U.S. attorneys

The firing of the U.S. attorneys in 2006 is back in the news and on today's LAT editorial page. By now the story should have died a natural death. People are still investigating this controversy and the investigation will continue, apparently, until someone is found guilty of something having little or nothing to do with the firings. It's a complete waste of time and resources, and partly explains why governmental budgets must be so high. The Justice Department, Congressional committees, witnesses and judges surely have more productive ways of spending their time.  

Pelosi's rant

What kind of judgment does it take to go before a crowd of voters whose votes you need and tell half of them they're no good scoundrels? The answer is poor judgment, which is what Pelosi has. How a person having such poor judgment could reach a level where he or she is third in line for the presidency is impossible to understand. It does not speak well of a political system that such a person would fill such a key position. 

What kind of political party would make a person with such poor judgment their leader? Who would follow such a leader? Only the dull and ignorant, which is why 95 members of Pelosi's own party voted against the "bailout" bill yesterday.

Pelosi and Barney Frank have told us repeatedly that they had a deal. Obviously, they never had a deal. What kind of judgment does it take to claim you have a deal when you don't?

Congress's approval rating is in the teens, with justification. With leaders like Pelosi and Harry Reid and negotiators like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, poor results should be expected.

Just like the depression

LAT columnist Al Martinez writes today that it feels just like the Great Depression, during which he claims to have grown up. In the course of his diatribe, he takes a few shots at President Bush, calling him "pasty-faced and uncertain," which may reveal more about Martinez than Bush.

During the depression of the 1930s, a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Today, 6 percent are nationwide, 7 percent in California. Breadlines were everywhere then, but there are few if any now. Prices then were falling, now they're increasing at 5 percent per year. The economy shrank during the depression, now it's growing, at 3 percent last quarter.

Anyone who says today is like the depression of the 1930s either didn't live then or has forgotten what it was like.

LAT favors silent preachers

The LAT argues in an editorial this morning that some preachers in California and other states are proposing to tell their congregations this Sunday that they are duty-bound to vote for John McCain. Arguing "the separation of church and state," the LAT suggests that the First Amendment prohibits what the preachers propose to do, but doesn't say it outright; instead, the LAT says that tax laws prohibit it.

Clearly, the First Amendment doesn't come into play here on a religion basis -- thought it may on a free speech basis -- because it restricts Congress, not the American people. It says Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. Tax laws are often murky. The preachers may have to debate the IRS on the question. The LAT shouldn't prejudge the issue.

Rutten chimes in

LAT columnist Tim Rutten agrees with LAT editors about "the separation of church and state" and fleshes out the debate a little more in a column this morning. Evangelical Protestant preachers in 22 states will participate in a "pulpit initiative" this weekend which they intend will test the validity of what Rutten says is a 54-year old provision of the Internal Revenue Code that bans "political endorsements by tax-exempt organizations, including churches." 

The preachers and their lawyers evidently believe either that the ban is unconstitutional or that it doesn't require what Rutten and the LAT think it does. We'll see. Try it in a court of law and see what the courts think. The issue ought to be settled one way or the other.

Barney Frank isn't a czar

Since Henry Paulson introduced his "bailout" plan, the media have treated Barney Frank as its sole source of news on the process of negotiations. Even Chris Dodd played second fiddle to Frank, partly because Paulson chose to negotiate primarily with Frank. It turns out that Barney is just another congressman, chairman of a key committee but ineffective in negotiating for the entire Congress.

Paulson should have known better. He shouldn't have paid Frank as much attention as he did. He should have insisted on bringing House Republicans into the negotiations.

And the media ought to stop being Barney Frank's mouthpiece. 

LAT: Teenage girls have rights

The LAT argued yesterday that teenage girls have the right to kill their unborn babies without parental notification. They can't get a cavity filled or a tan in a tanning salon without parental approval but a serious procedure like an abortion is OK. That's the essence of the LAT argument.

Proposition 4 on the California ballot in November proposes to stop teenagers from getting abortions without parental notification but it contains plenty of ways to avoid notification.  For example, a teenager can escape the notification requirement by alleging parental abuse or fear of same.  

The LAT argues that Proposition 4 is just the latest attempt by anti-abortion forces to put restrictions on abortions. The LAT argues that the abuse escape valve wouldn't be effective because of the way the provision is written. Would the LAT support Proposition 4 if the abuse escape valve were re-written? Not likely. They oppose any restrictions on the right to an abortion, regardless of age or circumstances.

James Rainey, nonpartisan columnist

That's what he'd like you to believe. Talking about LAT columnist James Rainey, who tried in his column yesterday to regain a little of his lost credibility, unsuccessfully.

After ranting about Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise selection by John McCain and then calling McCain a liar, Rainey wrote yesterday that Obama isn't lilly white, sorry, total honest either. Obama stretches the truth or misrepresents, according to Rainey. Nowhere does Rainey say Obama lies. He just can't bring himself to go that far, apparently.

Meanwhile, Rainey repeats some of what he calls McCain's lies and he points out that some media outfit has decided that McCain lies more often than Obama. Rainey canonizes Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus -- but PBS's NewHour puts Marcus opposite Byron York or David Brooks representing the liberal point of view. Is Rainey nuts or just partisan?

LAT reporter jazzed over Biden

LAT reporter Faye Fiore writes on the front page today that Joe Biden is a wonderful, lovable down-home kind of guy on the campaign trail. Sure, he sometimes misspeaks and he gets too close to you when he talks to you but he's just so wonderful that you overlook his faults.

Sarah Palin is a "younger, sharper-tongued phenom" but her "celebrity" has begun "to wane." There was a time when "a fickel press corp deserted" Biden for Palin but no more. Katie Couric has shown up for a Biden rally, "another sign of the fading Palin mystique."

LAT publishes Frank press release

A front page article today in the LAT by Peter Gosselin and Richard Simon essentially parrots what the reporters have been told by Barney Frank and his staff about progress on the "bailout bill." A few other sources are quoted, mostly near the end of the piece, but there are no quotes from Paulson or his staff.

Dems: Dump the two-thirds requirement

Democrats' fond hope is to change California's constitution so as to remove the requirement that tax increases and budgets be approved by two-thirds of legislators instead of a mere majority. It's the Holy Grail and LAT columnist George Skelton does his best again this morning to help them get it. The delay in approving this year's budget may have been part of a Democratic plan to call attention to the two-thirds requirement in order to eliminate it.

Rutten wants change at Metrolink

LAT columnist Tim Rutten writes this morning that Metrolink needs to get safer, a sentiment that lacks opposition. But it isn't clear what Rutten proposes. More bureaucracy? That won't help. Better board members? They're all politicians. More or different politicians won't help. A different operator instead of the French multinational Veolia? That might help a little. More competent management? That would help a lot. Less political interference? That would help.

LAT laments California's budget

The LAT is depressed and disappointed this morning about the new state budget that the governator is expected to sign next week. Life sucks and the situation is desperate because the lousy Republicans wouldn't go along with tax increases, the LAT seems to argue in an editorial this morning. 

But Californians are already overtaxed. Raising taxes would have been stupid. California's government needs to learn to live within its means. 

On today's front page, the LAT reports that the unemployment rate in California is now 7.7 percent. But the LAT and California's Democrats don't get the connection. High taxes and too much regulation drive businesses out of state, discourage creation of new businesses and discourage new investments. All these drive unemployment upwards.  

Rainey trashes Fox News

Which isn't news. In today's column, LAT columnist James Rainey expresses disgust at Fox News and especially at Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren over their interviews of Sarah Palin and her husband Todd. The interviews were informative but not to Rainey, who must have had an ulcer. Rainey, judging from what he wrote, was looking for hard news and didn't get it. 

But Hannity and Van Susteren are sort of like LAT columnists. You don't expect them to be impartial. They don't do hard news and Rainey was wrong to expect it of them if he truly did -- and isn't just blowing smoke. Hannity and Van Susteren are no more biased than Rainey and other LAT columnists such as George Skelton and Tim Rutten. Fox News is at least as fair and balanced as the LAT, but a partisan like Rainey wouldn't admit that.

California has a budget

The governator tweaked the California legislature's proposed budget and now has agreed to sign the "tweaked" result. The differences are small, according to the LAT.

Everybody hates this budget but it does at least one thing well: It avoids a tax increase. That makes it good enough to vote for.

But look out. Democrats and other liberals are outraged that taxes were not raised. They plan to try to change the state constitution to allow budgets and tax increases by majority vote. If they succeed, it will be time to move to Nevada.

Palin hit piece on LAT front page

One of the reporters that the LAT sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin -- how many have they sent to Delaware to dig up dirt on Joe Biden? -- came through with a piece about a $26 million road on Gravina Island that the reporter calls the road to nowhere. The LAT put the piece on the front page. The reporter quotes several Palin opponents but fails to get any opposing views.

The piece has little significant news value. It's about a minor road that cost an insignificant amount of money built on a small unknown island a million miles from civilization -- well, maybe not a million. Unless the island is named Chappaquiddick it is of little interest to people in the lower 48. Why publish such a story? Obviously, to take a pitiful swipe at Sarah Palin.

Simon: Bear market proves "privatizing" a bad idea

Syndicated columnist Roger Simon writes today on the Orange County Register's op-ed pages that the recent bear market, bankruptcies, buyouts and government takeovers prove that investing in the stock market is a bad idea, especially for private accounts in Social Security.

But private accounts in Social Security should be allowed to invest in U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds -- at the option of the private account owner. Investing in equities should be allowed too. From 1926 to 1977, a period that includes the Great Depression, common stocks yielded a real average rate of return of 8.7 percent, according to Ibbotson and Sinquefield. There is no reason not to expect the same or a better rate of return for the next 50 years.

Arnold may veto budget

California's governator is threatening to veto the budget that was agreed to by legislators just this week. And he's gaining support for his veto from people, organizations and media outlets who want a tax increase. Does the governator get it?

LAT: Let's stop talking about abortion

Hey, wait. Obama wants change. The LAT wants Obama. Therefore, the LAT wants change.

Since abortion is legal, pro-life people want change. The LAT should too.

LAT glorifies community organizers

A front page article by Richard Fausset in today's LAT attempts to glorify community organizers by describing the daily activities of a community organizer in Detroit named Bill O'Brien. Did community organizing need glorifying?

"Harvey Milk Day"

California's governator has a bill (AB2567) on his desk for signature that would make each May 22 "Harvey Milk Day" in California. The bill requires California schools and educational institutions to treat that day as having "special significance" and to "conduct suitable commemorative exercises" on that day. The governator can veto the bill, and in fact has said he will sign no bills until he gets a budget he likes. California will be better off if he does not sign the bill.

The bill is a sop to gays and lesbians, an essential segment of the Democrats' base. Democrats control the California legislature. Harvey Milk was a gay San Francisco city and county supervisor in the 1970s who was murdered in 1978 by a former supervisor. Milk served in no statewide post. He was simply a gay San Francisco politician who was murdered. San Franciscans and/or the gay and lesbian community should consider having a "Harvey Milk Day" but other Californians should be free to do what they usually do on May 22.

Rutten analyzes the Palin factor

And concludes what? That McCain supporters are twice as enthusiastic since Palin's selection. That's the sum and substance of LAT columnist Tim Rutten's column in today's paper.

On the way to that conclusion, Rutten takes space to call Palin's female supporters "lipstick-waving women" and names them "Palinites." He also takes a swipe at the religious right, a requirement of left-wing writers who hope to hold on to their base. Finally, Rutten ridicules small-town voters and calls Palin a liar. Rutten apparently wrote the column to get these asssertions on the record, otherwise the column is pointless.

LAT irrational on drilling

In an editorial today, the LAT argues that offshore drilling will not do any good either in the short term or the long. It will not affect prices in any way, the LAT says. The LAT cites no expert or other source for that opinion. Apparently, they simply divined it.

LAT angry over budget deal

Yesterday in an editorial, the LAT expressed outrage over the California legislature's budget deal. The LAT wanted a tax increase and didn't get it so nothing will make them happy now. "Thanks for nothing," the LAT said. That's exactly how many feel about the newspaper.

California budget deal

The LAT reports this morning that California's legislators have agreed on a budget deal that does not involve new taxes. Legislators will pass the deal today and send it to the governator, whose veto can be overridden if necessary.

The deal could have been made last June but Democrats held out hope that enough Republicans would cave to allow them to pass a tax hike. Cudos to Republicans for resisting.

LAT: Chavez and Morales favor McCain

That's what the LAT argued in an editorial this morning. Latinos in South America like Obama better than McCain, the LAT says, which is why Chavez and Morales favor McCain -- South Americans will hate America more if McCain is elected, the LAT argues, and that helps Chavez and Morales. How the LAT divined this isn't clear.

Claire McCaskill speaks

On yesterday's This Week, Senator Claire McCaskill, speaking for the Obama campaign, said John McCain "wants to put women in jail who have an abortion after being raped." The McCain/Palin campaign opposes equal pay for equal work, McCaskill said. And, the McCain campaign opposes early childhood education, according to McCaskill. All these are dishonest but McCaskill was under presssure from Carly Fiorina, who represented the McCain campaign.

Was Obama's "pig" remark intentional?

The MSM say he misspoke. How do they know?

LAT reporter Cathleen Decker wrote yesterday about that and other recent campaign assertions and takes the Obama side. CBS did the same on Saturday's CBS Evening News, judging that McCain was lying in some recent commercials.

It's hard to get an even break. No one can say with certainty whether Obama's "pig" remark was intentional, other than Obama himself and perhaps his family and some high-level staff. It's just as reasonable to assume he intended to make the remark as it is to assume the opposite.

LAT: Budget deal in works

The LAT reports this morning that a possible budget deal is in the works that does not involve new taxes for California. The deal is being proposed by Senate Leader Don Peralta, a Democrat. Let's hope it works. Of course, a deal could have been put together long ago if Dems had not insisted on raising taxes.

ABC indicts Palin

ABC's lead-in to last night's 20/20, in which it aired more of Gibson's interviews of Sarah Palin, was like an indictment. Palin was found guilty before the trial. And they claim the MSM isn't biased.

Lexington has a few good words for Palin

Very few. Lexington of The Economist says Palin deserves to be treated as a pioneer, not dismissed as a crackpot. But Lexington also claims that McCain picked Palin after meeting with her for a mere 15 minutes and argues that was spectacularly reckless. Apparently that was all McCain needed to make a spectacularly successful choice. Incidentally, who said Palin is a crackpot?

Evangelicals a curse to John McCain

According to The Economist this week, the selection of Sarah Palin for VP may cause evangelicals to be too enthusiastic and that could lead to a backlash among non-evangelicals. "The big problems (sic) now facing Mr. McCain may not be too little enthusiasm among evangelicals, but too much." This passes for thoughtful at The Economist.

What is an earmark?

If you ask for money from the federal government, it's an earmark. If I do, it's a legitimate request for federal aid that is desperately needed by my state, city or community for the health and safety of our citizens.

The LAT this morning makes no distinction. A piece authored by Tom Hamburger and Maeve Reston cites the funds requested by Alaska while Palin was governor and by Wasilla when she was mayor and identifies them as earmarks. Palin, in the Gibson interview, tries to distinguish between aid requested through normal channels and funding slipped into appropriations bills after the appropriation process and sometimes after the bills had passed and become law. The latter are clearly earmarks. The former may properly be called pork in some or even many cases but they are not earmarks if they were not put into bills sub rosa. 

Incidentally, the LAT does not cite earmarks requested by Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

Rainey rants about McCain campaign

Hardly the neutral arbiter he holds himself out to be, LAT columnist James Rainey yesterday blasted the McCain campaign for playing politics. He's upset about some McCain commercials that he claims misrepresent things Obama has said or done. Rainey, for example, looks into Obama's heart and judges that Obama wasn't referring to Sarah Palin when he made the famous "lipstick on a pig" remark. McCain, therefore, is disrespecting Obama and Rainey when he or his campaign suggests the opposite. Rainey knows in his heart who is right about this.

To be fair, Rainey says that Obama has played politics too with things McCain or Palin have said or done but he isn't upset about that, only about the pot shots McCain's campaign has taken. Boys will be boys ... er, campaigns will be campaigns, he seems to say, so let's let the Obama campaign stuff pass and chastise McCain/Palin instead. It shows he's unbiased, don't you know -- Rainey, that is.

Palin offends McNamara

LAT columnist Mary McNamara wrote yesterday that she was offended that Sarah Palin didn't submit to press interviews before those this week with Charles Gibson of ABC and that the first Gibson interview was too short and didn't include McNamara. Oh well, you can't please all the columnists all of the time and some columnists are never pleased if you're a Republican, especially if you're a woman governor with five children.

Skelton: Californians are not over taxed

LAT columnist George Skelton agrees today that California's top personal income tax rate and its sales tax rate are the highest in the nation. But that doesn't mean that Californians are over taxed, Skelton says. A family of four doesn't pay any California personal income tax until its income exceeds roughly $50,000, he says, and California's sales tax doesn't apply to food, prescription drugs and most services.

Does Skelton propose to increase the personal income tax on poor Californians or tax their food and prescription drugs? Ain't likely.

LAT says "no" to war on terror

The LAT, in an editorial this morning, argues there is no war on terror. It's only a police action, the LAT says. Dems argue that Bush has never asked the American people to sacrifice for the war on terror. But the LAT argues today that the sacrifices are too great. Presumably, if there is no war on terror then there is no reason to sacrifice and the American people can therefore relax.

The threat is not as great as Bush makes it out to be, the LAT suggests. Measures the Bush administration has put into effect are no longer needed, the LAT says. Of course, if we were to suffer another terrorist attack the LAT would be among the first to blame Bush.

Rutten upset about "deference" too

LAT columnist Tim Rutten, writing today on the editorial pages, argues that the McCain campaign is applying a double standard when it insists on "deference" when Palin is interviewed. Must be an LAT thing. Apparently, "deference" sticks in their craw.

People often don't select the right word when speaking in public extemporaneously. Sometimes, they get tongue-tied and often don't say what they mean. Why get all bent out of shape over a single word?

On Thursday, Palin will be interviewed by Charles Gibson of ABC. He will not defer to Palin. Other interviews will follow. Those interviewers will not defer either. Why are LAT columnists worried about this?

Rainey on "deference"

LAT columnist James Rainey complains today about Sarah Palin getting too much "deference" from the media, or any at all. So, he has come up with a series of "when did you stop beating your wife" questions for ABC anchor Charles Gibson to ask Palin when he interviews her. Gibson, after all, asked Barack Obama a series of unfair questions last April at a Clinton/Obama debate, Rainey says. Rainey's bias embarrasses him (Rainey, not Gibson or Obama.)

Skelton says Dem legislators deserve a monopoly

LAT columnist George Skelton argues this morning that California's legislators and the governator are not responsible for California not having a budget nearly three months into the fiscal year that began last July 1st. Blame the constitution, Skelton says, for requiring a two-thirds majority. If only a simple majority were required, California would already have a budget, Skelton argues.

Skelton is right. A simple majority made up entirely of Dems would by now have voted a tax increase and passed a budget. Californians would have been saddled with higher taxes and unrestrained spending.

LAT tells a whopper

Here's a quote from a recent LAT editorial: "Republicans have held up [California's budget] for nearly the first quarter of the current year."

Either that or Democrats have. It takes a two-thirds majority of both houses of the California legislature to raise taxes, which is how Dems hope to close the $15 billion gap in California's finances. There are not that many Dems. Republicans in the legislature have said they will not support a budget that raises taxes. Dems have insisted. Which one is delaying the budget?

Lexington unhappy over Palin pick

The Lexington columnist for The Economist argues this week that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and that John McCain used poor judgment in selecting her. Besides, according to Lexington, the vetting process was hurried and ineffective. No surprise there and nothing original either. Those were the initial arguments Democrats voiced against Palin.

Palin nervous and unsure of the teleprompter

According to The Economist, during her acceptance speech last week, Sarah Palin looked nervous and unsure of the teleprompter. Palin was justified in being unsure of the teleprompter, according to published reports. As for being nervous, it must have been apparent only to The Economist.

LAT critiques McCain speech

John McCain's speech last night was OK but didn't include some things the LAT wanted to hear, according to today's editorial. McCain probably didn't include LAT editors among those he was trying to convince.

McCain's speech was weak, and in some places is was boring and repetitive. Overall, is was OK but considering how long McCain has been giving speeches he should have done better. Both the delivery and the speech itself needed improvement.

McCain could and should hire better speech writers. And he might ask whoever trained Sarah Palin for help on delivery.

LAT compares Palin to Quayle

LAT reporter Catherine Decker suggests this morning that there is not much difference between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle. It's a cute theory.

LAT defends the media

LAT reporter Matea Gold writes this morning that while Republicans at the convention blasted the media for its biased coverage of Sarah Palin and her family this week, there really is no substance to their claims. Gold suggests that the media are merely trying to do their jobs and that critics are just too sensitive.

Snide remark from the LAT

LAT reporter Robin Abscarian, writing in the "On the Trail" column this morning, said, "When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, not getting any executive experience, he voted "present" rather than "yea" or "nay" more than 100 times."[Emphasis added.] This was an attempt to ridicule Republican claims that Obama had no executive experience and it has no place in a news report. A piece on the editorial page would be another matter.  

Skelton says bad budget better than no budget

LAT columnist George Skelton this morning argues that it's time California's legislature passed a budget because the failure to do so is getting too expensive. Skelton is right about that but he and Dem lawmakers are still insisting on raising taxes. That's the one thing that won't fly -- as Dems and Skelton have known since last June. Raising taxes requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of California's legislature. There are not that many Dems. Therefore, Dems must offer a budget that doesn't raise taxes if they want Republican support. What have they been waiting for? 

Rainey justifies himself, or tries to

LAT columnist James Rainey, after getting nasty with Sarah Palin yesterday, argues today that it wasn't him who was nasty but all those supermarket tabloids. He says "serious news organizations ... try to get it right," unlike tabloids. Obviously, he means to include the LAT in the former group. He should read the column he wrote yesterday. 

Apologies to the LAT

Last week this blog criticized the LAT for its headlines and for the color portrait of Barack Obama that appeared on the front page. Today's front page has a large headline about Palin's speech and a color portrait of John McCain. Is today's headline as large as last week's? Is McCain's portrait? Who knows but in any case an apology is in order. Mea culpa, me culpa, mea maxima culpa. 

All hands on deck at the LAT

All hands must have been called on deck at the LAT when preparing for today's edition. Their purpose: To trash Sarah Palin and bring down her nomination. Tom Hamburger, Richard Simon, Janet Hook, Peter Wallsten, Doyle McManus, Dan Morain, Mark Barabak, Maeve Reston, Michael Finnegan, Mary McNamara and James Rainey all pitched in with something to say about Palin, her husband or her daughter Bristol, most of it negative. The LAT seems panicked by the possibility that she might help elect John McCain. 

The piece by Rainey was the most slimey. He acknowledged that families should be off limits in political campaigns but mentioned Bristol's pregnancy several times. Here's an especially offensive portion of his piece.

"I personally don't need to know a lot about Bristol and her hockey-playing, salmon-fishing, snowboarding beau, Levi. So the kids got a little crazy and Alaska will be populated by one more premature hockey mom.

"I'm willing to wait for the People magazine photo spread of the new family, when the youngster delivers her 'blessed' bundle, as the evangelicals are saying, into the world."

This is reporting, LAT style.

Cave to Conyers, LAT tells White House

Not for the first time, the LAT this morning argues in an editorial that Josh Bolten, Harriet Miers and Karl Rove should testify before John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee about the firing of a few U.S. attorneys a couple of years ago. The LAT calls it a compromise. The LAT misrepresents a District Court judge's decision that said Bolten and Miers had to show up for a Committee hearing but did not say they had to testify. The administration is appealing that decision.

Sadly, the Conyers investigation is a political witch hunt. The Bush administration had the right to fire the attorneys because they were political appointees. No reason for the firings had to be given. Conyers is wasting legislative and judiciary time and resources.

Wallsten, LAT hatchetman

LAT reporter Peter Wallsten is fast becoing the LAT's chief hatchetman. This morning, he has a piece on page A11 about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Throughout the piece, Wallsten hints that he knows new dirt is coming on Palin, and he tries to throw in a little dirt but none of it is new or significant. He suggests that McCain's judgment may be in question or his campaign's vetting process may have been faulty. Palin is a problem, he suggests, but he has no news to report.

Wallsten's piece wouldn't have been missed if it hadn't been published. So why was it?