for the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, New York’s Daily News, the Houston Chronicle, New York’s Newsday, the Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Palm Beach Post — amongst others — also ignored the almost two minutes between Al-Dhaher’s question and Coulter’s camel quip.

Here’s what the New York Times reported Wednesday:

During an appearance Monday at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, a female Muslim student noted that Ms. Coulter had once said that Muslims should be banned from airplanes and should use flying carpets instead.

Ms. Coulter responded by telling the student that she could "take a camel."

My favorite report on Coulter’s comments came from Sunday’s St. Petersburg (Florida) Times (via LexisNexis supposedly on page A22, no link available): "Coulter told students earlier at the University of Western Ontario that Muslims should ‘take a camel’ for international travel and not be allowed on airplanes."

Is that what you saw her say in that video?

Well, maybe that paper’s Politifact will fact-check that piece…but don’t hold your breath.