PBS defends Obama

Last night, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS sought to "correct" a McCain commercial on Obama's failure to visit injured American servicemen and women at a military hospital in Germany. McCain's commercial charges that Obama could have visited the hospital but chose not to and went to a gym instead. The ad says Obama didn't go because cameras couldn't accompany him. McCain says he would have gone without the cameras.

The NewsHour didn't merely question whether the ad was accurate but specifically said it wasn't. Judy Woodruff said "It's not true." She was backed up by Brooks Jackson of Factcheck.org who, under questioning from Woodruff, seemed to agree with Woodruf that the ad wasn't accurate. Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, who also appeared on the segment, was more objective and carefully related what both campaigns have alleged.

It isn't clear which version of events, McCain's or Obama's, is accurate but the NewsHour should have been more careful about taking sides on this. More important, the NewsHour should explain why it chose to make this a part of last night's show. Woodruff said the ad has appeared on television only a few times. Given that, why was it important enough to be discussed on last night's show? Surely, there were other, more newsworthy subjects they could have explored. Surely the NewsHour wasn't taking a shot at McCain's campaign.

LAT: U.S. among "the world's most disreputable nations"

A favorite liberal theme appeared in a LAT editorial today on capital punishment, cited in the heading above. Capital punishment ought to be banned in the U.S., the LAT argues, because it's a "moral abomination" and a "stain" on this nation.

"Moral abomination" tells us very little. "Disreputable" and "stain" are inappropriate because they're untrue. Use of these words amounts to name calling, not argument.

The LAT ought to say that capital punishment, like abortion, is wrong because it involves the taking of a human life which is precious and sacred because it is God-given, even if the life has been poorly lived. Humans haven't the right to terminate human life. Only God has that right.

On a practical level, capital punishment is unnecessary. Killers can be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, which may be tougher for the criminal and which protects society as well as capital punishment does.

LAT reorganizes

Sunday's edition of the LAT included a spadea announcing a shuffling of newspaper parts and a reorganization of the whole. On the front, a statement by editor Russ Stanton tried to sell the changes to readers. In the first sentence of that statement, curiously repeated in a side bar, Stanton said the LAT needs to satisfy online and other readers of the newspaper by delivering "news and other information that is unique, far-reaching and indispensable."

All media outlets report the same news, more or less. The LAT is unlikely to provide news that is unique unless they make it up. "Far-reaching" is a nebulous term that means whatever one wants it to mean. Not much news is "indispensable" and besides it has a short shelf life. Rather than aim at providing news that is "unique, far-reaching and indispensable" the LAT would do well to offer news that is timely, accurate and balanced.

LAT adores Chemerinsky

A LAT editorial today argues that UCI's new law school dean, the ultra-liberal Erwin Chemerinsky, "has assembled a list of 18 sterling academics and others" to staff the new law school. Of the first 12 appointed, 10 were women and one of those was Chemerinsky's wife. The LAT doesn't tell us who the other six are.

LAT: Obama trip proves Bush a loser

As if it matters, the LAT's Paul Richter writes this morning that Obama's reception in Europe has given President Bush "heartburn." "The tour has brought into focus how world leaders already are positioning themselves for a new American president," Richer says.

Any leader who may need to deal with a visiting leader in the future will treat that visitor well. What does it cost? Not much. What would Sarkozy or any other European gain by treating Obama poorly? Why would a European leader take that risk?

Europeans leaders are not taking sides in the American election. They dare not. They must work with whomever is elected. They do not love Obama. They do not hate Bush or McCain. To them, its strictly business.

Lexington thinks Obama did well on his trip

Well, OK, Obama drew a large crowd in Germany, but other politicians have done that -- Adolph Hitler comes to mind. David Brooks had it about right on tonight's NewsHour on PBS when he said that Obama spoke platitudes and not much else. It's Obama's specialty. The constant repetition of "change" is sickening because it has no meaning. It's puzzling that so many people hear what Obama says and think he's different -- brighter, smarter, more well-meaning or whatever. Obama is a politician like the rest, maybe a little smoother than the others but no more likely to be a competent president. He's so inexperienced, so untested, that voting for him would be like drawing to an inside straight.

But Obama's the only liberal running who has a chance to win. Lexington is a liberal. Therefore, Lexington likes Obama.

Gosselin calls Paulson a socialist

Not really, though LAT socialistic economics writer Peter Gosselin does suggest that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has given up on free market principles and has become an interventionist, which Gosselin sees as akin to becoming a socialist.

Obama draws large German crowd

Is it only old people who may notice the similarity between Obama's crowd and those of Adolph Hitler when he spoke in the 1930s and 1940s?

LAT: Barr could hurt McCain

Once again, the LAT has come up with something, a figment actually, that might make McCain's campaign pointless. This time it's Bob Barr. What will they think up next?

V-day all around

That's the title of today's LAT editorial on Iraq, which argues for a "phased withdrawal" from Iraq "under at least a vague timetable." There they go again with that word: "timetable."

The left-winger argument for getting out of Iraq immediately has always been irrational. Obama couldn't defend it so he changed it to 16 months, hoping to make it seem rational. It's more rational now but still not entirely rational because it ignores that unforseen events may intervene and make following the plan dangerous. A withdrawal plan that is not flexible and does not take into account the possibility of unforseen events is not a practical plan.

Victory in Iraq now seems nearly certain. The Iraqis seem nearly able to govern and defend themselves. If progress continues, the probability that conditions will reverse becomes less and less likely. As that probability declines, our troops should be sent home -- gradually. If most forces are out in 16 months, wonderful. If they are able to come home sooner, more wonderful. If a slower withdrawal is necessary because of events in Iraq then so be it. Nobody can know now exactly how long troop withdrawal will take but everyone should be able to agree that it should happen as fast as is reasonably possible.

LAT's new theory

The LAT argues today that these may be the good old days of oil supply, that there's nothing ahead but shortened supply and increased demand. All the easy-to-get-at oil has been found and is being taken. The rest will be prohibitively expensive.

It sounds like an argument for wind and solar power. It ignores that there are known deposits that have never been touched (as in ANWR.)

O. C. Register reports on the pope's Australia visit

The Orange County Register published a piece on its front page today about the approximately 300 Orange County students who went to Australia to take part in World Youth Day and to see and hear Pope Benedict. The article, by Eric Carpenter, included several inspiring quotes from participants there.

LAT offers small fix for large goof

On Sunday, the LAT reported in large headlines that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki now agrees with Barack Obama on the need to pull American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months. The LAT's report was based on a Maliki interview by a German newsmagazine. Maliki later said he was misquoted because of an error in translation.

This morning the LAT attempted to correct the record by including in an article about Obama's visit to Afghanistan a statement that Maliki was "scrambling ... to clarify" what he had told the German magazine. On the back page of its front section, the LAT printed a headline reporting that Maliki now says he was misquoted.

UCI "dream team" law faculty

The LAT reports today that the radical left-wing Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UCI's (University of California Irvine's) new law school, has hired a "dream team" of law professors. The new law school will begin classes in September 2009. The LAT does not mention that eight of the ten "dream team" members are women, although it does report that one of the women is Chemerinsky's wife. One of the two men is a former LAT reporter. Will most men not work for Chemerinsky? Is he biased in favor of women? Has he engaged in nepotism? What gives here?

LAT: Housing crisis a test for McCain

The LAT argues this morning that the housing crisis, by which the LAT means the crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is a test for John McCain. Doesn't it test us all? Why McCain more than Obama? The LAT is accustomed to ginning up tests for McCain and putting them on the front page but ignoring tests for Obama like the ones he'll face as he visits Iraq and Afghanistan.

California jobless rate hits 6.9 percent

The LAT reports this morning that California's jobless rate hit 6.9 percent in June, up a tenth of one percent from May's rate. The Dems in California's legislature have a solution to this problem: raise taxes on the rich, the kind of people who hire other people. The rich have their own solutions to what Dems propose, including cutting payroll and putting more people out of work, moving their businesses out of state or simply leaving the state entirely for a more economically friendly place to live, where the lunatic fringe are not in charge.

LAT reports on California taxes

The LAT published a balanced piece today by Evan Halper on the proposal of Democrat legislators to raise the top state individual income tax bracket to 12 percent, the highest in the nation. California already leads the nation in this, with Rhode Island second.

The LAT presents the arguments of both sides in a balanced way and does not take a position in Halper's piece, which is refreshing. This is what newspapers should do in reporting the news.

Bloggers are different and this blogger has an opinion. The Dems are crazy if they think their plan will work. Rich people aren't stupid. Chances are they'll find a way to legally avoid paying the new high rates by, for example, leaving the state or not coming in or sheltering their income in some legal way. The tax increase will not produce the revenues that Dems promise. It's a good bet that Dems know that and don't care. They just want to be seen as sticking it to the rich.

Gosselin speaks for socialism

LAT staff writer Peter Gosselin, a left-wing economics reporter, argues today that the era of Americans' belief in free markets may be ending. He argues that because of recent events like the collapse of Bear Stearns and IndyMac, the bear market in equities and the collapse in market value of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stock, Americans want more governmental regulation and intervention. As a left-winger, Gosselin would see it that way. His reporting over the years has demonstrated his antipathy to free market principles.

LAT ridicules Bush

On today's front page, instead of reporting the news the LAT takes issue with remarks President Bush made yesterday about the economy, home mortgages and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The LAT says that Fed Chairman Bernanke contradicted Bush yesterday and it chose to believe Bernanke, undoubtedly because he presented a more negative version of recent events. But Bush was speaking of the long term outlook for the economy while Bernanke focused on short term problems. The two were not necessarily contradictory. It's no surprise that the LAT would portray it that way, however.

Smart people read LAT editorials

That's what the LAT seems to suggest today in an editorial. It's dummies who don't read editorials and don't recognize satire when they see a New Yorker cover that smart people like the LAT editorial writers have to worry about. The bloggers are the worst. They shoot their mouths off about things they don't understand and put their idiotic remarks up on the web where they may be read by smart people, who often are made ill because of it. Oh, the injustice of allowing unsmart people to have opinions and express themselves. There ought to be a law against it.

Skelton says California's tax system is all wrong

LAT columnist George Skelton acknowledges today that California's rich people pay most of the state's income taxes (the top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 80 percent of the state's income taxes.) He and Democrat legislators have proposed increasing that by raising the tax rate on top payers (which will force some of them to leave the state, maybe a lot of them.) Skelton argues that California's tax system needs fixing because relying on the rich is too volatile.

Skelton wants a tax sysem that provides a more regular source of revenues, but also one that provides increased revenues. He wants state government to take a bigger chunk of Californians' income and to take it more regularly.

Skelton obviously believes that California has a revenue problem, not an expenditure problem, which is a crazy way of looking at things. If California's government would spend less then it could get by with the existing tax system. Spending less might mean the state would have surpluses in good years which might offset deficits in bad years. But when spending is out of control as it is at present, no amount of revenue will be enough and someone will always insist on fixing the tax system so it will raise more. Like a dog chasing it's tail and never catching it, California's government has been chasing revenues sufficient to cover ever increasing expenditures and never catching up.

LAT devotes a page to Obama

Well, not quite but close. LAT reporters Louie Roug and Dan Morain report separately on page A10 today about the Obama campaign and how it's taking the battle to McCain and winning. Neither piece pays lip service to objectivity or balance.

LAT: McCain chooses poorly on issues

The LAT reports this morning that John McCain is taking up an issue that George W. Bush was unable to sell in 2005, that issue being privatizing Social Security. Already, Obama supporters are lining up to oppose McCain's plan, says the LAT.

The LAT reports nothing about what McCain is proposing, only that it's the same thing Bush proposed and couldn't sell. But why not describe what McCain is proposing in sufficient detail so that readers can judge for themselves whether they like it or not? That would require not pre-judging the outcome and not taking sides. Sadly, that isn't possible for the LAT.

LAT: Obama agrees with McCain on most issues

The LAT yesterday attempted to argue on the front page that Barack Obama is just like John McCain on most issues and, therefore, is not a scary liberal who will nationalize health care, abandon Iraq, restrict your right to listen to Rush, approve cloning, allow unrestricted abortion even for teens and negotiate with terrorist states without pre-conditions. He'd do just what McCain would do only he's younger and half black, the LAT seems to say.

The LAT chastises the White House

On a roll, the LAT says today that the White House ignored its own scientists by rejecting an EPA staff finding on global warming. The LAT cites none other than California's governator as proof that the White House is wrong. But Arnold has screwed up everything he's tried since he quit acting.

Somebody stepped on Petruno's tail

The LAT's Tom Petruno is back on the front page today -- bottom feeding you might say. He says the U.S. economy is going to hell in a handbasket and the collapse of IndyMac, together with the turmoil over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, proves it. It's a simpleton's analysis, in which Petruno specializes.

LAT on McCain's week to forget

On today's front page, the LAT argues that John McCain had "a week he may wish to forget." The LAT reports that McCain "seemed" to say that Social Security is a disgrace and "was wordless on video" when asked whether insurance companies should have to pay for birth control. Then the LAT added Phil Gramm's comment about "whiners." One accurate account out of three seems good enough for the LAT. Incidentally, has the LAT reported Jesse Jackson's remarks about Obama?

LAT publishes disgusting piece on McCain marriages

On today's front page, the LAT publishes a long piece on John McCain's first marriage, it's breakup and his subsequent marriage to Cindy. It's a long piece consuming parts of 3 pages that contains nothing pertinent to the presidential election campaign. Much of it is rumor or hearsay. Few people who actually know anything were willing to speak to reporters. That includes McCain's first wife and Nancy Reagan, who is mentioned prominently in the piece. The LAT needs to justify publishing such old rubbish.

LAT's Skelton wants a tax hike

LAT columnist George Skelton argues today that the requirement in California's constitution that tax increases pass by two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature is "dopey." California's government needs more money and Skelton knows no other way to get it. Skelton must think Californians are under taxed. Tax revenues go up every year even without tax rate increases. California's population increases every year, meaning there are more Californians to pay tax. California's economy grows every year, which means that income and sales tax collections increase each year. But outlays grow faster than revenue. Why is that? Skelton doesn't broach the subject.

California Dems plan a tax hike

California's Democrat lawmakers yesterday proposed increasing state income taxes on the wealthy by $9.7 billion. It's the only thing they could think of to partly-cover the state's $17 billion budget deficit. Cutting spending is something they never do. Fortunately, the Dems can't raise taxes without some Republican votes. We'll see how much backbone Republican lawmakers have.

LAT glorifies Prop.13

Only days after writing that Prop. 13 should be blamed for Califoria's fiscal woes, the LAT reports this morning that it is a stabilizing factor and accounts this year for increased property tax collections in a down year for real estate. Kudos to the LAT for reporting this news. Sadly, they probably wanted to bury it. Liberals hate Prop. 13 because it limits property tax increases.

The nonpartisan LAT

The LAT has finally published something factual about Barack Obama, saying his fiscal plan doesn't add up. He can't pay for all the things he has promised, the LAT says. Will wonders never cease.

LAT identifies CA fiscal culprits

The LAT, on the front page today, identifies what it says are the main reasons why California's government is in such poor shape fiscally. The main culprits, it says, are Proposition 13 and the requirement that tax increases receive a two-thirds vote in the legislature.

The LAT's implicit conclusion is that California has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Absent Proposition 13, property taxes would bring in more revenue. Absent the two-thirds requirement, the Democrat-controlled legislature would have raised income and sales taxes. Absent the two handicaps, the budget would be balanced, the LAT apparently believes.

But spending would have increased to absorb any new revenue. The only restraint on spending is the requirement that the budget be balanced. Even that is not much of a restraint because the requirement is violated each year as the state borrows and uses accounting gimmicks to make the budget appear to be balanced.

Facing a $17 billion budget deficit, the legislature and the governor have plans for future new spending on infrastructure, health care and global warming. They just have no plan for how to pay for the new spending.

LAT cheerleads for Dems

On today's front page, the LAT argues that Republicans may face a landslide loss of Senate seats in November. The Dems could win seats in Mississippi, Alaska and North Carolina, the LAT says.

But shouldn't arguments be saved for opinion pages? Isn't the front page of a newspaper a news page where events that have occurred are reported so readers are brought up to date about happenings around the world? Apparently, not much happened on Saturday that was newsworthy so the LAT had to fill space on the front page with political fodder.

LAT on the FARC

The LAT rightly argues today that Columbia's rescue of 15 FARC hostages, including Ingrid Bettancourt and 3 Americans, was a wonderful thing, expertly planned and executed. The LAT rightly argues that the Columbian government has the FARC on the run. But then the LAT recommends going soft. The FARC is on the run because the government has taken a hard line and has defeated the FARC militarily. The government should continue what has worked. Now is no time to change course.

LAT on free speech

The LAT says everybody is entitled to speak freely. Just not "a brillant judge" or a "bigoted cop."

The judge in question is Alex Kozinski, federal appeals court judge on the 9th Circuit. Kozinski is one of the few conservatives on the left-leaning 9th Circuit, which is so far out of the mainstream that it has often been reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court.

The "bigoted cop" is an unnamed sergeant on the Los Angeles Police Department who is also a pastor. According to the LAT, the pastor declared at a funeral for a fellow police officer that homosexual acts are an abomination. This makes the pastor "bigoted," the LAT judged, without explaining why speaking the truth is being a bigot.

The point, presumably, is that you can say or do anything you want unless the LAT disapproves.

Doug Kmiec has crossed the line

Pepperdine Law School Dean Douglas W. Kmiec has crossed over to the dark side. He announced a few months ago that he now supports Barack Obama. Today, in the Orange County Register, Kmiec argues that executive privilege does not apply to subpoenas issued to Harriett Miers and Josh Bolton in the firing of federal prosecutors. But presidents have always ben able to fire such prosecutors at will without explaining why. There is no reason to apply different rules to Bush. 

Congress wants Miers and Bolton to testify publicly, under oath, for political reasons. They hope to embarrass them or Mr. Bush or b9th. The president has offered to allow Miers and Bolton to testify privately. If Congress just wanted information it could have had that by now. (Actually, it most likely already has any information that Miers or Bolton could supply.) That isn't what Congress wants. Congress wants a dog and pony show. Kmiec is wrong.

LAT blames Republicans for Obama gaff

Barack Obama switched his position on Iraq yesterday morning, then switched back later in the day. That was Republicans' fault, the LAT says. They ought to let Obama be Obama instead of pointing out his indecision, the LAT suggests.

Obama gets good press in the LAT

When the LAT reports on Obama on the front page, which it does frequently, the news is invariably positive. Yesterday morning, the Obama news was about his "focus on faith" initiative. When the LAT reports on McCain, it's invariably negative. Either that or they skip McCain, which they did Wednesday.

LAT publishes McCain hit piece

Democrats must be concerned that McCain is winning the race because today on the front page the LAT attacks John McCain in an undisguised political hit piece bylined with the name of Democratic propagandist Noam Levey. Levey's charge is that McCain flip-flops, something Obama has done repeatedly recently. Is this to distract from Obama's flip-flops?