LAT on Bush, et al, at the U. N.

In today's editorial, the LAT takes on President Bush's speech at the U. N. yesterday, saying the U.S. "must not only articulate but implement a global anti-poverty, anti-warming policy that compels the respect and admiration of its intended beneficiaries." Let's assume the LAT is not just cranky but really has some ideas about how to make the world better. What do they have in mind? Give money to third world countries? We already do that. Provide technical assistance? We already do that. Trade with them? We do that already. Protect them from aggressors? We've done that. Make everyone love us? That's not within our power.

Someone said recently that the U.S. has contributed more in blood and treasure to the countries of the world than any other nation in history. It's never enough. People forget. They're ungrateful. It's human nature. But the LAT editors should know better.

Government efficiency

Seattle's airport yesterday was chaotic. Potential airline passengers had to stand in a queue perhaps three football fields long to have their luggage and their bodies scanned for weapons and banned substances. This was your federal government at work. Government health care will be equally efficient if it ever comes to pass.

O. C. Register and the Orange Diocese

The Orange County Register's opinion pages today contains lots of criticism, in an opinion piece by opinion writer Steve Greenhut and in letters to the editor, of the local diocese of the Roman Catholic Church and Bishop Tod D. Brown. Greenhut and some letter writers chastise the diocese and Brown over lack of openness. In particular, they argue that Bishop Brown should have disclosed earlier that he once was accused of abusing a child in the 1970s.

Fair enough but the bishop's and the diocese's critics ought to be even handed. Greenhut ought to reveal his relationship with the Catholic Church and the identity of his sources. A principal Greenhut source is plaintiff attorney John Manley. Manley ought to disclose how much he has been paid representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against the church. Criticizing the church has become a cottage industry. Those who are making a living doing this ought to come clean.

News reporting

Reporters report what they want to hear or hear what they want to report -- and perhaps see what they want to see, and then report that. The newsmaker has a minor role -- and actual events and facts about those events have a minor role too.

That's this old fool's conclusion after seeing Petreaus and Crocker testify and seeing Bob Gates talk to Jim Lehrer last night -- and then reading the LAT reporting on same.

LAT reporter Julian Barnes reports this morning that Bob Gates hopes to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq to half present strength by the end of 2008 and says that's a more dramatic reduction than Bush has spoken of. That, Barnes says, means that Gates and Bush are not on the same page.

Everybody hopes what Gates hopes, except those who hope for a political bump from our defeat. The president probably hopes we can bring the troops home the day after tomorrow. But he and Gates and Petraeus and Crocker and everyone else who loves this country must be realistic. Half strength by the end of 2008 may not be possible.

It's risky to say what you hope if you're president of the U.S. or commander in Iraq. If what you hope doesn't happen then reporters, talking heads and political opponents will say you mislead them. Some may accuse Gates of that if troop strength in Iraq isn't down to one-half by January 2009. But he clearly expressed to Lehrer a hope, not an expectation.

Lexington

In the Sept 15th issue of The Economist, Lexington admits joining other media outlets, the Duke faculty and Duke's president in taking the wrong side in the Duke rape case. Good. But the Duke faculty has never admitted to guilt in the fiasco, according to The Economist, demonstrating the accuracy of the consensus view of university faculties, which is that they are hot-beds of political correctness gone berserk.

The Economist on Petraeus/Crocker

In its Sept. 15th issue, The Economist says Petraeus and Crocker did not wow them, Petraeus was spinning and Crocker was unconvincing except when he said that removing U.S. troops now would be disastrous for Iraq. For that reason alone, U.S. troops should remain in Iraq for now, according to The Economist.

Whatever. Wouldn't want to be optimistic. Best to be cynical and protect your rep.

Chemerinsky v Drake

In the LAT's opinion pages today, both Chemerisky and UCI's Chancellor Drake speak. Chemerinsky says the controversy is all about academic freedom and free speech. Drake says it's about an excellent university and a world-class law school. Drake is right. Chemerinsky's interests and objectives are not compatible with UCI's

LAT reporting on week's events

The LAT's reporting all this week has been about troop pullouts. Today is no exception. It's as if that's all Petraeus, Crocker and Bush have talked about all week. The WSJ picked up on that earlier this week and wrote about it in an editorial.

Victory or success

LAT reporter Doyle McManus, formerly LAT Washington bureau chief, makes a big deal this morning of the president's failure to include the term "victory" in last night's speech. It's a distinction without a difference and it makes you wonder what goes on between the ears of people like McManus and LAT editors. Is a choice of words important in reporting on the Iraq debate? It seems awfully small and simple-minded to bring it up.

Chemerinsky

UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake was right to un-hire left-wing law professor Erwin Chemerinsky after he was wrong to hire him in the first place. Chemerinsky would have been a lightning rod at UCI as a law school dean as he has become a lightning rod since the un-hiring.

Chemerinsky displayed a lack of maturity in posting a scathing attack on Alberto Gonzales in an opinion piece while he was being consider by UCI or after he had been hired. Gonzales was already dead meat. Chemerinsky didn't need to pile on. He didn't add to the debate. So why did he post the piece? Could be he's addicted to politics. Maybe he likes his name in print. Whatever the reason, it was inappropriate and immature for a prospective dean. A more serious piece on the constitution, his specialty, or law schools or a court case might have been alright.

The left-wing faculty and students at UCI, of which there are many, are demanding that Chemerinsky be re-hired. They may get their way but it would be a mistake. Better for UCI and the new law school to hire someone of stature who is non-controversial and pray that the rabble rousers get tired and go away. If they don't, it may be necessary to forget the law school for awhile.

The Economist

For a change, the Sept. 8 issue of The Economist contains some thoughtful "leaders" (editorials) -- on nuclear power, Belgium (time to call it a day,) education in Britain, subprime mortgages and America v Iran. Only in the final piece does it bad mouth President Bush, something it has done regularly recently, to excess.

LAT on Chemerinsky

The LAT editorializes today on the hiring/firing of Erwin Chemerinsky by UCI. Predictably, the LAT is fighting mad about the firing. Wonder what their position would have been if Chemerinsky had been a conservative.

The LAT also published today an opinion piece by Doug Kmiec which glowingly praises Chemerinsky and argues that UCI made a serious mistake in rescinding Chemerinsky's appointment. Kmiec's piece is the kind of piece you'd like to see liberals write occasionally.

UCI's mistake was in offering the job to Chemerinsky. There is no way they could not have known his political views before they offered him the job.

LAT on Clinton, Guiliani

On the front page today, the LAT reports positively on Clinton and negatively on Giuliani, side by side. The positioning wasn't accidental.

Dems gain ground?

LAT reporters Noam Levey (Dem propagandist) and Julian Barnes report that congressional Democrats are gaining or have gained ground in "winning significant Republican support for legislation to challenge the way President Bush is managing the war in Iraq." Levey has long been a cheerleader for congressional Democrats. It's no surprise that he's optimistic. It's also no surprise that the LAT would put that optimism in print. It doesn't make it true, however.

LAT on Thompson

LAT reporter Michael Finnegan today portrays Fred Thompson as a dishonest former lobbyist- actor who is trying to sell himself as another Davey Crockett. Apparently this means that the LAT takes him seriously as a threat to Hillary.

LAT helps Clinton campaign

The LAT today offers the everybody-does-it defense for Hillary Clinton's campaign, which is refunding $850,000 of donations raised by Norman Hsu, by reporting that other campaigns have had to return contributions from donors for various reasons, including because donors have exceeded legal limits. But no other presidential campaign has had a fugitive from justice raising money for it.

The Surge

Never at a loss for words, presidential candidate Joe Biden shot his mouth off yesterday on Meet the Press, arguing the surge has accomplished nothing. In this he is joined by such luminaries as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. What need have we of generals and ambassadors and feet on the ground in Iraq when our national legislative branch includes such all-seeing, all-knowing seers?

LAT on secrecy

Only recently, we learned that a terrorist plot in Germany was discovered as a result of U.S. intercepts of telephone and e-mail traffic between terrorists. This morning, the LAT argues in an editorial that such intercepts ought to be stopped because they're done in secret. It's the only way such intercepts can be done. If terrorists know their communications are being intercepted, they'll use other means of communicating.

Bin Laden

A Bush administration advisor argues that bin Laden is "virtually impotent." John McCain and John Kerry argue it's vitally important that he be killed or captured.

A dead bin Laden, especially if killed in a firefight or bombing, likely would be considered a martyr by his followers and by Muslims around the world. A bin Laden in captivity would tempt followers to try to free him, possibly by capturing innocents in order to negotiate a trade. A free bin Laden hiding in caves in Pakistan is no martyr and perhaps embarrasses militant Muslims throughout the world.

LAT on Petraeus/Crocker report

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are to report Monday on conditions in Iraq, both military and political. The LAT doesn't want to hear it. Instead, judging from today's editorial, the LAT wants a surrender plan -- how quick can we get out and how can we minimize casualties during withdrawal. And, the LAT warns: Don't listen to Bush.

Democrats, including the LAT, are getting desperate, fearing that Petraeus and Crocker will offer something positive.

LAT on jobs

The LAT never reported the good job growth of recent years but today reports the August decline in a headline on page 1. In a subhead, the LAT says "Democrats call for a Fed rate cut." Larry Kudlow has called for a Fed rate cut since July.

LAT reporter Peter Gosselin then reports the 81,000 downward revision for June and July and suggests that the economy was weaker then than previously thought. Maybe, but 2nd quarter GDP growth was recently revised upward to 4 percent, which is hardly recessionary.

The Petraeus Report

Democrats are anxiously trying to condition the nation to hear General Petraeus's report in the way they want it heard -- as just another of several reports containing nothing new about Iraq while reflecting Bush's view of the war's progress or lack thereof. They must do that or be rolled over like roadkill. If they expected a negative report saying the war was lost and the U.S. should quit immediately then they would be promoting the report as definitive and conclusive.

Lights out two

The temps in Southern California are back to normal but 1,300 homes are still without power. Some of those homes are served by DWP, others by SCE. It's disgusting.

Lights out

It's almost criminal that Southern California should have as many blackouts as it has had in the last week, but no one blames the power companies (LA Dept of Water & Power and Southern California Edison.) Why not?

If Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma and Palm Springs, which have daily temperatures exceeding 100 degrees in the summer, can have uninterrupted electrical power, why can't Southern California?

The power outages are mostly caused by faulty transformers, some of which are 50 or more years old. Those old transformers, besides being old, were installed at a time when the electrical load was much less that it is now. Why have those old transformers not been upgraded? Perhaps because power company management and the California Public Utilities Commission are criminally negligent.

Puzzling LAT editorial

This morning the LAT argues its a shame Washington doesn't know why Iran released two Americans it had held on trumped-up charges. A better question is why they were held in the first place. The LAT argues we'd know more if we would talk to Iran, while simultaneously admitting that Iranian politics "remains a black box."

The LAT, like most liberals, is quick to blame the U.S. when a totalitarian state behaves in an inexplicable way.

Hiltzik's news analysis

In a piece in today's Business Section labeled "News Analysis," LAT reporter Michael Hiltzik writes about Countrywide Financial's problems. He notes that Countrywide's delinquency and foreclosure rates have soared "on many Countrywide loans." Does he mean to say those rates have soared for the company as a whole or only for certain loans? It isn't clear and maybe that's what Hiltzik intended. Nowhere does he say what the rates are or were except on a graph that depicts Countrywide's "total loans pending foreclosure." The graph shows the percent of loans pending foreclosure rising from .4 in 2004 (the low point) to .74 in 2007. That's a surge but at less than one percent the high point is still very low. Certainly it isn't high enough to threaten Countrywide's existence.

It isn't clear what "news analysis" means to the LAT. Is news analysis something that belongs in the opinion section but is published elsewhere in the newspaper? Is it a piece about which the editors couldn't decide? Does it contain mostly fact and a little opinion but not much news? Only the LAT knows for sure.

LAT on Republicans

The LAT's Janet Hook this morning explains, from a liberal's perspective, how far off base the Republican presidential candidates and the GOP are. She suggests that the candidates misunderstand the mood of the country and she expresses surprise and disappointment that they continue to support Bush policies with only slight modification. She seems to think that Republican voters are nut-cases. To prove her case, she quotes a political analyst from the Brooking Institution, which she labels "centrist," who argues that the GOP must remake itself but must suffer one or two electoral defeats before it comes to realize that.

It's all quite reasonable to a liberal.

Doyle McManus

LAT reporter Doyle McManus, formerly Washington bureau chief, writes this morning about the politics of the Iraq war debate in Washington. McManus is nothing if not partisan, and he seldom includes in his work quotes from named sources. Usually he writes of things he says he knows or things he's been told by "an administration official" or " a defense department official" or just "officials." He repeats that pattern today but he's a bit less partisan and he quotes some reputable people by name, such as Dennis Ross. Still, the piece mainly repeats what has been reported already by various media outlets. It contains no revelations.

LAT on Teresa

In an editorial today, the LAT says readers of the new Mother Teresa book shouldn't be surprised that Teresa sometimes had doubts about her religion and God's existence, and shouldn't be disappointed. Teresa's doubts do not diminish Teresa's faith or her good works, say LAT editors, exhibiting rare insight -- for the LAT.