Novelist Orson Scott Card, “a Democrat and a newspaper columnist” dares to mention the emperor’s distinct lack of clothing in a Mormon publication today:

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

Orson, I’d upgrade my home security if I were you.

(Hat tip: Blue Crab Boulevard)

Yesterday, we assumed someone yelled “kill him,” regarding Senator Obama, at a McCain rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Now, we should question the claim. John McCormack of The Weekly Standard writes: “This afternoon, I talked to David Singleton [the reporter who made this claim] on the phone. He told me that someone shouted ‘kill him’ ‘during the discussion by Chris Hackett of Senator Obama’s remarks about guns and religion, and how he needs to be educated about Pennsylvania.’ The shouter was ‘off to my right near the back of the crowd,’ Singleton said, but he ‘couldn’t identify who it was.'”

Apparently, no one else could verify the shout either. None of the Secret Service who were present. None of the over twenty diverse people asked about it. Makes you wonder if the reporter is being straight-forward, if he isn’t simply mistaken.

Today, readers will see the last edition of The New York Sun. “Under the leadership of the hawkish Lipsky and managing editor Ira Stoll, the Sun forcefully defended Israel, repeatedly sounded the alarm about Iran and backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. The paper also took political and socio-economic stances that were unpopular in a city teeming with Democrats. . . . Many readers also found its arts section sophisticated and accessible.” (via ArtsJournal)

Roger Kimball suggests we–at least John McCain’s people should–ignore The New York Times because of its consistent anti-McCain reporting. He explains:

Here’s how the Times structures its non-stories about John McCain:

1. Prissy introductory sentence or two noting that Mr. McCain has a reputation [read “unearned reputation”] for taking the ethical high road on issues like campaign finance reform.

2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.

3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.

MSNBC has replaced Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews after what appears to be several instances of unprofessional behavior and liberal invectives. Olbermann was reportedly “very uncomfortable” during the Republican Convention. I gather Matthews got a bit tense lately too (more so than usual). David Gregory will replace the two men, which perhaps means he is twice the liberal as either of the first two.

If your local newspaper reported accurately (within reason) on events and people in your community/metropolis/region with a little on the nation and the internation, in other words, hard news, would you subscribe? Read why the future of newspapers is worrisome.

McCain supports legislation to protect journalists and their sources, but he cautions them saying, “The workings of America’s newsrooms are less transparent than those you cover. The press needs to work on correcting this.”

This could be good law in the making, but McCain could gain ground with many people by working against his own regulations against free political speech (McCain-Feingold).