|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego)."Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 19:26:31 PM EDT
|
|
Yesterday's Washington Post featured an editorial from four retired senior military officers supporting the congressional law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The officers claim, "Polling by the Military Times of its active duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal." However this poses a problem, as the Military Times has never conducted a "poll" of its readership on this issue. So why is this 58% number being held aloft as if it were incontrovertible proof of a majority opinion and why is the Washington Post, and its editors, allowing contributors to publish flagrant misrepresentations of fact?
The truth is that the Military Times has published the findings of a mail-in "survey" it conducted last year of 1,215 active-duty servicemen who subscribe to the Military Times and its family of newsweeklies. The problem is the science behind the "survey" was so questionable that the Military Times itself was forced to describe the responses as, "not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers."
Less kind was Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, who described the methodology behind of the Military Times survey as, "about as reliable as a rusted carbine; FUBAR, you might say. It's not even a survey at all, but a woefully incomplete census of Military Times readers. And in terms of their political and ideological leanings, the participants look nothing at all like what good data have found." Yet the Washington Post still let these men promote a blatant misrepresentation of fact by allowing them to claim "polling by the Military Times" showed 58% of those on active duty support keeping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," -- even when the Military Times itself questions the validity of those findings?
Why is the Post allowing controversial "surveys" to be presented to readers as a legitimate "polls" when experts in the field have described the methodology as "FUBAR." And why are the Post's editors not publishing an apology clearly stating that they did not fact check this editorial and in the process allowed their opinion page to propagandize "facts" against gay service members?
Perhaps the Ombudsman can take up this issue in his next article. |
| Victor Maldonado :: Post Op-Ed Peddles Bogus "Poll" |
|
|
|
