John O'Day at FAIR finds that the "liberal" media have reduced net neutrality to a shallow "mogul vs. mogul" kind of coverage, but of course there are reasons for that. Google vs. Comcast, or Facebook vs. Verizon, maps pretty easily onto the kind of horserace/sports match coverage the "liberal" media prefers anyway, and it also just so happens to map on to right-wing complaints about net neutrality, i.e., that they protect Google and Facebook at the expense of Comcast and Verizon. Of course, I really don't care if they do or not -- I only care that net neutrality protects people from corporate abuse. (Great article, though -- read down to the part where he reminds us that the internet didn't "flourish" under "less regulation" because the phone lines over which consumers originally surfed the internet were, by law, very heavily regulated.)
From Fran Quigley at TruthOut we learn how Nevada unions were "the driving force" behind that state's new insulin price transparency law. They didn't listen to "data-driven consultants," but did it the old-fashioned way: by going door-to-door, making thousands of phone calls to their legislators, and finding folks with unique stories to tell about how the insulin-pricing bill would help them or their loved ones (or, ah, would have helped them or their loved ones). They also supported (and helped elect) actual liberal politicians, rather than the faux-liberals to which national Democrats constantly hold us hostage. (Seriously, can you see Jon Frickin' Ossoff sponsoring a drug price transparency bill in the House? No, you cannot.)
Matt Gertz at Media Matters reminds us that "There Will Be No Pivot" into sanity from President Trump, no matter how much the "liberal" media might want it. With extraordinary generosity and restraint, Mr. Gertz suggests that reporters are susceptible to the "pivot" or "reset" narrative because they're just as stressed out about living in Trumpland as the rest of us, and also because reporters are intuitively "bias(ed)" toward finding "new" stories, and Donald Trump acting like a sane person sure would be a new story. But there's some horserace here, too -- if the "liberal" media merely tabulated Mr. Trump's insanity non-stop, how could they then build him up so there's a race in 2020? (In reality, of course, if Democrats nominate yet another I'm-sane-he's-an-ogre candidate, there'll be a race, all right, and Democrats will lose it.)
Unions turn in over 300,000 signatures (three times the required amount!) in an effort to get Missouri's new "right-to-work" law overturned by a public referendum in 2018. But ho hum, "(w)hile unions are bankrolling the anti-right-to-work campaign, it’s unclear who is paying for the other side" -- apparently the "right-to-work" law's supporters don't want to be known, for some reason. I'm also a bit unclear about why the vote has to wait until 2018; are they afraid folks won't turn out in an "off-year"? They'd be wrong about that: Ohio voters rejected their legislature's anti-public unions law by a 3-2 margin in 2011.
You've no doubt heard that President Trump has had to dissolve two business advisory councils because of all the business leaders who left them after his awful Charlottesville remarks, but that his evangelical advisory council somehow remained intact in its wake. Well, President Trump's evangelical advisory council finally has its first defection -- in a former Clinton/Obama voter who apparently decided to leave well before Charlottesville. And dig Eric Metataxas's rubbish about not abandoning people (like the President, apparently) when they're down! Mr. Metataxas has the relationship exactly wrong: the President doesn't abandon us when we're down, but we have no such responsibility to him, as he's supposed to serve us.
Finally, President Trump draws the internet's ire for saying that our great nation needs to "heel" our divisions. Gosh, Freudian slip much? He wishes he could bring the American people to heel. As long as we draw breath, he never will.