Ledbetter v Goodyear

The LAT editorializes this morning on the Ledbetter case and predictably takes the liberal side. The LAT believes the conservative majority on the Supreme Court erred in strictly interpreting the law Congress wrote. They insist that the court should have taken into account "real-world facts" and ruled for Ledbetter. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer took the same position last night. But these news organizations should look to Congress instead of the courts to resolve issues of "real-world facts." The court's job is to interpret the law, not change it. Justice Ginsberg said as much in her minority opinion.

LAT keeps attorneys case churning

A front page article by Tom Hamburger in today's LAT reports surmise and supposition in the case of a former U.S. attorney for Minnesota named Tom Heffelfinger, who resigned voluntarily but now believes he may have been targeted for firing because he sided with Indians who wanted to be allowed to vote using only tribal identification cards, something Minnesota's Secretary of State had prohibited. Separately, LAT reporter Richard B. Schmitt reports that the Justice Department is still investigating itself. Both reporters quote Joseph D. Rich, a former Justice Department employee who now works for a liberal organization involved in fighting "discrimination" in voting rights cases. Presumably, some see discrimination when non-citizens or people who can't prove they're citizens aren't allowed to vote.

Petruno laments Wall Street high

Today on the front page the LAT's stock market expert, Tom Petruno, argues the following: Since the S & P 500 hit an all-time high yesterday, investing in S & P 500 stocks is a poor bargain. He argues that investors in the S & P 500 stocks have been marking time for seven years because it took that long for the index to exceed the March 2000 high. To some, the glass is always half empty. Last fall, when the market hit a high, Petruno argued it was going to fall. He based that on interviews of unnamed sources whom he described as Wall Street veterans. The market has continued to climb since but with occasional down periods.

Kobe speaks

Kobe Bryant does himself no good by speaking to talk radio hosts and newspaper reporters about Laker management. If he continues, he'll permanently damage his relationship with Laker management, fans and teammates. Further, his actions may affect his marketability. Who wants an angry superstar? Imagine Tim Duncan bashing Spurs management and teammates.

OC Register on intelligence

The Orange County Register today argues on its editorial page that the recent reports and discussions concerning pre-war intelligence agency predictions about post-invasion dangers are Monday morning quarterbacking, aimed mostly at pointing fingers instead of providing lessons for future national leaders that may consider entering a conflict. Surely this is true. The political blame game reflects poorly on all who participate.

LAT reports on Iraq

In a piece on the front page of today's LAT labeled a "report," reporter Julian Barnes claims to have interviewed "military officers," "advisers," "analysts" and "outside experts" concerning progress in Iraq but he doesn't name them. He doesn't say why not. Without knowing who these people are and what positions they hold, it's impossible to know how much credence to give to what they supposedly said.

Barnes goes on to quote Defense Secretary Gates and Frederick W. Kagan and Stephen Biddle, both think tank scholars. These quotes add substance to the piece. Without them, the piece would have no substance (it's basically speculation anyhow) and would be pointless aside from the political impact it might have on readers who don't read critically.

LAT editorial on climate change

An editorial labeled "A Warming World -- Cool and collected," summarized with "A carbon tax is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to combat cataclysmic climate change" begins with this paragraph:

IF YOU HAVE KIDS, take them to the beach. They should enjoy it while it lasts, because there's a chance that within their lifetimes California's beaches will vanish under the waves.

Why read further? There's a chance that a tidal wave will destroy Santa Monica and all the other beach cities. There's a chance that an earthquake along the San Andreas fault will cause the western part of California to fall into the sea. There's a chance that North Korea, Iran or China will drop a bomb on Los Angeles and smash it to smithereens. There's a chance that Earth will be attacked by aliens from another solar system. But what are the odds?

Global warming advocates overstate their case, risking credibility.

LAT v GOP

On the front page today, the LAT features an article by Peter Wallsten claiming that the immigration issue splits the GOP. Well, yes, but it splits Dems too. Shouldn't that be on the front page as well?

LAT hypes Senate report

The LAT, in a front page article by James Gerstenzang, suggests that Bush ignored warnings from intelligence agencies before the Iraq war. Gerstenzang lists several warnings contained in a report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that, he suggests, accurately predicted the problems that have occurred since the 2003 invasion, like the heightened presence of Al Queda in Iraq, instances of score settling between those who supported Hussein and those who didn't, etc. The committee approved issuance of the report by an 11 to 5 vote with two Republicans joining all the Democrats on the panel in voting for release of the report. This seems like 20 - 20 hindsight and probably cherry-picking as well.

Hillary the centrist

According to The Economist's Lexington, Hillary is the most centrist of the presidential candidates -- must be a British disease, something like dementia. Hillary desperately wants to be the first woman president of the U. S. and will say or do whatever is necessary to get elected. She will please the left to get nominated, the center to get elected. If elected, she will govern as a liberal, something she has always been.

LAT's war funding surprise

In a front page piece in today's LAT, reporter Noam Levey, usually pro-Democrat and anti-Bush, produced a reasonably unbiased report on the passage by Congress yesterday of the war funding bill. That is a welcomed surprise. Sadly, that story did not take top billing, which went to a story by reporter Peter Spiegel about how President Bush reportedly is ready to adopt the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, likely mere speculation.

Goodling hit piece

Today on LAT's front page, reporter Rick Schmitt takes several swipes at former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, whom he describes as "a 33-year-old graduate of a little-known law school that teaches courses on the philosophy of punishing and controlling 'sin'." As usual, the piece is based primarily on anonymous sources. Even if all the rumors reported in the piece were true, there would be no proof that Goodling did anything illegal or unethical. It could be argued that she sometimes used poor judgment but that would be true of almost everyone on earth. The fact that Goodling is religious, which Schmitt emphasizes, has no significance with regard to her job. Even to suggest that, as Schmitt does, is unethical, both for the reporter and the newspaper.

LAT buries war funding deal

Senate Democrats finally agree to fund the troops without a "surrender date" but the LAT reports that news on page A6. On the front page, the LAT reports that a loony amendment to the immigration bill proposed by Barbara Boxer and Byron Dorgan was defeated. Was this an editorial judgment or a political one?

Amnesty or not?

Thomas Sowell has a column in today's Orange County Register concerning the recently introduced immigration bill -- the Kennedy-McCain bill or the Kennedy-Kyle bill or whatever. Much of Sowell's column is about amnesty -- whether what the bill does grants amnesty to the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants already in this country. He says the bill is dishonest because it doesn't call what it does "amnesty." He says the 1986 bill that granted amnesty to 3 million illegals was honest because it used the "amnesty" label but the 2007 bill is dishonest because it doesn't.

But what difference does it make what it's called? Politicians, pundits and the press make a big deal about what things are called. There was a big flap about whether the war in Iraq was or was not a civil war. What difference does it make? Why waste time arguing about a label? What really matters is what the bill does.

Sowell argues that illegal immigrants are law-breakers and that allowing them a path to citizenship is amnesty and therefore unacceptable. He's right, of course, about them being law-breakers. The question is: What penalty is appropriate for this law-breaking? The death penalty? Life imprisonment? A prison term? Probation? Deportation?

The bill's penalty is deferred citizenship and a fee. It's fair to argue that the penalty is not severe enough or that it is too severe. It's fair to argue that deportation is the only appropriate penalty, or that it's not. But to argue about what to call it is silly.

Sowell argues that illegal immigrants who commit crimes should be deported after they have served their sentences, which seems reasonable. And he reports that only 2 miles of the 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year have been built. If true then that ought to be corrected. Sowell argues that border security is not being enforced. If true, that ought to be corrected.

Amnesty or not? That ought to be forgotten.

LAT glorifies abortionist-in-training

On the front page today, the LAT describes a fourth-year medical student who plans to do abortions after completing her training. Her motivation: She wants to abort babies out of spite. She says it's like your brother telling you that you can't do something. It makes you want to do it all the more, she says. Besides, abortionist are in short supply. Business should be good, the LAT suggests.

The LAT story begins with the abortionist-in-training helping to deliver a premature baby and asking herself whether she could have aborted that baby. She decides she could have. Apparently, killing an innocent human being didn't concern her.

LAT favors Iraqi puppet

In a front page piece this morning by Paul Richter, the LAT reports that the Bush administration is under growing pressure to replace the Maliki government in Iraq with one that does what the U. S. wants done. The piece is based on anonymous sources, which is common for the LAT. If the U. S. were to replace the current Iraqi government with another then the new government would be a puppet government and the Iraqi state would be a puppet state. Only the LAT would propose such a thing.

Anonymous sources

This morning on the front page the LAT has a piece by Greg Miller that totals roughly 3,000 words and is based entirely on anonymous sources. Miller claims that Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri are in western Pakistan and are receiving money from Al Queda in Iraq, without which they would be desperately short of funds. Miller also reports a CIA surge into western Pakistan in an effort to locate and capture the two Al Queda leaders. Some or all of this may be true but it also could be partly or wholly false. Who are Miller's sources and what are their motives? Why are they not willing to be named? Why does the LAT print "news" from unnamed sources? Why should we believe what the LAT reports? After all, the LAT has for years viewed events and facts from the left.

Dems support fraudulent voting

Well, that's what you'd have to conclude from a piece by Tom Hamburger on the front page of the LAT today. Hamburger says that federal investigators are examining whether "electoral considerations -- such as a broader Republican initiative to enforce anti-fraud rules and cull questionable voters from rolls nationwide" played a part in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias.

If Iglesias wasn't enforcing anti-fraud rules and if he tried to block or stall efforts to cull questionable voters from rolls then he should have been fired. Everyone should be concerned about fraud and about people voting who don't have that right. It isn't a partisan issue, or shouldn't be, unless Democrats want illegal immigrants voting.

Hamburger goes on to describe a meeting between Iglesias and a New Mexico lawyer named Patrick Rogers, suggesting that was an attempt by Rogers, who is a Republican, illegally to influence Iglesias. But Iglesias attended voluntarily of his own free will. If Rogers tried to influence Iglesias isn't that any citizen's right? So long as there was no bribe or threat, what's the problem?

Comey v Gonzales

Doug Kmiec has a fine article in the Washington Post concerning the Comey/Card/Gonzales race to John Ashcroft's bedside over a legal interpretation of the administration's terrorist surveillance program. It's the first sensible analysis of the situation and it's written by a distinguished legal scholar and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Senators, especially those on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and journalists ought to read it.

Lehrer, Shields and Brooks

On the NewsHour tonight, the three musketeers ridicule Alberto Gonzales and seemed to regard Jim Comey as a hero. But Comey seems petty and insecure. Otherwise he would not have raced to the hospital to see John Ashcroft before Card and Gonzales and he surely would not have felt the need to tattle to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Brooks defended Paul Wolfowitz a little but Shields blamed Wolfowitz for his World Bank problems and even suggested that World Bank employees are underpaid, which is silly judging from news coverage.

The conversations between these three are becoming less and less informative.

LAT on Wolfowitz

In today's opinion section, the LAT publishes two anti-Wolfowitz articles, one by Mark Malloch Brown and the other by Lawrence Wilkerson. Brown, who is on George Soros's payroll, may have manipulated Wolfowitz's departure but in his article he praises Wolfowitz and suggests it's the system that's at fault.

Wilkerson, formerly Colin Powell's right hand, was irrational in his article. He blames Wolfowitz for nearly all that has not gone well in the last five years. It's no surprise. Wilkerson was part of the State Department bureauocracy that opposed the administration on nearly everything while Colin Powell led it.

LAT on Gonzales

On the editorial page today, the LAT rants about the story Jim Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee about Gonzales and Andrew Card calling on John Ashcroft while he was hospitalized, hoping to override a Comey decision. According to the LAT, Comey got to Ashcroft before Gonzales and Card, and Comey's decision was not overridden.

Comey's story is reminiscent of children running to mother, each trying to get to mom first, each telling mom the other is lying. When grown men behave this way, no one looks good, especially Comey. So why would he tell this tale? And why did it impress some senators and the LAT?

LAT beats up on old man

In a front page article this morning by Ralph Vartabedian, the LAT suggests that John McCain is not fit to be president. The reporter cites an instance when McCain descended a stairs one step at a time. Wonder what Vartabedian would have written about FDR, who had to be carried down stairs and who got around by wheelchair. The article seems an effort to disqualify a Hillary-beater.

LAT's front page

Today on its front page the LAT takes a swipe at Jerry Falwell calling him "fiery and divisive." Fiery maybe but no more divisive than the LAT.

On the same front page the LAT highlights escalating food prices, which is alright so long as they also from time to time highlight the declining budget deficit or the escalating stock market or low interest rates. These they seldom mention.

Also, on the same front page the LAT once more piles on Alberto Gonzales, relating a story about an attempt to get then Attorney General John Ashcoft to sign a document while in the hospital recovering from gallbladder surgery. The LAT quotes the bombastic Chuck Schumer as saying the incident "crystallized" Gonzales's "view about the rule of law: that he holds it in minimum low regard." The LAT might have quoted Gonzales but why let Gonzales speak when Schumer is available?

More on Wolfowitz and the WSJ

The WSJ also has a pro-Wolfowitz editorial in today's paper, biased of course. But it's an editorial.

WSJ reports on Wolfowitz

The WSJ reports today on the Wolfowitz/World Bank situation, but unlike the LAT its reporting is unbiased. And its thorough. The WSJ offers documents and details on its website. Anyone interested enough can read those documents and reach their own conclusions about who is right, Wolfowitz or his opponents.

LAT: Wolfowitz guilty as charged

The LAT doesn't go quite that far but it comes close. To suggest that a flap over the pay of a single bank employee is grounds for dismissal is ridiculous, even if that employee happens to be the boss's concubine.

The target is the Bush administration and the shooter is George Soros with Mark Malloch Brown as his accomplice. The LAT is their facilitator.

More on the LAT v the pope

Today, the LAT has an anti-pope editorial and a flock of anti-pope letters to the editor, suggesting the newspaper has decided to be critical of the pope and the church as a matter of editorial policy. There's supposed to be a firewall between the editorial pages and news reporting. That's the theory anyhow.

LAT covers the pope

Until recently, one of the most pleasant and informative aspects of reading the LAT was the reporting of Tracy Wilkinson, mostly from Rome and mostly about the pope. Her reporting was either pro-church or noncommittal. Now she seems to have a shadow, in the form of a reporter named Patrick J. McDonnell, whose reporting seems to be at least critical of the church and sometimes anti-religious. Since she acquired the shadow, Wilkinson's reporting has also become critical, perhaps because of McDonnell's contributions. Or perhaps editors have influenced them both. In any case, recent reporting on the pope has been more critical than previously.

Today, the LAT reports that only 150,000 came out to see the pope yesterday in Brazil. And Benedict did not give a ring to the poor as his predecessor did. And Benedict was too much like Joseph Ratzinger and too little like John Paul. And besides, the Catholic Church is doomed in Latin America.

LAT senses general's rebellion

Today, the LAT speculates about the motives of Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, who reportedly said he needed more troops in Diyala province to quell the violence there. LAT reporters suggest it's because Rumsfeld is gone or because generals have been told by Defense Secretary Gates to "speak their minds" or because generals have guilty consciences about botching the war and misleading the public. Obviously, the reporters are only guessing about Mixon's motivation, so why is that considered news?

LAT trashes Wolfowitz

In a front page piece in today's paper, reporter Nicole Gaouette passes along to readers a flock of complaints about Wolfowitz from unnamed current or former bank employees. The bank employs about 10,000. Gaouette doesn't say how many she interviewed, and it isn't clear how many different unnmamed people she's quoting. She includes some pro-Wolfowitz quotes and other information but the thrust of the piece is to make Wolfowitz look bad. Why does the LAT take sides on this? Because Wolfowitz is one of the "neocons" who got the U.S. into the Iraq war.

Cowardly Republicans meet the president

According to newspaper reports, eleven Republican congressmen and congresswomen met yesterday with the president and his advisers for a little over an hour, during which they warned the president that their support for the Iraq war was diminishing and that they would not support the president's war policies much longer. Then some went out and reported to the press what was said during the meeting. Fair weather friends.

It's fair to report your concerns to the president -- in private. Making it public is cowardly. It's done to make yourself look good, to cover your backsides, to take the heat off.

Griffith Park fire pushes politics off LAT front page

Sadly, it takes a fire to get the LAT's Washington bureau off the front page of the newspaper. Their mostly partisan articles have gotten so much front page coverage recently that it seemed as if nothing else was happening in the world. Properly, the Griffith Park fire got most of the coverage on today's front page. Inside Section A there were articles about Wolfowitz and the World Bank and the latest lunatic war funding proposal from House Democrats. Surprisingly, both these articles were reasonably balanced, considering they appeared in the LAT.

LAT v Wolfowitz

Based on anonymous sources, the LAT reports the demise of Paul Wolfowitz -- as World Bank head -- on today's front page. From the reporting, it appears the LAT has a dog in this fight.

LAT interprets Boehner

In today's paper, reporter Julian Barnes reports on Chris Wallace's interview of John Boehner on yesterday's Fox News Sunday program. Yesterday, Boehner downplayed the idea of benchmarks as part of war funding legislation. He said he introduced legislation last January that contained benchmarks of the kind that he could support -- not punitive benchmarks but guideposts, something by which to measure progress. Barnes seems to have heard it differently, that Boehner would go along with benchmarks of the kind that Democrats want, punitive benchmarks that would takes the U. S. out of Iraq if not met. Barnes reports that Boehner will insist on progress in Iraq by early fall. It's true that Boehner said that, but nearly everybody expects that and Gen. Petraeus has promised a progress report in September.

LAT: Gates opposes Bush plan

Citing unnamed sources -- something it has promised to curtail -- the LAT this morning says Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates doesn't mean what he says but rather what the LAT thinks he means. In a front page article, reporters Peter Spiegel and Julian Barnes argue that Gates does not agree with Bush on Iraq strategy. They quote Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman as saying "Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates are of like mind on this matter. To suggest that somehow he (Gates) has a different view ... on the strategy is wrong, and it's mischievous to suggest so." Despite this, they argue they know better what Gates truly believes.

Incidentally, the LAT acknowledges Doyle McManus as a contributor to the the article, which it labels a "report." The "report" reads like something McManus would write. The LAT calls McManus a "Times staff writer." Has McManus lost his job? He was head of the LAT's Washington bureau.

The Economist: The White House feels the heat

In its May 5th issue, the Economist has a reasonably balanced piece on the battle between congressional Democrats and the administration over war funding. The bottom line acccording to the Economist: "It is surely right to wait until September, as the general [Petraeus] asks, before passing judgment."

On the way to that conclusion, the Economist argues that congressional Democrats received "a convincing mandate" for ending the war in the last election. But Democrats have a paper-thin margin in the Senate (2 percent) and a thicker but still thin margin in the House (7 percent.) Surely a mandate requires much larger margins.

Further, the Economist suggests that the presidential candidacy of Chuck Hagel could start a "stampede" of Republicans away from Bush, a suggestion that is laughable, as is Hagel's potential candidacy.

Schumer at work

Chuck Schumer, New York's junior senator, has a bright idea: Have the U. S. government spend $300 million to counsel sub-prime borrowers on how to avoid foreclosure. At the same time, he wants to restrict lenders to insure "fairness and integrity" in lending.

One way to insure there will be fewer sub-prime lenders is to put more restrictions on them. Most of the people who financed their home purchases using a sub-prime mortgage could not have bought a home otherwise. Lenders need to charge higher rates of interest to sub-prime borrowers because the risk of foreclosure is higher for sub-prime loans. If lenders must charge sub-prime borrowers the same rates as others then they will make no sub-prime loans because it isn't profitable.

Jimmy Carter visits Orange County

According to the LAT, Carter spoke at UCI (University of California Irvine) for 20 minutes before a crowd estimated at 3,300 and then took questions. One UCI official is quoted as saying "We get a great man and don't have to pay him the fortune that he'd be worth." Some would argue whether he's great, and perhaps he's not as valuable a speaker as that official thinks, otherwise they might have had to pay more.

Apparently Carter's theme was that the Palestinians are getting used and abused because Israelis occupy their territory and the U. S. government is afraid to stop it because of the Jewish lobby. Well, the Jewish lobby is active and influential but the Palestinians' main problem is an inability to say yes. Clinton had a deal cooked up in the late 1990s that would have given Palestinians nearly everything they wanted but they turned it down. Palestinian government officials seem unable to make any concessions at all for fear that they will be seen as caving to Israel, and that can get them killed.

Unbiased reporting on war funding

Here's an unbiased report from Tax Newsletter-2007, published on the web by CCH Incorporated, concerning new war funding legislation:

White House and Congressional Leaders Begin Talks on Second War Supplemental Bill

Talks began on May 2 between President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to reach agreement on an Iraq war supplemental funding bill following the president's veto of the first package (HR 1591) on May 1 (TAXDAY, 2007/05/02, W.1). The second war funding bill will contain the minimum wage increase and small business tax cut proposals that were included in HR 1591.

Following the White House meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that the package needs to be done by Memorial Day. The White House has designated Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman, Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley as its key negotiators. The meeting at the White House focused on procedures for moving a bill forward but was not a negotiating session, congressional leaders said.

By Paula Cruickshank, CCH News Staff

LAT highlights alleged Republican dissension

Citing unnamed sources, the LAT argues today on the front page that congressional Republicans are divided on war funding, some suggesting that binding benchmarks must be part of the new legislation that will replace the one the president vetoed. Perhaps, but congressional Democrats do not march in lockstep either. The lead reporter on the piece is Noam N. Levey, who sometimes writes as if he is lead propagandist for the Democratic party.

The signing ceremony

Reid and Pelosi held a signing ceremony yesterday before sending the war funding bill to the president for his veto. It further demonstrated Pelosi's intention to behave as a shadow president. Reid and Pelosi delayed passing the bill to the president for five days so as to force the presidential veto on the anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" speech four years ago. These leaders of the U. S. Congress are behaving like juveniles.

Incidentally, the "Mission Accomplished" speech has been widely misrepresented. See the actual speech elsewhere on the web.

More on Murray

Last night on Lehrer's show, Murray demonstrated her sense of fairness by talking over Hutchison when she spoke. When Murray spoke Hutchison was silent.

Patty Murray on TV

Democratic Senator Patty Murray appeared on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer tonight with Republian Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to debate the Iraq war funding bill and the president's veto. Given several opportunities to suggest a way for Congress to proceed following the veto, Murray had nothing to offer. Instead she insisted that the president had to accept what Democrats offer, apparently without conditions. If Murray spoke for her party then there will be no war funding legislation, which is the equivalent of denying funding.

LAT: AG delegates power

The LAT reports today that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales delegated the power to hire and fire some political appointees within the Justice Department to his chief of staff and the department's White House liason. On learning this, Democrats were concerned and some were disturbed.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) was quoted by the LAT as saying the disclosure was evidence "of an effort to hardwire control over law enforcement by White House political operatives. The mass firing of U. S. attorneys appeared to be part of a systematic scheme to inject political influence into hiring and firing decisions of key Justice employees." Apparently, Democrats and the press have not yet found hard evidence to prove that.

LAT investigates the investigator

Today, LAT investigative reporter Tom Hamburger, in a front page article, describes Scott J. Bloch, Special Counsel, U. S. Office of the Special Counsel. Bloch is the Democrats' "white hope" in that he has the job of investigating whether Karl Rove's organization violated the Hatch Act, which makes it unlawful for government assets and resources to be used for political purposes.

On the one hand, Bloch is thought to be a Bushie. There is a suspicion he may be religious, for example. And some think he doesn't like gays. Worse, he has seven children. So, some think he isn't to be trusted.

But so far there's no evidence he doesn't do his job. Thus, the LAT investigates the investigator.