Christians often complain that their perspective is ignored by the mainstream
press. A recent column by the Washington Post outgoing ombudsman helps explain why.
When it comes to same-sex marriage and gay issues, he essentially said that you don’t
have a right to fair coverage. A belief in traditional marriage removes you from being
treated fairly by the media.

Rod Dreher points to the exchange posted between the reporter and many readers,
who complain that the “pro-family side gets short-shrift.” One reader points out that
belief in traditional marriage is promoted by the Pope, Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia, evangelist Billy Graham, and scholars like Robert George.

The reporter is unmoved. He argues that legitimate media outlets routinely cover
homosexual issues because it is “the civil rights issue of our time.” He argues that
journalism is about justice and fairness. After another interchange, the reporter then asks
“should the media make room for racists?” The stark implication is that you have no right
to coverage because your view is wrong. The newspaper wouldn’t feel obligated to get a
comment from a racist. Why should it give pro-family groups that support traditional
marriage a fair shake?

In his article about this interchange, Rod Dreher explains this is not just the
perspective of the Washington Post. He talks about a discussion he had with a senior
executive at another big newspaper about their agenda-driven reporting on
homosexuality and the marriage issue. The executive admitted the bias and was proud of
it. When Dreher asked if that might alienate many socially conservative readers, the
executive shot back, “We don’t need bigots for readers.”

For years, Rod Dreher has told fellow conservatives that media bias isn’t
deliberate but creeps in because of the newsroom monoculture. But he now admits that
when it comes to gay rights and the marriage debate, “they don’t even make an effort to
be fair.” I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Every time we have a heavy snowfall, drought, or hurricane, we hear alarmists
argue that these devastating weather patterns are due to climate change. What they really
mean is that global warming is why we had that particular weather catastrophe.

Notice how the change from talking about global warming to talking about
climate change makes it easier to accept their conclusion. After all, if the weather pattern
is changing then certainly that means that the climate in changing. It’s a nice linguistic
trick, but it doesn’t prove that global warming is why we had that particular weather
incident.

Bjorn Lomborg recently wrote about what he called “climate-change
misdirection.” He uses some examples from President Obama’s second inaugural
address, but he could just as easily used quotes from nightly newscasts or blog posts and
commentaries that surface after the last weather anomaly.

The president promised to “respond to the threat of climate change.” He believes
it is urgent because of the “devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and
more powerful storms.” Lomborg takes on these three horsemen of the climate
apocalypse.

Wildfires around the world have actually decreased by 15 percent. Estimates from
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predict that even with global
warming proceeding, the level of wildfires will continue to decline. We can say the same
for droughts. There has not been an increase in drought. A study in Nature found that
globally “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

Hurricanes and super storms have been in the news. However, if you look at the
frequency and intensity, you cannot make the claim that global warming is behind them.
Lomborg reminds us that “hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s.”

The point is that when we exaggerate the threat, we tend to concentrate attention
and resources in the wrong areas. Storms and hurricanes are going to happen, and we
need better building codes and enforcement. Fear mongering puts time, attention, and
money in the wrong places.

During the debate on the Affordable Care Act (known as Obamacare), critics
warned of the negative impact on businesses. Now that we getting closer to the full
implementation of Obamacare, we are seeing that the critics were right.

Retailers and restaurants are doing two things as they prepare for Obamacare.
They are considering cutting the working hours of their employers while also considering
whether to pay fines instead of enrolling their employees in the mandated and expensive
health insurance plans.

David Dillon is the chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain. Recently he
told the Financial Times his company was thinking through those two options. He
predicted that many companies would opt to pay a government-mandated penalty since it
would be cheaper than the cost of coverage. “If you look through the economics of the
penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty’s too low, or
the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong,” he said.

He is correct. The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. A
recent IRS estimate was $4,000 per person, meaning insurance cost for a family of five
would be $20,000. A Kaiser Family Foundation estimate was higher at $4,664 for a
single worker and $11,428 for a family.

Nigel Travis, chief executive at Dunkin’ Brands, said his company was lobbying
for a change in the definition of “full-time” employees. They contend that cutoff should
be 30 hours a week not 40 hours a week. Other restaurants like Wendy’s and Taco Bell
are cutting workers hours (so those workers do not quality for health insurance). Other
businesses are deliberately keeping their headcount below 50.

These are the perverse incentives created by Obamacare. Companies are
considering dropping employees, cutting back on hours, and refusing to hire more
workers. At a time when 23 million Americans are out of work, Obamacare is making the
problem worse.

Last week Americans were subjected to a litany of doom and gloom over the
automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. We were told to “batten down the
hatches” and “head for the storm cellar” and “the sky is falling.” OK, maybe the rhetoric
wasn’t that extreme. But it was close.

Here we are at the first day of the week. Government officials told us to expect
lots of problems because these automatic cuts. What do you see? Supposedly a cut of 2.3
percent of the federal budget was going to bring the government to its knees. It couldn’t
live on 97.7 percent of current spending. Are we on the edge of Armageddon? You tell
me. I wrote this and taped it last week. But I suspect that everything is going along quite
well. Such is the aftermath of these so-called “draconian” spending cuts.

We should expect problems to surface. Government isn’t used to ever being cut,
even if it is only a small cut in the growth of government spending. And government
officials will certainly cut back on programs that produce the great outrage from the
American public. They are hoping that closing down national monuments and national
parks along with reducing vital services will create a public outcry.

They will also point out that they cannot furlough federal employees
immediately. But they will warn that more pain and inconvenience is coming soon. There
will be stories about long lines at airports and even a delay in the deployment of an
aircraft carrier. Stories about cuts in domestic spending and defense spending will be in
the news.

The question before us as voters is whether we will fall for these ploys. My
commentary last week documented recent surveys that found that some Americans
wanted just spending cuts, while others wanted spending cuts and some tax hikes. We
may disagree about whether we need more taxes. But we all agree that we need spending
cuts.

This week, and the following weeks, will reveal whether we are really serious
about spending cuts. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Back in January there was a bit of a flap when we found out that Beyonce didn’t
actually sing the national anthem. She lip-synched it. Some caught it. The rest of us
found out after the fact. At the time, I didn’t think it was a big deal. A recent column by
Jay Nordlinger changed my mind.

Her lip-synching performance was actually just the latest in a long line of
performers who have been faking it. Her defense was multifold. It was too cold to sing.
There hadn’t been a proper sound check. She said she didn’t feel comfortable taking a
risk. She even added that singing along with a “pre-recorded track” is “very common in
the music industry.” She is right about that.

But let’s get back to the inauguration. Those of us who are older can remember
singers (mostly classical singers) who would never have thought to lip-synch through an
inauguration event. Marian Anderson sang at President Kennedy’s inauguration. Marilyn
Horne sang at President Clinton’s first inauguration. Susan Graham sang at George W.
Bush’s second inauguration.

Think back to President Obama’s first inauguration. There was a quartet that
included Gabriela Montero on piano, Itzhak Perlman on violin, Yo-Yo Ma on cello, and
Anthony McGill on clarinet. They played (or should I say they pretended to play) a piece
by John Williams. They recorded the piece in the Marine Barracks two days before. I
guess you could say they “hand-synched” the performance. They even made the usual
faces of people performing live and pretended to coordinate with each other as an
ensemble is supposed to do. But they were just faking it. Jay Nordlinger provides a
lengthy list of other musical fakers.

As a thought experiment, imagine if a speaker was able to lip-synch a speech. We
would be outraged, and rightly so. I don’t think we should give a pass to singers and
musicians, especially at the presidential inauguration.