Someone asked me how he can tell if an information source is partisan.  If during your daily travels and conversations, you find people on both sides of the aisle that dislike a source equally, it's a good bet that source is non-partisan.  One might also find a source to be liked some of the time and disliked some of the time equally, but that would be the same indication of non-partisanship.  Perhaps it's time for a true third party in the U.S. system… the Indifference Party, or the Apolitical Party.  Although, the trouble with the Indifferent or Apolitical representatives might be that they won't show up for work.

I watched C-Span Washington Journal this morning and laughed from time to time when the journalists on the program put forth their holy, pure faces. First, the special counsel investigation of Henry Cisneros that is thought to implicate or tarnish Hilary Clinton is the Barrett report, not the Bartlett report (Google it).  It seems to me that Washington D.C. beat reporters ought to know this since I know it and pay little or no attention to their beat.  Second, the CBS news correspondent who would like people to believe that reporters go enthusiastically after every kind of story must have forgot the recent saga of the late news anchor Dan Rather, a man who for years used his position to obscure reality and promote personal ideas instead of report news fairly.  It's easy to pick on network news anchors because they are so visible and caricatured, but it would be impossible for any knowledgeable viewer not to have recognized that Rather and Brokaw were averse to or incapable of reporting anti-Democrat news.  I can't evaluate a story or mine for the truth without all the facts.  Do Republicans and Democrats practice misrepresentation and propaganda equally? Yes… so reports from either side should be viewed skeptically.