LAT puts Preacher Wright's words in context

A headline over a piece on page A18 of today's newspaper conveys that concept. The prospect is too ridiculous to consider reading the piece. If the piece should achieve its objective it would amount to brainwashing. No thanks.

The Economist repeats misrepresentation

The latest issue of The Economist contains, in its opinion section, a reference to John McCain's remark about being in Iraq a hundred years from now. According to The Economist, "McCain has said that America must finish the job even if it lasts a hundred years." That's not what McCain said and The Economist surely knows it. If not, it ought to check before publishing a misrepresentation. Charles Krauthammer had a column on this in yesterday's WaPo which clearly states what McCain said. The Economist's editors could, and should, read the column.

LAT: McCain's appoach to economy "lackadaisical"

In a front page piece today by Maura Reynolds and Noam Levey, the LAT called McCain's approach to the economy "lackadaisical." So much for reporting the news objectively. It's no surprise that a piece co-authored by Noam Levey would contain such language. He's long been a Democrat cheer leader. Maura Reynolds has recently been following in Levey's footsteps.

LAT reports on McCain speech in Los Angeles

The LAT reports on the front page today on John McCain's speech in Los Angeles yesterday. But the LAT does not merely report. It also judges, spins, interprets and twists. Here are a few examples:

"... carefully distancing himself from President Bush and seeking to sound a moderate tone," John McCain ... -- Shouldn't the reader judge this, not the LAT? How does the LAT know what John McCain was seeking? Did the reporter ask?

"The speech showed McCain in a political pivot as he emerges from a Republican primary battle and looks ahead to a general election campaign in which he must win over independents and moderates." -- Political pivot? Isn't that a judgment call? Shouldn't the reader do the judging? Must McCain win over independents and moderates? Maybe? But is that something a LAT reporter knows or something the reporter assumes? Shouldn't a reporter get an expert's opinion on that if he wants to include it in the piece?

Are reporters told to include their own judgments in their reporting? Or are they told to report facts and observations of people they have interviewed? The latter would be preferable.

Walter Williams on Obama

In a column published today in the Orange County Register, Walter Williams says America's first black president ought to be as capable a politician as Jackie Robinson, America's first black big league baseball player, was a baseball player -- and Barack Obama isn't that good. He goes on to say, indirectly, that blacks are their own worst enemies. He argues that blacks are not being held back by white racism but by illegitimacy, ignorance and criminality. These are problems only blacks can solve, he suggests.

Whether blacks need a better black president than whites need a white one is debatable. The rest of what he says is surely true.

Climate change causes hurricanes?

In a front page article today, the LAT suggests that Katrina and other recent hurricanes were caused by global warming. Isn't this a theory that has been widely rejected?

Supremes excite LAT

The LAT is excited this morning over a decision yesterday by the U. S. Supreme Court that the LAT says "rebuffs" President Bush. Anything negative towards Bush excites the LAT. Actually, the case is less a rebuff to Bush than to "internationalist" who believe foreign law ought to be enforced by U.S. courts. The Wall Street Journal explains that in an editorial today.

Reading between the lines and engaging in a bit of speculation, it seems most likely that the Bush administration took the position it did to placate Mexico and the International Court of Justice, which ordered the action the Bush administration took. To have taken the opposite position would have exposed the U.S. to charges it thumbed its nose at U.S. treaty obligations.

LAT does opposition research for Democrats

On today's front page, the LAT publishes a hit piece on McCain alongside a puff piece on Obama. In the McCain piece, they dig up every adverse fact or rumor they can from up to 10 years ago, to make McCain look bad. The piece on Obama essentially praises him for his speech on racial issues, without pointing out the negative aspects of the speech, such as bringing his grandmother into the dispute and suggesting that Geraldine Ferraro's comments were morally equivalent to preacher Wright's rants. The Obama piece does relay the point of view of a white auto worker concerning black beneficiaries of affirmative action, which lends some balance.

Noonan loved Obama's speech

Peggy Noonan, in her column yesterday, said Obama's speech was strong, thoughtful, important and rather beautiful to read. Well, OK, that was her opinion but her opinions are becoming more and more hard to swallow. Perhaps living in New York rubs off on you, or maybe Noonan has always been a closet liberal.

What's so great about the speech? Paragraphs are short? Sentences contain subject, verb and predicate? Those are minimal standards. Obama shouldn't get special credit for good grammar.

On substance, Obama came up short. He was too easy on preacher Wright, too hard on his grandmother and Ferraro. In fact, including his grandmother in the speech was disgraceful. Obama failed to bring up black obligation -- the obligation blacks have, the same as whites, to take responsibility for their own lives, to stop being victims, to put slavery and Jim Crow behind them, to live in the present and plan for the future. Obama also didn't mention black racism, arguably a more powerful force, considering its effects, than white racism.

When Obama takes on black obligation and black racism his speeches will be worth reading.

Obama gets no bad press from LAT

A few days ago, the LAT published a front page piece that ridiculed President Bush for comments he made when he complimented Henry Paulson for the work he did over the weekend. Bush's words were not artful but they were well-meaning. Bush was simply thanking a man for the work he did, and that's appropriate.

In the LAT today, there's no mention of the words Barack Obama spoke yesterday to a radio interviewer in Philadelphia in which he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person." If Bush had referred to a "typical black person" the LAT would have splashed it all over the front page.

Debate at the Pentagon

The LAT reports today that Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are fighting over Iraq strategy. Petraeus wants to bring the troops home slowly whereas the Joint Chiefs want faster action because they think the Iraq war is stretching the Army too thin and there are other threats besides. It sounds familiar. If memory serves, Tommy Franks had a similar disagreement with the Joint Chiefs leading up to the Iraq invasion. Someone, can't remember who, told Franks he had his back. Petraeus needs the same help. Maybe it's the president who has his back. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

LAT hypes Depression, with a capital D

On the front page today, the LAT says "Depression" isn't likely. That's why they brought it up. Makes sense to the LAT.

Obama analysis

Reading more and more about Obama and his preacher makes it more and more clear that those who complain the most about racism are the most guilty of it. Obama says we must cut his preacher some slack because his rage was triggered by his experiences. More likely, his preacher needs an anger management course.

Hillary: Iraq war cannot be won

According to the LAT, the Iraq war is a war "we cannot win" but "withdrawal is not defeat." "Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years." Does she support the troops? Of course.

LAT: Critics say Bush isn't doing enough

That's the headline over a front page article in today's LAT written by Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook. The suggestion that Bush has critics isn't news and doesn't deserve front page treatment.

The article is basically a hit piece. It focuses on a few words Bush spoke yesterday while complimenting Henry Paulson on the work he put in over the weekend. The words were off-the-cuff. They may not have been artful but they aren't important either. They do not have policy implications, they do not affect world markets. But they gave Reynolds and Hook a chance to poke fun at the president and the LAT went along with it, something a more reputable newspaper probably wouldn't do.

Reynolds and Hook tout Barney Frank's views and they seem to praise others who advocate more government oversight of financial markets. Government oversight may be part of the problem.

Obama speaks

In the written version of his speach, Obama seems to defend black rage by suggesting that all Americans are enraged, blacks no more than whites, the enemy being corporations and Washington insiders. He argues that blacks are justified in believing themselves victims because of America's racial history.

Blacks were enslaved 150 years ago and they are still enslaved, he seems to say. A race does not get over slavery, he seems to argue.

Blacks were discriminated against 50 years ago, and they are still discriminated against, he argues, because of their black skin. A race does not recover from discrimination, he seems to argue.

Obama does not speak much about black obligation. He does not mention that blacks ought to get married before they have children, the same as whites should. He does not mention that if blacks are to be treated the same as non-blacks that they should behave as non-blacks do, and speak as non-blacks do.

Obama speaks of black churches. Why? Shouldn't churches be colorblind? Why should black churches be different from white churches? Why do blacks choose to attend black churches? Obama doesn't say. Perhaps the question hasn't occurred to him.

Obama paints a bleak picture of America. Nobody has health care, nobody has a job because the jobs have been shipped overseas, Obama seems to suggest. But the unemployment rate is under 5 percent. How does Obama reconcile this? He doesn't. Everybody gets health care, though some get theirs at emergency rooms. Isn't this a good thing? Obama doesn't say.

If Obama (who is only half black) is representative of blacks then race relations have a long way to go.

Petruno at work

The LAT's Tom Petruno, aka Buzzard No. 1, is in his glory now that Carlyle Capital has collapsed and Bear Stearns has been bailed out. With a few more disasters, the Buzzard's stomach may bulge to the point of grounding, but he'll be happy. If only he'd choke on the remains of these decaying corpses.

O. C. Register sounds off on Spitzer

The Orange County Register wants a congressional investigation -- of the Spitzer outing. This is not a joke. The Register says prostitution should be legal and the Mann Act shouldn't be a law and the Justice Department misbehaved, though they don't have proof or even any facts suggesting that. That's why they want Congress to investigate -- to accumulate some facts to support their theory. It's another job for Henry Waxman, the indefatigable investigator-in-chief.  

Lexington on Spitzer

Lexington of The Economist begins his or her March 15th column by trashing Eliot Spitzer, who deserves it, but then goes off on a tangent. Lexington thinks Americans are too prudish, guilty of criminalizing merely sinful behavior, with the result that bureaucrats have too much power, jails are too full, court calendars are overloaded and the FBI wastes critical resources that could be devoted to tracking down terrorists. The argument is sound but Lexington overdoes it and comes off as an America-hater, which he or she may be, given that he or she probably is a European, transplanted or not.

Spitzer discovery Bush's fault

Paul Campos, in today's Orange County Register, argues that Eliot Spitzer could have kept on doing what he was doing but for the Bush administration's inappropriate and perhaps unlawful intervention. Spitzer did nothing wrong, argues Campos, nothing serious at least. The wrong-doer, according to Campos, was the Bush administration, which brought down a leading Democrat office-holder. Campos offers no facts, only suppositions.

LAT on Fallon

The LAT editorializes this morning on the Fallon resignation, arguing that Fallon is right and Petraeus is wrong. But the LAT offers no new facts, only suppositions.

John McLaughlin: conservative

In the Orange County Register's Orange Grove column this morning, columnist Denny Freidenrich, who says he's a political consultant in Laguna Beach, CA, identifies TV talk show host John McLaughlin as a conservative. It makes you wonder who Freidenrich consults with.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

That's not for Eliot Spitzer. It's what the LAT says to President Bush this morning in an editorial. If you disagree with the LAT, that is, if you don't do what the LAT wants you to do then you are shameful, the LAT editorial seems to say. Today's subject is Bush's veto of the bill that would have outlawed waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation tactics. The LAT takes the position that it is the authority on such matters and that anyone who doesn't agree is to be shamed.

The LAT is at least consistent. It takes the same position on global warming, Iraq, Blackwater, terrorist surveillance and many other issues. Shame on anyone who doesn't agree with the LAT.

UCLA says recession unlikely

The LAT reports today that forecasters at UCLA don't think the economy is headed for a recession. Growth will slow to nearly nothing, they say, but contraction isn't likely. It sounds reasonable, unlike predictions of LAT columnists like Gosselin and Petruno who seem to pray for a depression.

Same-sex unions

In an editorial today, the LAT argues there's no difference between a same-sex union and marriage. Well, one difference is the sex of the partners. Another is that a married couple ordinarily is able to procreate, something same-sex partners can't do. If that seems elemental it's because it is. It's no help to argue, for example, that women are the same as men, or that men are the same as women. They aren't. Some things are immutable.

Samantha Powers, charismatic with sparkling intellect

The LAT today describes Samantha Powers as "charismatic" and says she has a sparkling intellect. How smart could she be? Shooting one's mouth off isn't very smart. The LAT reports she once played basketball with George Clooney. No wonder she's considered a foreign policy expert.

Market down, buzzards circle

The stock market was down yesterday -- all week actually -- and there was bad news on the jobs front. Today, the LAT's buzzards, Gosselin and Petruno, circle overhead waiting to pick the decaying flesh from the dying body of the U.S. economy. They may yet be disappointed.

Lexington analyzes Democrats

In the March 6th edition of The Economist, the Lexington columnist analyzes the two wings of the Democratic Party represented by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and guesses at the impact the contest between them for the presidential nomination could have on the party. The logic of the analysis seems reasonable and the guesses seem plausible. Is there a new columnist?

LAT says 2000 election "undemocratic"

In an editorial today, the LAT says George W. Bush "was awarded the presidency" after the 2000 election. According to the LAT, that election was "undemocratic." Though Al Gore won the popular vote he didn't become president because he lost the vote in the electoral college.

Liberals will never forgive George W. Bush for getting more votes than Gore in the electoral college. In their minds, he's illegitimate, not a real president. They can legitimately ignore him or call him any name they choose. He deserves no respect, they think.

But both candidates in the 2000 election (as in all presidential elections) knew the rules: The popular vote doesn't matter, electoral college voting does. Arguments of people who deny that deserve no respect.

Bush hatred colors LAT's judgment

A LAT editorial today properly argues that the new sanctions on Iran just passed by the U.N. Security Council will help dissuade Iran from continuing its enrichment activities. Then it argues that the Bush administration should get no credit because the U.S. didn't sponsor the Security Council resolution and besides the administration may overreact and behave in such a way that Iran may claim it's a victim of the Great Satan (something Iran will claim in any event.) Besides, the LAT says, Bush is now so weak that other Security Council members no longer fear him, as if they ever did. Now, if Bush would stop threatening Iran, the LAT says, all the other countries of the world would form a peace pact with Iran that would solve the world's problems and Ahmadenijad would turn to writing poetry and Iran's mullahs would invite the pope to say mass on a soccer field in Tehran. OK, the LAT didn't mention a peace pact, poetry or the pope. It did suggest that everything is Bush's fault, a recurring theme.

Lexington eulogizes Buckley

In the February 28th issue of The Economist, the Lexington columnist writes of William F. Buckley in a fairly balanced way, which is surprising for such a liberal columnist. Near the end of the column, however, Lexington returns to form, arguing that conservatism is lost without Buckley. Lexington isn't the first to make such an argument -- the thought is a fond hope of liberals everywhere. But repetition does not render a poor argument convincing.

LAT scoops itself

The LAT finally reports today on something it has known for two weeks or more, which is that there are sufficient votes in the House to pass the legislation that renews the Protect America Act but that Nancy Pelosi has blocked consideration of the legislation. The Speaker is blocking legislation that otherwise would already have passed and would now be law. There can only be one explanation, which is that Pelosi is protecting trial lawyers who hope to reap a bonanza suing telecoms for cooperating with the Bush administration in the terrorist surveillance program. To Pelosi, trial lawyers must be more important than protecting Americans from terrorists.

The LAT, which claims to have high standards, has shielded Pelosi from criticism by failing to report the news fully and accurately. Today, the LAT buried the news it must have felt it could no longer sit on. It's buried in a piece by Greg Miller on page A14.