LAT: Delay tax increases

The LAT comes out this morning with a surprise, arguing that Obama should delay consideration of tax increases on the wealthy until the economy improves. A tax increase on high bracket taxpayers now "could reduce work and send confusing signals about the government's recovery efforts," the LAT says. Couldn't agree more.

LAT speaks up for Columbia FTA

In an editorial Tuesday, the LAT said, "If the U.S. snubs its trading partners in Latin America, it would leave a vacuum that countries like Russia and China would be only to0 happy to fill -- to the detriment of both our economy and national security." Does Nancy Pelosi read the LAT?

LAT salutes Christina Romer

The LAT describes Obama economics appointee Christina Romer in glowing terms in today's newspaper, ending with, "She is a nice tough person." Did the LAT ever treat any Bush appointee similarly?

Jimmy Carter suddenly aware of Zimbabwe

According to the LAT, Carter said yesterday in Johannesburg, South Africa that Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis is worse than he could have imagined. Doesn't Carter read the newspapers?

Zimbabwe has been a basket case for a decade or more and has been getting worse each year. This surely can't have surprised anybody, Jimmy Carter excepted. Yet the international community has done almost nothing to change the situation. Robert Mugabe should have been forced out of the country. Consideration should be given to prosecuting him as a war criminal or some other kind of criminal. Zimbabwe formerly fed Africa and part of the rest of the world. Now it can't feed its own people. That's criminal and Mugabe is responsible.

Rutten on peace in the Middle East

LAT columnist Tim Rutten on Saturday relayed the contents of an interview between two Israeli journalists and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as described by the journalists in a piece published in the New York Review of Books. The trouble is, nothing Rutten relays is new.

Rutten says that Israel must make concessions in return for peace. It has seemed clear for some time that Israel is willing to do that. What isn't clear is what concessions the Palestinians are willing to make.

The first problem is that there are two Palestines, one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank. Each has its own government. Hamas in Gaza refuses to concede anything and the West Bank government is weak. If it concedes anything then it could be overturned by Hamas.

The second problem is that no Palestinian government has agreed to give up the "right of return." No Israeli government can compromise on that because it would end Israel's existence. If neither side is willing to concede on that issue then peace is impossible to achieve.

LAT irrationally fears Sarah Palin

In a Saturday editorial, the LAT expressed satisfaction at the defeat of former Senator Ted Stevens' bid for reelection. LAT editors said they were worried that Sarah Palin would get Stevens' seat through a series of implausible events. They added that they were still worried that she may eventually win a Senate seat.

Even if Senator Palin should turn out to be incompetent, she could not be worse than Barbara Boxer and several other Democratic senators.

LAT has a Plan B for Columbia

Despite obvious progress in Columbia in a war against rebels partly financed by Hugo Chavez and despite obvious economic progress there, the LAT chooses to focus on the relatively minor human rights violations. It's Bush's fault, the LAT says. What else is new?

Columbia is one of the few friends of the U.S. remaining in Latin America. The rest are sliding into socialism if not already there. That may well be what the LAT hopes will happen in Columbia. The LAT seems to have a soft spot for socialists and communists, like the deceased Che Guevara, who is a god to some people on the left.

Cash for carmakers

Watching the car maker CEOs testify yesterday was interesting. They behaved like skilled salesmen, presenting arguments about why we should buy what they were selling, which wasn't cars but a pig in a poke. The point about their having traveled from Detroit in private jets pretty much captured the moment and sealed the deal.

There was no discussion about how the $25 billion they wanted would be split among the three companies but let's assume it would be split equally, so each would get $8.3 billion. How long would that last each of them? Just a guess but it sounded like they could burn through $8.3 billion in about a month and a half. Then what?

Fortunately, it appears the deal is dead. They will not get that $25 billion. But they still could get the $25 billion that has already been authorized -- for development of new, energy-efficient cars. And after January 20th it's nearly certain they'll get more.

LAT on Prop. 8 lawsuits

The LAT editorializes this morning on the Proposition 8 lawsuits. Of course, the LAT makes clear that it hopes the California Supreme Court will overturn Proposition 8 but it discusses the legal issues in a mostly balanced way.

This old fool obviously disagrees with the LAT on the merits of the issue and thinks the legal case for overturning the proposition is weak. One of the LAT's contentions that is particularly disagreeable is that gay "marriage" is a basic right. Since gays in civil unions have the same rights as married couples, it defies reason to suggest that gays are being denied a "basic right." Additionally, the LAT represents that Proposition 8 was hateful; it wasn't but the behavior of gay demonstrators since November 4th has been.

Sowell and Parker

Thomas Sowell has a piece today on the op-ed page of the Orange County Register in which he argues that some people or groups believe that rules apply to others, not to them. He gives several examples but the most pertinent seems to be the gay demonstrators -- gay mobs according to Sowell -- who block intersections and freeway off ramps, enter churches and temples to disrupt services, injure and threaten non-gays and boycott stores and restaurants. "While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves," Sowell says.

Sowell says people and groups think they have a right not only to compete but to win. Everybody thinks their cause is just, he says, and therefore they believe that rules don't apply to them. The result is anarchy, he says. The question is: How long will the majority tolerate this? "When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go."

Kathleen Parker has a piece in today's Washington Post in which she argues that the Republican Party is lost because it depends too much on Christians for its base. The evangelical right wing "of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh." The party intelligentsia agrees with her, she says, though they will not admit to it publicly.

"The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it." "... the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle. " "It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs."

So, Christians can be Christian but they ought to keep quite about it. They're an embarrassment, apparently. So many people don't believe in marriage and so many that do aren't white that they feel alienated.

"Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting." Except for "Miss Alaska," according to Parker, and she's "part of the problem."

"Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party," Parker says. Who would make up that base? Gays? Trial lawyers? Environmentalists? Feminists? Parker doesn't say.

Lexington: GOP a ship of fools

The Republican Party has "little to say about today’s pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research." "Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause."

That, briefly, is the indictment of the GOP by the left-wing Lexington columnist at The Economist. Republicans have no brain power, Lexington says. They depend for ideas on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Makes you wonder why a respectable British publication (up until now) would hire such a biased writer for a key column about the United States.

Gay demonstrations continue

Gay demonstrations all over the country continued over the weekend, according to news reports. In Southern California, protestors demonstrated at Mormon temples in Westwood and Newport Beach, some carrying signs urging a "no" vote on Proposition 8. Presumably, those sign-carriers weren't aware that the people have already voted on Proposition 8. It makes you wonder. Are these people who don't have anything else to do?

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 have been filed and that process likely will continue until there has been a final resolution, perhaps in the highest court of the land. But what is the point of the demonstrations? Are the demonstrators trying to show what fine, reasonable people gays are? If so, they're failing. The television and newspaper pictures do not portray the demonstrators in a good light. The demonstrators look angry, undisciplined, unkempt and rude. It's hardly a way to win friends and influence people.

LAT: Roman Catholic Church too selective

In an editorial today, the LAT judges the Roman Catholic Church to be too anti-homosexual. The Church shouldn't subject potential priests to psychological testing and shouldn't reject gays. Gays are not pedophiles, the LAT argues, and the Church can safely allow gays into the priesthood while keeping pedophiles out.

Who appointed these busybodies to pass judgment on the Catholic Church's seminarian selection process? They're self-appointed. The LAT was quick to judge when some priests were found to have molested young people and now is quick to judge efforts to prevent future molestation.

Rutten opposes intimidation

LAT columnist Tim Rutten wrote on Saturday's op-ed page that intimidation of California Supreme Court justices by threat of recall is unfair but finds no fault with gays' intimidation of voters by blocking intersections and access to churches and temples. Proposition 8 was a low and dishonest affair financed by religious organizations which are obligated to stay out of such matters, Rutten argues. If Proposition 8 had been something Rutten favored, it's likely his views on forms of intimidation would flip.

The silent majority remains silent

As gays demonstrate nightly in California and elsewhere over the passage of Proposition 8, the majority of Californians, those who voted for Proposition 8, remain mostly silent. As gays boycott stores and restaurants where they perceive they've been disrespected (by a contribution to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign or in whatever other way), the majority of Californians remain docile and fail to respond. As California's governator expresses his hope that the California Supreme Court will declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the majority of Californians remain silent and passive. How long will the majority of Californians remain this way?

If the demonstrations and boycotts continue, at some point the majority will react, how and when one can only speculate. When they do react, will they react politically by punishing at the ballot box or will they react violently? Will the majority take to the streets with their own demonstrations? Will gays become targets? No one knows but a violent reaction is a risk that demonstrating gays should perhaps consider.

OC Register: Gay "marriage" is a matter of basic rights

Orange County Register columnist Tibor R. Machan writes today on gay "marriage" from a libertarian's perspective. Libertarians believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to do nearly anything they want unless their behavior adversely affects someone else's right to the same freedom. It's not a bad philosophy except for its practical limitations.

Machan argues that there are a great many matters about which people should not get to vote. The First Amendment, for example, "rules out voting on religious practices." "Voting on whether one may elect to die with the aid of a willing assistant" is like "voting on whether some of us should be enslaved." Such voting shouldn't be allowed, Machan argues.

Likewise, voting a ban on same-sex "marriage" shouldn't be allowed because "It is no one's business, apart from the couple's, whether they should get married.""So long as gays marrying each other forces no one to do anything ... it is no one's proper authority to prohibit it. All the gay bashers need to accept this, however their twisted reasoning tries to escape it." Machan admits that it's not that simple -- that marriage conveys certain legal privileges that others must provide -- but he believes that should be dealt with separately.

Machan fails to mention a key fact: In California, partners in same-sex partnerships have exactly the same rights as married heterosexuals have. After Proposition 8, they simply can't get a marriage license. They can say they're married. They can call themselves Mr. and Mrs. or mommy and daddy or husband and wife or Joe and John or whatever they wish. They can even have a minister or priest or rabbi or imam "marry" them if they wish. They can say they're the same as married. The only thing they can't properly do is claim they're legally married.

Now, if there is no difference in the civil rights of a partner in a same-sex partnership and a married heterosexual, what basic rights are being withheld from the former? Answer: There are none. The debate is about whether the word "marriage" can legally be associated with a same-sex union. Those in favor of the ban say it can't, properly, because a same-sex union doesn't meet the definition of a marriage as that term has been understood historically. To change the definition to include a same-sex union is to corrupt the meaning of the word. Gays insist that failure to include same-sex union within the definition deprives them of respect and acceptance for which they desperately pine.

LAT: Gays ought to try in-your-face radicalism

They've already tried that and are trying it now but it doesn't appear to have worked or to be working.

According to the LAT, gays are being deprived of their civil rights. Therefore, they ought to stand up and fight. Before the election, gays weren't sufficiently aroused and that cost them a victory on Proposition 8.

The LAT suggests that pro-8 forces spent more on television advertising than anti-8 forces. But this television viewer's unscientific observation suggests the opposite.

In-your-face radicalism attempts to intimidate the opposition. It's never a fair tactic and it shouldn't be necessary if reason is on your side. In practice it seldom works because the opposition is seldom intimidated. Often, such radicalism is counter-productive because it fires up the opposition.

Reason is not on the side of same-sex "marriage" proponents. Gays are not being denied their civil rights. Gays have not identified a civil right they're being denied. What they claim they're being denied is respect and acceptance. In-your-face radicalism will not get them that.

Gay "marriage"

A law professor at University of California Berkeley, Goodwin Liu, writes this morning on the LAT op-ed page, explaining with some specificity the gay arguments against Proposition 8.

First, Liu argues that marriage confers "dignity and stature." "Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth," Liu writes.

Liu next argues that gay "marriage" is symbolic and therefore is important to gays. He writes that "Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences that shape one's worldview."

Finally, Liu argues that as gay "marriages" become more common they will become more acceptable and that opposition to gay "marriage" will become "the will of a narrow and ultimately temporary majority."

So the debate is not about rights. Gays already have equal rights, Professor Liu admits. The culture war over gay "marriage" is about dignity and stature and symbolism and acceptance.

The nightly vindictive, hateful demonstrations against Proposition 8 are not dignified and do not help to increase gay stature or make gay culture more acceptable. They are symbolic, however, of a spoiled, pampered, spiteful, bullying minority culture that is unwilling to play by the rules of a democratic society.

More gay demonstrations

According to today's LAT, gays demonstrated again last night in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Modesto. The LAT's front page has a picture of gays demonstrating in Silver Lake, a district within Los Angeles where a famous gay bar once was located. The picture shows gays carrying signs saying "Stop the Hate," "Separate but equal is never equal" and "I am a 2nd class citizen."

But gays themselves are exhibiting hatred by behaving in a vindictive way toward those who voted in favor of Proposition 8 and by trying to intimidate opponents. Demonstrating at Mormon temples, blocking traffic at intersections and destroying or damaging property are examples of hateful behavior. Hanging a political opponent in effigy isn't helpful either.  Gays, the ones who demonstrate, are behaving like hateful, vindictive people.

Most troubling is that gays can't seem to identify in a coherent way why they're demonstrating. Obviously, they're angry that Proposition 8 passed but that was about marriage. How does Proposition 8  relate to "separate but equal" or "2nd class citizen?" 

Gays insist that they're being denied rights. Specifically, what rights?

Rainey rants, again

The LAT's James Rainey has a column in today's newspaper in which he takes on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, claiming they're saying outrageous things about Barack Obama. Rainey seems to say they should be more like him: objective, impartial, honest and principled. All mainstream newspapers are that way, Rainey suggests. Take the LAT for example. Rainey should re-read his own stuff.

Gays demonstrate again

Gays demonstrated again last night in West Hollywood, Long Beach and San Francisco, according to KNBC-TV Los Angeles. (It appears that the LAT did not report on these demonstrations in today's newspaper.) There also were reports of demonstrations in Salt Lake. Gays apparently believe these demonstrations will help to overturn Proposition 8. Either that or they just want to punish people who supported Prop. 8. 

The more this goes on, the worse gays look. They appear vindictive. These demonstrations likely will  cause gays to lose supporters instead of gaining them. You'd think that wiser gays would develop a smarter strategy.

Gays continue to say that Proposition 8 deprives them of rights but fail to specify which rights. In California, gays in same-sex partnerships have the same rights as married people.

Intimidation

Gays protested again last night in West L.A., this time outside a Mormon temple in Westwood, home of the UCLA Bruins. Is it intimidation? Sure. Gays are saying "Vote against us and we'll make your life miserable." It's what the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi brownshirts did.

"... they want to destroy gay people."

That's from a letter to the LAT, published today, signed by Joann Moschella of Santa Cruz. She's writing about "people who sponsored Proposition 8." It isn't true.

It should be obvious that what Proposition 8 supporters want is for marriage to remain what it has always been. They do not want change forced on them by four California Supreme Court justices. The people have spoken on this twice. That should be sufficient.

LAT takes aim at Palin, again

LAT reporter Kim Murphy, who has spent weeks if not months in Alaska trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin -- who would want such an assignment, especially with winter approaching? -- reports this morning from Anchorage saying Palin's "vice-presidential carriage [has] turned into a pumpkin." Lovely reporting.

Obama's victory speech

Peggy Noonan writes today in the WSJ about how proud she felt as she watched Barack Obama's victory speech in Grant Park in Chicago Tuesday night, proud because Obama overcame race to become the next president of the U.S. She calls the speech "sterling." Nothing wrong with that but Obama's outdoor speeches in Berlin, Denver and now Chicago are becoming a little tiresome; and the one Tuesday night seemed especially pompous. Wouldn't a simple thank you to his supporters from a hotel ballroom have served just as well? What was the point of an outdoor speech, especially in Chicago in November? He had already made numerous speeches laying out his campaign's promises to supporters. Did he say anything new Tuesday night? Not much, which is why it seemed pompous -- an attempt to show how big a crowd he could draw, to grandstand.

Proposition 8

Gays protested passage of Proposition 8 in a demostration last night in West Los Angeles, a gay sanctuary. (This is the area where Sarah Palin was hanged in effigy.) Three lawsuits already have been filed attempting to overturn Proposition 8. They argue that Proposition 8 is a constitutional "revision" instead of an "amendment." A "revision" requires approval by the legislature before it is submitted to voters. Apparently, Proposition 8 wasn't approved by the legislature.

All this is according to the LAT, which opposed Proposition 8. In an editorial this morning, the LAT argued that the majority of voters must be nuts to vote for Proposition 8 but that gays eventually will win on the issue because all the opponents of gay "marriage" eventually will die off.

The LAT goes on to lament the injustice of the majority's decision. Gays are like blacks, the LAT argues. They're being discriminated against, which is pitiful.

The LAT fails to mention that in California, the only state where Proposition 8 has any effect, same-sex partners in domestic partnerships have the same rights as married individuals. The only difference is that same-sex partners can't say they're "married." Well, they can say anything they want -- the federal constitution guarantees them that. But under Proposition 8 they can't represent that they're married when filling out official documents like applications for draft cards or Social Security benefits. But even if Proposition 8 had not passed, gays in same-sex "marriages" would not have been able to do those things because federal law doesn't recognize same-sex "marriages." Under California law, there is nothing a married person can do that a same-sex partner can't do.

Obama wins

Barack Obama won yesterday's election fair and square. Sure, there were lots of illegal votes but not enough to reverse the result. Obama will be president come January 20th. The looney Biden will be vice president. At least that gets him out of the Senate where he can do no harm -- unless something happens to Obama.

It's hard to guess which is the greater danger: Obama as president, Biden as president or Obama and Biden in the Senate. Perhaps Biden as president would be the greatest danger because he is incompetent and can't keep his mouth shut. Pray for Obama.

If McCain had won, race riots would have been likely, especially in places like Los Angeles and Detroit. Liberals would have alleged voter suppression or ballot manipulation or something to justify recounts and lawsuits. The situation would have been similar to the Florida 2000 fiasco where Al Gore tried to steal the election. Democrats would have insisted that McCain was an illegitimate president, certainly not their president.

Since Obama has won, there will be no riots and few if any lawsuits. The decision of the people of the United States will be accepted and respected by Republicans and conservatives. It is one of the differences between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

But Republicans and conservatives will oppose Obama and Democrats in Congress when they disagree with them, as they should. In a perfect world, such oppositon would not be necessary often.

Proposition 8

At 12:40 p.m. today California time, the "yes" vote on Proposition 8 leads the "no" vote 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent with 98.3 percent of precincts reporting. It's safe, therefore, to say that Proposition 8 has passed. That will not settle the issue.

Look for a flurry of lawsuits disputing the proposition's wording or alleging fraud in its ballot qualification or demanding a recount or whatever teams of lawyers can dream up. Look also for adverse court rulings based on assumed rights or imagined theories up to and including the California Supreme Court. Gay couples that "married" after the California Supreme Court ruled for gay "marriage" last May and before yesterday will argue that their "marriages" are valid because they complied with the law as it existed at the time of the "marriage." Proposition 8 covers this but these gay couples will insist it does not.

Bottom line, this is not over. Gays will never give up. Straights shouldn't either.

Rainey reporting

LAT staff writer (or columnist or both) James Rainey reports today and yesterday on the front page describing the presidential election campaign. He's a little negative on all the candidates except Barack Obama, who he describes as a young, black lawmaker. It beats his columns.

LAT editorializes for Prop. 8

The LAT argues today that Prop. 8 proponents use dishonest arguments, citing events in Massachusetts and elsewhere as proof that Prop. 8 would be bad for Californians. There's no reason to fear Prop. 8, the LAT says. It's just a question of equal rights, the LAT argues.

But the LAT declines to be honest in its editorial. It fails to mention that gays in domestic partnerships already have the same rights as married couples. Talk about being dishonest.

Obama's illegal aunt

The LAT reports today that Barack Obama's aunt, who lives in Boston, is in the U.S. illegally. But it's reported on page A16 in a short piece from the AP. Evidently, this doesn't much interest the LAT.

Stephanie Simon on Studs Terkel

Simon has an article on the front page of today's LAT eulogizing Studs Terkel. The LAT says she's a former staff writer. Currently, she writes for the WSJ. She probably wrote the eulogy before she left the LAT, knowing Terkel wouldn't live forever. Anyhow, it's a brilliant piece, though the subject was less than brilliant in this old fool's opinion. It isn't the first superb piece Simon has published, at the LAT or elsewhere. She's a rising star of journalism. Perhaps she's not merely rising.