The American Spectator

p> EXCITING TIMES br> Re: George Neumayr’s A Christmas Carroll : /p>

All right, are you trying to tell me that there is more to this liberal bias thing than “it is in the eye of the beholder”? Well, by cracky, you may be right, but then it has only been one very brave, honest (or clever) man who has stepped up to the plate and, perhaps inadvertently admitted they are biased “sometimes” in their remarks.

Well, with the new comments I have read lately, as with John Fund’s great article on the Clintons and the destruction they heap on the dems, and said clearly that he felt they were trying to place a soft candidate for ‘04, so Missy Hillary can sneak in to the White House in 08, life just gets delicious! (This has nothing to do with the subject, I just had to mention it!)

Still, the fact Mr. Carroll has spoken out still leaves the Los Angeles Times in the starting gate, for people will be watching, closely now for liberal bias or will want “sources” made public, which should be done.

Watching what is happening in America leaves me with the feeling that all the “dishonest messes” left by the liberals are slowly, but surely being changed to more honest business dealings, a superior military and a country that appreciates them, a delivery on its promises by the Republicans, the facing of the terrorists and now more honesty in the media?…

p>Kudos to Mr. Carroll. You may have started something. It often only takes one to start. br> — Carole Graham /p>

“A Christmas Carroll” was remarkable. Scientific data is fact — neither conservative nor liberal. Reporters by and large have no science background, have never worked in the field of bioscience, but they know enough not to go to herbalists and alternative medicine sources about medical issues (I think). However they do consider “activists” — and people with strong “opinions warped with speculation” (based on a quote printed someplace and then referred to by someone else) — as the “experts to seek out when reporting on a science based issue.