LAT reacts to Blair conversion

The LAT editorializes this morning concerning Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism. The LAT has lots to say but not much is worth reading: Something about the Church of England being established by the government contrasted with the absence of a government-established church in the U.S. proving something about John Kerry not receiving Holy Communion because he favors unrestricted abortion and that makes Mitt Romney a sinner because he wants to defeat Mike Huckabee who is a born again politician. And so on...

Medical malpractice

This morning on the front page, the LAT argues that California's $250,000 cap on pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice lawsuits ought to be raised. The LAT begins the argument by citing the case of a 72-year old woman who died following double knee replacement surgery. Her son, an anesthesiologist, tried to find lawyers to represent his family in a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and doctors who cared for her, but no lawyer would take the case because of California's cap on pain and suffering awards. The LAT fails to mention until near the end of the article that the son was searching for lawyers who would take the case on a contingent fee basis. Had he been willing to pay a lawyer for time and expenses, he surely would have found one.

The LAT takes a swipe at insurers too, arguing that insurers are raising doctors' premiums at a time when their loss payouts have declined. The LAT attributes this to insurers' "business models and financial investments" instead of their "core businesses." The LAT seems not to understand that financial investments are an essential part of an insurance company's core business.

California's cap should be raised to compensate for inflation. But even if it had been raised, no lawyer would take the case of the 72-year old woman's death on a contingent fee basis. Many will not take any case on a contingent fee basis, because it requires a commitment of capital and resources without any assurance of a satisfactory return. It requires lawyers to gamble.

The exceptions to the no-contingent-fee rule may include public interest law firms, class action law suits and law suits against the Catholic church.

Knee jerk: Blame the U.S./Bush

It was inevitable that pundits and editorial writers who work for major newspapers and television networks would respond to the Bhutto assassination by blaming Bush and the U.S. It's something such pundits and editorial writers do, even if it's illogical, as in the case of the Bhutto assassination.

There was always a risk of an assassination -- if not Bhutto then Musharaff. In that part of the world, life is cheap and dangers are many. The U.S. had to accept the assassination risk because it had no choice.

IRS delay

One of the few places in the LAT where you can find actual news and accurate information is in anything written by Kathy Kristof. Her stuff usually appears in the Business Section. Today she reports on the delays that taxpayers will suffer in 2008 when filing their income tax returns, especially taxpayers expecting a refund. The delays are the result of the late AMT fix that Congress passed last week. Pelosi and Reid were warned months ago that a late fix would cause a multitude of problems for taxpayers but they ignored the warning. They knew a fix was inevitable, because failure to fix was not an option, and they knew months ago the kind of fix they'd have to agree to. Still, they twiddled their thumbs, and ruminated, which further reinforces the proposition that Pelosi and Reid are unable to face facts.

Broder on Pelosi

David Broder is right about Nancy Pelosi. In his WaPo column today, Broder argues that Pelosi is refusing to acknowledge the mess she and other Democrats have made of their first year in control of Congress since 1994, to her and their detriment, and to the detriment of the nation. If she persists, Democrats face another year without significant achievement and possible ouster in the 2008 elections.

LAT blows poverty stat

In today's editorial on "Domestic Tranquillity," part of their "American Values" series, the LAT says that in the U.S. "60 million people survive on $7 a day." This has no foundation and on it's website, the LAT has changed the statement twice. Earlier today, the LAT preceded the statement with a qualifying phrase such as "some have said" or "some say." Later, the qualifying phrase was removed.

The source of the statement is Global Research.ca, an "alternative news" radical left-wing Canadian website, which claims that a 2004 analysis by the U. S. Census Bureau reached that conclusion. But nothing similar appears on the Census Bureau's website. Instead, the facts appearing on the Census Bureau website rebut the Global Research claim.

Be very careful about the "facts" cited in LAT editorials.

LAT tries Kerry rehab

The LAT this morning reports on John Kerry's crushed dream of being president of the United States. He was so close, the LAT suggests, it's a shame he didn't make it. And, the LAT seems to suggest there's still time.

But Kerry was a failed candidate, a pretender and a fact manipulator. He was from the wrong part of the country and was saddled with the wrong political philosophy. Kerry will have a chance when the LAT returns to it's roots, which means his chances are slim and none.

LAT ignores Christmas

The LAT this morning fails to mention Christmas in today's editorial. Instead, it seems the editors intentionally avoided mentioning it, as if were a disease or a profanity. Rather than celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ today, the LAT suggests, people should celebrate that they have a day off from work. It's the LAT's way of sticking a finger in the eye of religious people.

Register likes Paul

Judging from today's editorial, the libertarian O. C. Register is atwitter about Ron Paul, who they call Dr. Paul. You can't blame them. He's the only libertarian candidate ever who stands to get more than a smattering of votes in a primary or general election.

LAT touts "hate" crime bill

The LAT editorializes this morning in favor of "hate" crime legislation, which would provide stiffer punishment for crimes against gays and lesbians than crimes against heterosexuals. This is a snake pit. Why should crimes against any segment of the population justify greater punishment than crimes against any other? Are we not all equal in the eyes of the law?

If there are more crimes against blacks than non-blacks, should crimes against blacks be punished more severely? If here are more crimes in New Jersey, say, than Alabama, should crimes in New Jersey be punished, under federal law, more severely? Shouldn't federal law apply equally in all the States? If a gay is robbed and a straight murdered, should the robbery be more severely punished?

Who or what is a gay? A lesbian? Is there a blood test that proves gayness? A urinalysis? Is a gay one who has engaged in homosexual acts? One who has homosexual tendencies? One who feels homosexual? Is a bi-sexual a gay or lesbian? A transsexual? Can a criminal know by looking? If a crime is committed against a gay who was thought to be straight, is that a hate crime? Suppose the victim is straight but thought to be gay, is that a hate crime?

Amity Shlaes: Deal or no deal

In the O. C. Register opinion pages today, Bloomberg columnist Amity Shlaes argues that in business there are two kinds of people: deal people and price people. She says deal people are bad and price people are good, because only they put a price on things and price is essential.

Every columnist needs an attractive sounding (read eye-catching) theory, else they can't get in print. That's Shlaes' theory. It's only a theory. A columnist's theory doesn't have to be valid, only attractive. That's what Shlaes' theory is: attractive, not valid.

It isn't valid first because it's silly to try to divide business people into just two categories. They can be smart or dumb, wealthy or poor, successful or not, well educated or poorly, self-made or silver-spooned. They may come from marketing, manufacturing or finance. Some have had no background in business and no business training yet have been unbelievably effective. Bill Gates would be an example.

The distinction between deal and price is a false one. Prices are arrived at by deals: Seller has something to sell, buyer wants to buy. They agree on a price or there is no deal. The price of the deal includes all the add-ons and supplementals, like guarantees, terms and promises, some implied, some explicit. Every buyer and seller is concerned about all aspects of the deal -- price and other aspects -- and underlying every deal is supply and demand. Every consumer understands supply and demand because every consumer experiences it every time he or she visits the grocery store or the gas station. If tomatoes are plentiful, the price is lower. If tomatoes are scarce, the price is higher. The same with gasoline.

This has been understood since Adam Smith, and surely before. Amity Shlaes hasn't invented something new.

What Shlaes was trying to say, presumably, is that she doesn't want government putting it's finger on the scale, influencing the deal in favor of one party to the deal or the other. In this she has a point. Government shouldn't interfere with market forces, but it often does. In fact, it most often does. Mostly, government does it because somebody insists on it. People aren't patient. They want what they want and they want it now. So they put pressure on the government to act, and it often does, often not wisely.

Shlaes is wrong about the Bush plan (or more properly the Paulson plan.) In the Bush/Paulson plan, government has not put it's finger on the scale. The plan is voluntary. Investors and loan servicers don't have to participate unless they want to, and many have chosen to. What's in it for them? They avoid having to foreclose on some loans. Foreclosure is expensive. If a way can be found that enables a borrower to make payments on a loan instead of defaulting, and the loan eventually gets paid off and the lender gets a reasonable return, then both sides are better off. (Incidentally, business people measure return after eliminating sunk costs. Sunk costs are spilt milk. In making decisions about what to do next, business people measure return based on present value, today's value, not original cost. There is no point in crying over spilt milk, or sunk costs.) Business people make these kinds of deals all the time.

Shlaes seems to be concerned that the value (price) of some subprime loans or packages of loans may not be determinable now. The market (buyers and sellers) will decide that. Shlaes needs to be patient.

McManus trash

Doyle McManus writes his opinion of Republican presidential candidates and the LAT puts it on today's front page. Trash like that ought to be in the opinion section.

McManus tries to draw a distinction between the Republican presidential candidates and President Bush on foreign policy and national security, but the differences are slim and none. Huckabee tried to put some daylight between himself and Bush but got slapped down for it.

The big differences are between Republicans, who believe in a strong military and vigorous foreign policy, and Democrats, who believe in a weak military, an accommodating foreign policy and surrender in Iraq. McManus could have written about that. In any case, his column should have appeared on the opinion pages.

California jobs

The LAT reports today that California's payrolls grew by just 900 last month. Economist are pessimistic about 2008 according to the LAT. Why not raise taxes?

Dixon on Zimbabwe

LAT reporter Robyn Dixon writes in a column-one story of the disaster that is Zimbabwe. It's a fascinating piece and a must-read. Dixon is a gutsy women. Entering Zimbabwe is not something many people would do, because it's dangerous, as Nazi Germany was dangerous. Robert Mugabe should be tried for crimes against humanity but world leaders don't seem to care. Read Dixon's piece.

California budgeting

The LAT reports this morning that the governator will announce on January 10th severe budget cuts necessitated by a projected $14.5 billion deficit. Only days ago the California Assembly approved a plan to add $14 billion to the budget for a state universal health care plan. It's always easy to increase expenditures but never possible to reduce them. Democrats in the California legislature most likely don't plan to reduce them. They plan to raise taxes instead, but there's a diminishing return. The higher you raise taxes, the less they return because people find ways to avoid them, like by moving out of state.

Harry on the NewsHour

Harry Reid appeared tonight on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and lied, misrepresented and postured throughout the interview. He is the worst possible representative for Congressional Democrats, aside from Nancy Pelosi, because he can't speak without whining. To hear Harry tell it, everybody was out of step except him. If President Bush and Congressional Republicans had agreed with him and done what he wanted, there would have been no disputes and they would have gotten a lot done. At no point in the interview did Harry admit that he must compromise with Republicans in the new year if it is to be different from 2007. Harry believes that bipartisanship is where he gets his way and other people give him what he wants. This year has taught him nothing.

Nearly as bad as Harry was Mark Shields, who followed Harry with David Brooks. Shields sees 2007 the same way Harry Reid does. If it wasn't for President Bush and Congressional Republicans,  a lot of things would have gotten done. 

Shields loves Mike Huckabee -- he has done great beating those terrible other Republican candidates without any money. Most likely, Shields loves Huckabee because he'll be easier for Hillary or Obama to beat than Romney or McCain.

Snippy editorial from LAT

In a snippy editorial today, the LAT criticizes the Bush administration because Attorney General Mukasey wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying he wasn't going to share certain documents. Yesterday, President Bush said that the administration will cooperate with Congress in the CIA tapes investigation. The two things aren't necessarily contradictory but the LAT went on the attack anyway, suggesting Mukasey is getting his comeuppance. Why the rush to pronounce sentence? Why does the LAT not offer something positive? Is there something that the LAT wants to see done? Or does the LAT just want to bitch?

LAT reviews politics in 2007

LAT reporter Janet Hook this morning reviews the 2007 contests between President Bush and the Democratic Congress and pronounces Mr. Bush the winner hands down. She writes as though it was surprising, but it wasn't. Anyone who thought that Democrats could run the government from Congress with a small House majority and a razor-thin one in the Senate either had poor judgment or was smoking or drinking something hallucinatory.

Democrats have claimed all year that they had a mandate. A 51-49 margin in the Senate is gridlock, not a mandate. Worse, they behaved all year as if they had a mandate, sending up pointless resolutions and dead-on-arrival legislation. Their behavior was irrational. It is not possible to negotiate with an irrational person or party, which explains why President Bush and Congressional Republicans could not negotiate with them.

Democrats took unnecessary swipes at the president all year, at times ridiculing him and sometimes threatening him. This was pointless and irrational. It is stupid to insult someone and then offer to negotiate with him or her.

Democrats have behaved stupidly and irrationally all year. They should install new leaders for the new year, leaders who are rational and experienced and mature and intelligent. But leaders of that kind might not be able to get elected in an irrational party.

LAT: What this country needs is more enviro-nuts

The LAT argues today's in an editorial (part of its "American values" series) that Democrats are good because they agree with the Sierra Club but Republicans are bad because they don't. Sadly, the Sierra Club believes in taking private property without due process. The Sierra Club is sort of an environmental Gestapo. The LAT says Republicans are split on environmental issues because of evangelical Christians, who are among the LAT's favorite targets.

Levey laments AMT fix

Democrat propagandist Noam Levey of the LAT reports today on the AMT fix that Congress voted yesterday, but clearly he's disappointed. The fix was available any time this year but Democrats refused to face the fact they had only a one vote margin in the Senate. So they stupidly kept sending up dead-on-arrival bills, wasting time, generating hard feelings and causing IRS to print millions of forms containing pre-fix rules. Besides which they caused a delay in re-programing IRS computers so that IRS will not be able to timely process tax returns that are filed early. IRS warned about this before Thanksgiving but arrogant Democrat congressional leaders paid no attention and instead kept on fantasizing about a miracle victory over Republicans.

It's been like that all year with Democrats -- thinking they could force things they didn't have the votes to force. Repeating the same mistake and expecting a different result each time suggests at least a mental disability if not insanity.

LAT touts CA health plan

The LAT editorializes this morning in favor of a plan that passed the California Assembly to place on the ballot a proposition which, if successful, would authorize a state run health plan to provide health insurance coverage for some Californians who don't already have it. The main problem is it will cost $14 billion a year and the only way to raise that is with a tax increase, mostly on businesses, as if Californians were not already taxed enough. And, California's 2007-2008 budget already has a $14 billion hole in it.

Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the governor, nominally a Republican, sides with Democrats. Therefore, the proposition will surely make the ballot, presumably next November.

Democrats, like other socialists, believe in compelling people to do things, which means the plan will have lots of costly mandates. The people who will be forced to pay will not be the people who will benefit from the plan. Since there will be more of the latter than the former, the plan could well pass, with the result that more businesses will leave the state and many high earners will too. Will enough remain in California to pay the additional $14 billion? That is the question.

LAT discusses finance

As part of its "American Values" series of editorials, the LAT today writes concerning the federal budget, taxation, the value of the dollar and Social Security. Today's editorial is less a liberal screed than previous editorials in the series. Today's editorial even makes some good points. But it makes some bad ones as well. Speaking generally, the LAT believes more in government than it should. Government cannot make your life perfect, it can only screw it up. Some government is necessary. The LAT just wants more than is wise.

O. C. Register sounds off on torture

The O. C. Register is excited today about the destruction of the CIA tapes, which is OK if the thing isn't blown out of proportion. (After all, it's just video tape. People can and will imagine what was on the tapes, but then what?)

The Register then moves on to discussing torture and interrogation techniques, arguing against torture and in favor of a public debate about techniques, which would be stupid. Interrogation techniques are useless unless the person being interrogated is in the dark about what interrogators might do to him or her. If it's all discussed publicly, terrorists will know the tactics in advance and that will makes them useless.

Goldberg on Clintons

Jonah Goldberg writes today on the LAT opinion page describing the Clintons -- Bill and Hill -- as he sees them. Although he doesn't use the word "buffoon," he describes Bill as one, and he's right. How a nation as great as ours could elect a buffoon as president puzzles, but ours did.

Democrats overseas

What is it about Democrat former presidents and vice-presidents who feel perfectly comfortable criticizing their own country when outside the United States? Who are they appealing to and for what reason? Do they get some kind of reward for trashing their own country? A pat on the back from Europeans? Environmentalists? Socialists? Is it about money? They sell books by selling out their county?

It's like trying to entertain friends and impress strangers by revealing your family's skeletons. Respectable people don't do it but Al and Jimmy do.

LAT takes aim at Romney

The LAT appears to have picked Mitt Romney as the likely Republican presidential nominee because they've published hit pieces on him two days running. Today's is about how Romney legally utilized Caribbean tax havens to minimize U.S. taxes both for himself and investors. 

Pelosi: deer in the headlights

Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared on the NewsHour last night and more than once had that "deer in the headlights" look on her face. And she told some whoppers. She insists that the American people want congressional Democrats to keep sending up bills that have no chance. For what purpose? 

Pelosi and the other congressional Democrats are like a drunk behind the wheel insisting he can drive. Everybody else can see how dangerous it is, but not the drunk.

Justice

The LAT editorializes this morning on justice, arguing (1) that it is just to consider crimes against some citizens as deserving of greater punishments than similar crimes against other citizens and (2) that it is just for Supreme Court justices (or potential ones) to predetermine the outcomes of issues brought or to be brought before the court prior to hearing arguments.

Under a LAT judiciary, the rape of a mature lesbian would call for more severe punishment than the rape of a young girl.  And the killer of a healthy baby would go free so long as that baby had not yet inhaled a breath of air at the time of its death.

Irresistable force, immovable object

Both WaPo and WSJ have pieces in today's newspapers about intra-party fighting between House and Senate Democrats. Democrats brought this upon themselves by overestimating their strength and underestimating Republican congressional opposition and President Bush. The intellect of Democratic congressional leaders must be questioned. The likely outcome of nearly every Democrat congressional initiative in the past year has been clear from its beginning. If a leader persists in producing legislation that he or she knows cannot possibly get enacted, that leader's intellect must be questioned. Democrats gain nothing from persistent defeat, which is what they've experienced all year.

Some argue that Democrats are compelled to introduce legislation they know can't be enacted so as to please MoveOn.org and other parts of their base. From news reports, it appears that their base is no happier with them than anyone else. The Democrat leadership needs new blood and a new approach.

LAT editorial series

The LAT has published two of its so-called "American values series" editorials and today publishes a few letters from readers in response. Naturally, favorable responses got published three times as often as negative ones. Here's a negative one: The editorials are pompous, the issues are a litany of liberal dogma and the arguments are poorly reasoned.

WSJ on GAAP

The WSJ editorializes today on GAAP, that serpent's nest of incomprehensible rules that U.S. companies and auditors must comply with if they are to be considered as reporting "in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards." The WSJ argues that international rules ought to be adopted and U.S. rules scrapped. They could not be more right.

How today's U.S. rules came to be is a puzzle. A board was formed years ago to handled all this but it immediately got off on the wrong track, issuing such detailed rules that a Philadelphia lawyer could not interpret them with any decree of confidence. 

This led to even more detailed rules, to interpret the former rules, and these new rules were even more detailed and they needed even more interpretation. This path led to madness, which required new rules, which had to be interpreted too. And then loopholes had to be closed, and that required more new rules, and so on, ad infinitum. Today, the original goals of rules based accounting have been all but lost, and accounting theory, applied using judgment, has been forgotten.

Market down, worms out

The Dow was down nearly 300 points yesterday. Today the worms appeared in the LAT business section. It was predictable -- not the Dow, the worms.

One of the worms is Tom Petruno. He always appears following a sizable market drop. Peter Gosselin is another, though he doesn't appear as often as Petruno. Maura Reynolds is the other.

LAT on "life"

Today, the LAT editorializes for unrestricted abortion, against capital punishment, for monkeying with embryonic stem cells and cloning, and, presumably, for euthanasia. The sole underpinning for these positions cited by the LAT was "rights" -- the right to live, to die, to be free, to pursue happiness -- not that these rights are God-given, according to the LAT.

But the LAT seems confused about some of these things. Take the abortion question, for example. The LAT says every woman has the right to kill her unborn child. But doesn't that violate the child's right to life?

The LAT says the state doesn't have the right to execute people for crimes. Why not? The LAT doesn't say.

Scientists ought to have the right to experiment with embryonic stem cells and, eventually, to use them to clone or genetically modify human beings, because that could lead to less disease and better human beings. Why should this be permitted? Because humans are free, apparently, or because the idea is modern, the LAT seems to say.

The LAT cannot be accused of philosophical consistency.

Budgeting

Democrat propagandist Noam Levey spins in today's LAT the problems that Congressional Democrats are having trying to pass a budget for the fiscal year that began last October 1 as a Bush problem. But the central problem is that Democrats spent all their legislative days last summer playing games: trying to pass non-binding resolutions, investigating endlessly. Now they argue that President Bush should just give them what they want.

Democrats have overplayed their hand since they came into the majority in 2006. They have only a one vote margin in the Senate but they behave as if their margin is far larger. With a one vote margin, the majority needs to be realistic and work with the minority to get things done. Harry Reid has never tried that. Instead, he has alienated Congressional Republicans and President Bush with unnecessary harsh words.

The LAT's perfect union

The LAT editorializes this morning that what this country needs is a more perfect union. By that, they mean a union where men can marry men and women women -- and perhaps dogs and horses and whatever else one chooses. The LAT's "perfect"union would not be religious, and any reference to a Creator would apparently need to be deleted from our founding documents, or at the very least ignored. Accordingly, when Jefferson wrote that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights he misspoke, or miswrote. The LAT would re-write that, and does, by arguing that all human beings are created equal, by whom they don't say.

The LAT sees this nation as needing a lot of perfecting. They propose to tell us how in a series of editorials.

Levey on the AMT

Democrat propagandist Noam Levey has apparently become the LAT's AMT expert, for he writes a Q&A on the subject in today's newspaper. It's a non-technical Q&A, as might be expected, but it also is a pro-Democrat one, as might be expected.

Levey describes Republicans as "fiercely" resisting Democrat efforts to raise taxes on some people to give a tax break to others. The "others" that the Democrats have targeted are people who probably vote Republican, but Levey doesn't acknowledge that.

Levey seems to think it's OK to raise taxes on one group of taxpayers in order to give a tax break to a different group. He justifies that by arguing that the targeted group are wealthy and, in his opinion, pay too little. If you were a member of that group, how would you feel about that?

Steyn agrees with LAT

Mark Steyn thinks as poorly of the Bush/Paulson subprime mortgage fix as the LAT does. They're both wrong.

Steyn seems to think the plan isn't optional, that loan servicers and investors were forced to go along with the plan and therefore that the U.S. is going to hell in a hand basket. But loan servicers and investors agreed to the plan according to reports.

Steyn is concerned about government negating contracts, or at least amending them, by fiat. But that's not what happened.

Perhaps it's weird to people who have always been journalist, but business men and women change contracts and compromise promises all the time. Business people do what is in their interest. If a customer buys 100 widgets and can't pay for them all, business people try to work something out -- give the customer more time to pay, cut the price a little or whatever. If you force the customer into bankruptcy you may get nothing or nearly nothing. It's often to your advantage to help your customer survive.

It's the same with subprime mortgages. If the mortgage holder forces the borrower into bankruptcy, he or she loses a lot. If the holder enables the borrower to stay in the home and continue making payments then the holder loses less. Why would the holder not take the deal that minimizes his or her losses?

Another investigation

The clamor for another investigation -- on the CIA tapes this time -- is tiresome. Congressional Democrats have devoted a year so far to investigations of one sort or another and have little to show for it.  This devotion to investigating instead of doing what Congress is supposed to do, like pass appropriation bills, seems an irresistible compulsion, one that could result in election defeat for Democrats next November. What is the likely outcome of the investigation currently being clamored for? Someone could be embarrassed (besides the Democrat Congress) and someone could lose his or her job. Nothing more is likely to happen. So why waste time and resources on a likely dead end? It's politics.

Petruno says Bush plan won't work

LAT columnist Tom Petruno, who has predicted market collapse all during the boom that began in 2003 and has continued since, now argues that the new subprime mortgage plan introduced this week by President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson has no chance. Investors are too greedy and will not do what they agreed to do, he seems to suggest. Therefore, the plan will collapse, like the market has apparently. Presumably, Petruno thinks government mandates, with penalties for failure to comply, are necessary to make bad old investors do what is in their interests. It's in the liberal soul: government must make rules and assess penalties.

LAT nitpicks Romney's speech

Perhaps it's a measure of the effectiveness of Romney's speech that the LAT editorial page editors feels the need to nitpick Romney's speech, finally calling Romney's statements contortions and suggesting they were intended to cover all the political bases. Then the LAT takes a swipe at Republican evangelicals, calling them hyper-politicized. This editorial is an embarrassment to the LAT. Evangelicals are no more hyper-politicized than many groups in the U.S., including gays and lesbians, blacks and Hispanics, unions, environmentalists and many others. Romney's speech was well written, sometimes even elegant, and well planned, which is why the LAT had to nitpick.

LAT on Romney's illegal gardeners

In a piece today, the LAT reports on illegals who worked for a landscape contractor who maintained Romney's lawns. In an exchange with reporters, Romney seems to get the better of it. Interestingly, the newspaper refers to these workers as illegal immigrants. In other stories they usually call them undocumented workers. Get it? Illegal for Romney, undocumented otherwise.

Congressional investigations

The Democrats are screaming for new investigations concerning the CIA tapes. It beats doing budgets and AMT legislation.

LAT digs dirt on Huckabee

LAT investigative reporter Richard Serrano reports today on dirt he has dug up on Mike Huckabee, GOP presidential candidate. That should have been predictable for two reasons: Huckabee is a leading candidate now and Serrano is a dirt digger, a biased one. For several years he tried to dig up dirt on various Republicans in an effort to support the fantasies of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, unsuccessfully.

Lexington vamps for McCain

The Economist's Lexington argues this week that John McCain should be the GOP's presidential nominee but the reasons Lexington gives for liking McCain are precisely the reasons he isn't the leading GOP candidate. They include McCain's position on immigration, campaign finance reform, global warming, business regulation and taxation. Lexington's McCain advocacy suggests he or she is out of touch with Republican points of view.

Petruno surprises

The LAT's Tom Petruno, who never reports when the market rises, did so today though the Dow was up 175 points yesterday. Will wonders never cease?

LAT's further take on subprimes

In the business section today, the LAT says "mortgage relief program a slap in the face to some." No good deed goes unpunished at the LAT.

LAT on subprime mortgage plan

The LAT's front page report on the plan announced yesterday to stall subprime mortgage resets beginning in 2008 is captioned "No silver bullet for borrowers." The subcaption reads "The Bush plan helps only a subset of struggling homeowners." It seems the LAT's message was "Don't read this. This plan won't help."

LAT on Romney's speech

The LAT's description of Mitt Romney's speech yesterday in College Station, Texas doesn't describe the actual words of the speech or the apparent meaning of those words in any adequate way. It does, however, include quotes from people the LAT chose, apparently because they reflected poorly on the speech.

In truth, the speech was extremely well written and at times was elegant. Romney deserves credit for the quality of the speech but he will not get it from the LAT.

Separately, the LAT attempts to explain the Mormon faith and how it differs from Christianity. The explanation does not enlighten much.

Petruno missing

The Dow was up yesterday by nearly 200 points. Where is Petruno of the LAT?

LAT editorializes on NIE

LAT editorial writers can't decide what to say about the NIE and Iran except that Bush and Cheney are bad. The LAT takes all sides on the issue and at one point says Bush is correct, but that was both before and after they said he was wrong.

NIE on Iran

The LAT has a piece in today's newspaper, by lined Greg Miller, on the intelligence agencies' flip flop on Iran. It's based mostly on anonymous sources so it's any one's guess how reliable it is. Still, it doesn't appear to be biased in any particular direction. It does leave the impression that the intelligence agencies don't know which end is up. One source in the piece said the recent report may be an indication of a pendulum swing, from overstatement of threats during the lead up to the Iraq war to understatement now. If that's the case, the NIE may be worthless. Whatever happened within the agencies, the flip flop does not inspire confidence in the NIE.

Levey is back

The LAT's Noam Levey, Democrat propagandist-in-chief, absent recently, alleges this morning in the newspaper that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility while Republicans are the party of tax cuts. True in part but mostly untrue. Democrats hardly ever reduce spending and, in fact, consistently argue for government to do more, which means that government under Democrats has a constant need to raise taxes. Republicans, historically, have pushed for government to do less, to leave people alone, to stay out of there lives as much as possible. Republicans believe that government takes too big a chunk of people's income. It naturally follows that Republicans would push for lower taxes.

Negotiations on the AMT triggered Levey's piece. The AMT should never have been in the tax statutes. Most people agree with that. It could be argued that the federal government has been collecting an unlawful tax since 1969 -- well, perhaps not unlawful but surely mistaken. It should simply stop doing that -- collecting the AMT. If that means that expenditures must be reduced to prevent further increasing the deficit then Congress should get busy. The Democrats always argue for increases in taxes to offset the reduced revenue after AMT reform. Stalemate results and the AMT lives on.

LAT pro-Obama, anti-Giuliani

The LAT editorializes this morning about a supposed e-mail campaign that charges Barack Obama is a closet Muslim. It claims that Fox News repeated a false report that Obama once attended for four years in Indonesia a madrasa, or Islamic school. The LAT claims it knows the report is false because CNN said it is. But CNN has a reputation for false reporting.

In a separate editorial, the LAT argues that Rudolph Giuliani stretches the truth. The LAT knows this because the NYT said so. But the NYT is just as biased as CNN and the LAT.

On bloggers

The O.C. Register's Commentary section today has a piece by a guest columnist named Peter Sheer that argues bloggers ought to reveal themselves instead of posting anonymously. The writer has a point but misses another: It's dangerous to reveal yourself. Who's to say an angry reader won't hunt you down and try to kill you? Many years ago that might have been unthinkable. Nowadays, it's a reality.

LAT on Huckabee

In an apparent shift in tactics, the LAT reports today on Mike Huckabee, another GOP presidential candidate, and has some good words about him, like he's not a real Republican because some of his ideas are not reactionary.

LAT praises GOP presidential candidate, finally

Today, the LAT finally has some good things to say about a GOP presidential candidate. But it's Ron Paul, the candidate least likely to win the GOP nomination. The LAT must have felt safe.