Proposition 4

In California, a teenager under 18 can get an abortion without parental consent. She can't use a tanning solon, however, or get other medical treatment. It makes no sense.

California's Proposition 4 would require parental consent in most cases but provides exceptions in a medical emergency, in cases of abuse or where the girl fears how here parents may react to her pregnancy. A doctor can inform an adult family member or the girl can obtain court approval for the abortion.

Television advertising against Proposition 4 suggests a teenager with abusive parents would be in a fix, a misrepresentation of the facts.

The Palin effigy

The LAT and its reporters are twisting words and shading meanings so as to come out against the Palin effigy without offending liberals and gays, especially the gays who hung the effigy. It's not a hate crime, the LAT argues, because Palin is white. If she were black it would be different. Suppose she were a lesbian. Would that make a difference? A LAT editorial argues that the effigy is in bad taste, nothing more.

Rutten on Catholics

This morning, LAT columnist Tim Rutten writes that Catholics mostly don't go to church regularly or pay attention to what bishops and the pope say, and most will vote for Obama even though he is pro-abortion. Besides, he suggests, they're mostly Latinos.

Presumably, that means they don't speak English and may be in the U.S. illegally but will nevertheless get to vote because ACORN registered them. We'll see. Rutten may be counting his chickens before they hatch.

LAT's best

That's LAT staff writer Thomas H. Maugh II. Science is his beat and he writes something interesting and informative nearly every day. Today it's about transfused older blood possibly causing infections. Earlier this week or last, he wrote about archeologists' discoveries supporting the bible's version of King Solomon's reign. Interesting stuff.

Obama video

Amid press reports from other media outlets and claims by the McCain campaign that the LAT is suppressing a video showing Obama at a banquet for a Palestinian activist, the LAT reports today on page A12 in an article by an unidentified LAT staff writer that it is withholding the video because it is obligated to under an agreement with its source. The LAT says it provided all the essential facts revealed in the video in an article published last April. So why withhold the staff writer's name?

Lexington: Hard-core Republicans are rats

Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel and Doug Kmiec, though Obamacons now, are the future of the GOP, according to Lexington, columnist at The Economist. Hard-core Republicans, who call the likes of Powell, Hagel and Kmiec "rats" deserting a sinking ship, are the ones who have it backwards. Deserting your party will make it stronger, Lexington seems to argue. How does such get printed?

Rutten rants

LAT columnist Tim Rutten, on Saturday, engaged in a rant over the financial meltdown and about businesses and business people generally. First, he takes a swipe at Alan Greenspan for his testimony before Henry Waxman's House committee last Thursday:

"Does Greenspan really believe that banks, brokerages, rating agencies and insurance companies act of their own accord? Even he has to understand that people who run them decide how they respond to market forces."

"Did Greenspan really believe that the people in power, presented with a chance to make a killing, would put the interests of institutions and stockholders ahead of their own?"

Rutten then moves on to tarnish everyone in business:

"The idea of loyalty -- or just a sort of reciprocal obligation, for that matter -- simply doesn't operate on Wall Street or much of anywhere in American business any more. The notion that CEOs and other executives would forgo a chance to enrich themselves to keep their institutions solvent or their stockholders' investment whole seems quaint in today's environment."

Rutten says "there's something wrong in the economy and financial system that new regulations on trading and disclosure won't correct." "The corrosion didn't begin at the top but at the bottom -- with the renunciation of any corporate loyalty toward working men and women." U.S. companies have long "been encouraged to treat their workers like any other 'expense.' Wall Street has rewarded -- indeed lionized -- companies 'tough enough' to treat workers like the electric bill. Presto! Layoffs became 'cost managment.'"

Nobody "blinks when a CEO throws people out of work for an uptick in the stock price or to ease the service of ill-considered debt." "It's immoral for a profitable firm to deprive families of their income and health insurance, to strip hardworking men and women of labor's dignity." "Societies in which the few are allowed to fatten themselves on the labor of many are not just." "Countries -- like companies -- that cling to notions that allow some to pursue their own interests by behaving indecently towards others come to bad ends." "There is no recovery from moral bankruptcy."

From what he's written, one would have to assume that Rutten believes there are no good people in business anywhere in America. They have no morals, he seems to say, and they will do anything for a buck. CEOs throw people out of work without good reason, or sometimes just for the fun of it, Rutten seems to believe.

Rutten's charges are so extreme that they disqualify themselves from being considered rational. There are many honest and moral people in American business; arguably, a very high percentage of people in American business are. Just to name two, consider Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Both are wildly successfuly and extremely rich yet both are giving away their wealth. Would Rutten claim that either is morally bankrupt?

Some people in American business and economics are good people who make mistakes, as human beings often do. Alan Greenspan is one. He has admitted to at least one mistake and people charge him with others. Is he morally bankrupt? Did he make a killing in the market? Did he steal or deprive people of their income or health insurance to make a buck?

Rutten would do well to consider the morals of people in his own profession, journalism. Columnist are often irrational and uninformed; only a few know anything about business or economics. Nearly all are biased. Reporters often report not news but their view of the news, often in a biased way. Plagiarism is not uncommon. News reports are sometimes mere fiction, imagined by the reporter -- saving a lot of shoe leather. Unliked business men and women, journalist produce nothing -- no jobs, no profits, no return on investment.

Rutten seems to argue for socialism, where people keep their jobs and health insurance after they have become non-productive and where companies are owned by the government and run by bureaucrats. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Socialism produces products no one wants to buy and doesn't produce products people want and need. Shortages and long lines to buy nonexistent goods are characteristics of socialism. Socialism turns countries into economic basketcases.

LAT does its part to elect Obama

The LAT still has people in Alaska digging up dirt on Sarah Palin. Today, it publishes on the front page below the fold a hit piece by Charles Piller, a staff writer. Piller reports that Palin appointed friends and contributers to high positions in Alaska's government. Was she supposed to appoint enemies and opponents?

Hook thinks Obama isn't liberal

LAT staff writer Janet Hook reports today that John McCain and Sarah Palin are portraying Barack Obama's tax and economic proposals as left-wing and socialistic and argues they're wrong to do so. She writes: " In any case, using tax credits as financial aid is a far cry from socialism, which typically involves government ownership of major industries. Obama's plan is in keeping with the concept of a progressive tax system, taxing wealthier people at higher rates than the less affluent."

As a reporter, Hook is supposed to report the news, not her opinion of news events or campaign claims. Besides, she is wrong. A government-run health care system, which Obama proposes, is socialistic. Confiscating the income of high-bracket taxpayers and doling it out to people who don't pay income taxes is socialistic. Socialism has degrees, the same as capitalism, democracy and the weather. No one is arguing that Obama plans to make the U.S. into a socialistic country like East Germany during the cold war, only that he leans much farther in that direction than is healthy.

California's Proposition 8

It isn't possible to change the nature of a thing by changing its name. A dog will remain a dog even if it's called a cat. A cat will remain a cat even if called something else.

Likewise, a union of same-sex persons will remain that even if such union is called a marriage, as the California Supreme Court ruled last May. The California Supreme Court is not omnipotent and cannot, therefore, change the nature of marriage. It can only hold that something that is not a marriage be called a marriage.

Proposition 8 does not take away anyone's rights. Same-sex couples in domestic partnerships have the same rights as married couples. The California Supreme Court and Proposition 8 opponents want same-sex unions in domestic partnerships to be called marriages. They are not marriages and should not be called that.

Rainey tries hero worship

LAT columnist James Rainey writes today from Miami describing an Obama campaign event that obviously excited Rainey so much that he seems overcome with admiration for "the one." The crowd included "row after row of white, black and brown faces, craning to catch a glimpse of their candidate," Rainey says. Such crowds are "not enough, alone, to win an election" but "it's certainly news," according to Rainey.

What is? That the crowd was large and enthusiastic? Aren't they always? Dog bites man isn't news.

More changes at the LAT

A spadea attached to today's LAT announces more changes, mostly superficial. They're changing fonts and redesigning indexes. You'd think they could have just done it without announcing it. But, they're putting more emphasis on their "unique storetellers," apparently meaning columnists, which is troubling. Generally, their columnists are unoriginal and biased, except for sports and travel columnists, who are biased but informative.

The LAT investigates illegal registering

On Saturday, the LAT reported that it had interviewed 46 voters who recently changed their registration from Democrat to Republican and found that 37 of them believed they had been duped into changing their registration by a small Republican firm named YPM. The LAT did not report on Saturday that they had conducted an investigation of ACORN, which may have illegally registered thousands or millions of dead or fictitious people. ACORN, of course, registers Democrats.

Noonan on Palin

In her column today, Peggy Noonan comes down hard on Sarah Palin, primarily, it seems, because Palin hasn't declared her independence from the McCain campaign. Noonan thinks Palin should have informed the media and the public, by now, of her innermost thoughts and opinions. If those happen to conflict with McCain's then tough. We need to know these things.

But Palin is a creature of the McCain campaign. She can't go off and say whatever she feels like saying. She can't travel wherever she wants or appear on whatever television program she wants. No vice-presidential candidate can do those things. No presidential campaign can allow any daylight between the presidential candidate and his running mate.

Noonan's remarks seem to have another motivation too. Noonan considers herself an educated woman, a talented writer and an opinion maker. Palin is a wife and mother of five, and worse, a politician. Oh, and Palin is pretty and shapely and petite. It's a good thing she isn't blond. The two kinds of women do not mix. Like Kathleen Parker, Noonan can't or won't tolerate a woman like Palin.  

Kmeic is pro-choice

On the LAT's opinion pages today, supposedly conservative, Catholic, Doug Kmeic -- law professor and former Justice Department official -- argues that though Barack Obama is pro-choice, Catholics can vote for him because Obama spoke certain words in the last debate, lamenting the frequency of abortions and arguing for better education and adoption assistance. 

The problem is, they're just words. Politicians make lots of promises during campaigns. They tell people what they think people want to hear. They pander, and Obama was pandering.

What you can rely on is that Obama is a radical, left-wing liberal, and if he if he is elected he will be influenced by even more radical left-wing liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and perhaps William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Obama is too high  risk.

Rainey prefers people who agree with him

LAT columnist James Rainey appeals today for what he thinks are reasonable Republicans. He wants them to convince John McCain to stop competing with Obama and accept his fate. Rainey relies on Republican "stalwarts" Ed Rollins and David Gergen on CNN, as well as liberal columnist Ronald Brownstein, to prove his point.

Rainey apparently thinks Rollins, Gergen, CNN and Brownstein are nonpartisan, the same as he, Rainey, is, or thinks he is. It's a safe bet that Rainey reads, watches and listens to MSM, NPR, PBS and CNN and thinks that's all the news that's fit to print or broadcast.

Rutten on trust

LAT columnist Tim Rutten says we have a crisis of trust and it's Bush's fault. No one trusts the government anymore, Rutten says, and they don't trust the media either. Rutten says both are essential.

Rutten is partly right but he blames the distrust of the media on "intense partisans of both left and right." Rutten would be wise to look in the mirror. He seems incapable of writing a column without blaming Bush or Republicans or conservatives for whatever he doesn't like.

Pot calls kettle black

Last Friday, LAT columnist James Rainey attacked Sean Hannity and his Sunday night show "Hannity's America." It isn't fair and balanced, Rainey says. But what Rainey writes isn't either.

Gov. vetoes Harvey Milk Day

California's governator sent out an e-mail yesterday to people who e-mailed him opposing California Assembly Bill 2567, which would have established May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day (California only) and would have required California schools to celebrate the day with special activities. The governator said in the e-mail that he had vetoed the bill. Good for him.

Miers and Bolten off the hook

The LAT reports today that a federal appeals court has ruled that Miers and Bolten do not have to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on the firing of U.S. attorneys, which is a witchhunt. The appeals court overruled a district court judge.

LAT: We're headed for a steep recession

The LAT is predicting a steep recession. Nothing new there. They've been predicting a recession or saying we're in one for 15 months. Someday they'll be right.

Lexington holds Bush responsible -- for everything

Lexington of The Economist writes this week that President Bush is responsible for nearly everything Lexington hasn't liked in the last 8 years. Bush's approval rating is in the mid to high 20s but the Democrat Congress's is lower, near 10 percent.

Bush is partisan, Lexington says. Implicitly, Lexington argues that Reid and Pelosi and their spear carriers are bi-partisan. The invasion of of Iraq destroyed the bi-partisan unity of September 11th, says Lexington. But Congress authorized the Iraq adventure.

Bush was damned when 133 Republicans voted against the bailout plan, Lexington says. But 95 Democrats voted against it too. That's probably Bush's fault.

Bush couldn't get a Social Security fix through Congress. Lexington argues it's Bush's fault that Democrats opposed him. Same with immigration. Clinton would have done better, Lexington argues. 

Democrats have opposed Bush on nearly everything for his entire presidency. The reason: They've always thought he stole the 2000 election from Al Gore. They see that as rational, though it really is irrational. Bush won that election fair and square but Democrats will never accept it. They believe that Bush is an illegitimate president and for that reason refuse to cooperate with him.

LAT: Bad debate, mostly political theater

The LAT editorial page today blasted both of last night's debaters and moderator Gwen Ifill. In a sour editorial, the LAT said the only good thing to come out of the debate was that "Biden left voters with a more constructive vision of the government and a more compelling case for how it has failed the nation under President Bush." If bigger government in control of health care, air lines and railroads, banks, energy of every sort such as oil and gas, nuclear power, wind and solar, auto manufacturing, mortgage loans, the housing industry and most other parts of your life is constructive then the LAT is right. The swipe at President Bush is merely an habitual knee-jerk reaction.

Is LAT columnist James Rainey a "real journalist?"

LAT columnist James Rainey is making a habit of rants, this time concerning PBS's Gwen Ifill who hosted last night's vice presidential debate. Ifill "reached a high standard for reason, fairness and class," according to Rainey. "What the critics who set out to pillory Ifill failed to acknowledge -- because it did not suite their political aims -- was that real journalists, who doubtless have biases, can and will put them aside to do their jobs."

Well, yes, Ifill did just fine, as she usually does on television. She is less likely to reveal her bias than most liberal media personalities -- like Chris Matthews for example. Still, she is what she is and it is proper to ask why someone else could not have been chosen to moderate the debate. Ifill is, after all, writing a book the title of which includes the phrase "the Age of Obama." She says she hasn't written the "Obama section" yet but she surely has thought about it. There are other moderators, even some conservative ones. As for Ifill being pilloried, she was not being ridiculed or abused except perhaps by her most radical critics. Nearly everyone has those.

Is Rainey a "real journalist?" According to Rainey's own definition the answer must be no because Rainey apparently cannot put aside his biases and do his job. The aim of Rainey's column isn't clear from reading it but surely it's supposed to serve some other purpose than provide space for Rainey's rants.

The vice-presidential debate

Both did well. Palin surprised. Biden was likable, which was a surprise. Biden would make a good Senate majority leader to replace the dour and whiney Reid.

Governator looks for fed bailout

According to the LAT this morning, California's governator has notified Treasury Secretary Paulson that California may need an emergency loan of $7 billion in order to pay its bills. California's government doesn't deserve it. The legislature irresponsibly ignored the mandatory constitutional deadline for this year's budget and came together to produce a budget only in September, nearly three months late. Californians need to realize how irresponsible their government has been. They will if the government can't pay the bills. Maybe then the people will throw the bums out. 

Pelosi should resign

The LAT this morning tries, in an article by reporter Janet Hook, to rehabilitate Nancy Pelosi a little. Hook writes: "In truth, there was little in the San Francisco Democrat's speech that she had not said before." Although what she said was stupid and wrong, her timing was outrageous. What was the purpose of her speech if not to sound off, to offer her opinion, to stick it to Republicans? The House was considering major legislation that her party favored passing. Instead of sticking to business and getting it passed she went off on a tirade, a tangent. It was inappropriate and it demonstrated judgment of the poorest kind. She is not qualified to lead the House or even to be in the House leadership. It's time she resigned.