Just the facts, ma’am

"Wisconsin's polarizing union law to take effect," reads Tuesday's Associated Press flash ...

"MADISON, Wis. -- The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that his polarizing union rights law can go into effect," The AP informs us. "The law, which eliminates most of public employees' collective bargaining rights and requires them to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights."

Now, why is it when the crew at The Associated Press LIKE a law, they never seem to call it "polarizing"? How often have we seen them call a civil rights law or an ordinance promoting gay rights -- or any controversial but progressive and "politically correct" court ruling -- "polarizing"?

That's a code word, isn't it? Since only knuckle-dragging rubes can oppose "progress," their "polarization" is not worth reporting, even if they form a sullen but obedient majority. "Polarizing," clearly, is meant to be read as "offensive to the Left -- bad."

Giants of the American labor movement, from Franklin Roosevelt to George Meany, warned it would be inherently inappropriate for those working in government offices to engage in "collective bargaining," since there can be no market discipline imposed by competition on their monopoly government undertakings, no "natural predator" to curb their costly demands.

Meantime, did the controversy in question really "thrust Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights"? Does Gov. Walker intend to bring back the 60-hour week and eliminate bathroom breaks for all Wisconsin workers, including those in the private sector?

Or did this controversy, ginned up and made a national spectcale by radical leftists storming the halls of the state capitol after Democrats failed in their first tactic (fleeing the state to deprive the body of a quorum) in fact "thrust Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over UNSUSTAINABLE GOVERNMENT COSTS"?

Objective reporting of the news .. or is someone's agenda showing?