The LAT's nonsensical editorial

The LAT is angry again this morning at California's Republican legislators, this time because they took a "no new taxes pledge." The budget deficit and the budgetary stalemate rest firmly on their shoulders, the LAT claims. Cutting back on state expenditures would be worse than raising taxes, the LAT says, because the money not spent by the state wouldn't end up juicing the economy. And the economy needs juicing now.

Near the end of its editorial, the LAT prints the following sentence: "They [Republican legislators] can concentrate instead on the additional money that even deeper cuts will take out of the [state's] economy and see that modest or temporary tax increases will serve California better."

Apparently, the LAT believes that if money isn't spent by the state it won't be spent, and that confiscating taxpayers' money isn't contractionary.

O. C. Register: Follow the money

In an editorial yesterday, the Orange County Register lambasted the federal government for not attaching enough strings to TARP funding. The Treasury Department should have been required to track the money that has been given to banks to insure it has been used for the purposes Congress intended, the Register says.

But one dollar looks like another. Pour a bucket of water into a swimming pool and nothing changes that you can see, except the bucket gets emptied. The water in the pool all looks the same. Mix two containers of maple syrup and nothing changes except the quantity of maple syrup. You can't tell which syrup came from which container because all the syrup looks the same.

Money is like that. Dump borrowed money into a bank account that already contains money. Then pay some bills. Which bills were paid with the borrowed money? You can't tell.

So, you can't insist that money that is commingled with other money be used in a particular way. It isn't possible to determine how it was used.

The government can insist that certain things be accomplished, or avoided. For example, the government could require that firms receiving TARP funding not pay dividends. Or not attempt to raise money via a stock issue or by new borrowing. Or not acquire other companies. Or not pay large salaries to managers. All these are legitimate restrictions because they can be verified.

Perhaps the Register intended to suggest those kinds of restrictions. But that's not how the editorial read.

Blame Republican legislators

LAT columnist George Skelton claimed in his column yesterday that the 43 percent increase in California's general fund expenditures since the governator took office (Skelton says it's actually 45 percent. The 43 percent is a Republican figure.) is a relatively modest increase and can be attributed to population growth and inflation. Besides, more people need mental healthcare and the population is aging. But the biggest factor is the governator's cut in the car tax which mainly went to local governments. The governator promised to replace the local governments' lost tax revenue from state coffers.

OK, but don't the people moving into the state pay taxes, and aren't people paying more in sales and income taxes on inflated wages and retail sales? Is it necessary to regularly raise tax rates so as to keep the deficit down, as Democrats consistently insist? That can't be the answer.

Blame Bush

LAT columnist Paul Richter wrote in yesterday's LAT that the U.S. is going to hell in a hand basket and its all Bush's fault. Hardly a day goes by without something like this appearing in the LAT. The newspaper describes Richter's column as one in a series of occasional reports on President Bush's legacy. The LAT ought to save the ink and paper. It needs the money to pay its debts.

Orange County union members protest firings

The County of Orange, California, is in financial distress. Revenues are shrinking due to the economy. County administrators have taken action to live within the County's means. Among the actions is to lay off some workers and furlough others for days or weeks at a time. This has infuriated the union, which has organized demonstrations against the cutbacks, some apparently on County time.

The demonstrators and organizers ought to be fired. They're confused about what their rights and obligations are. They don't have a right to a job. County administrators have an obligation to cut back so that outlay doesn't exceed income. Administrators are just doing what they're obligated to do.

LAT suffers from Bush hatred syndrome

In an editorial today, the LAT rehashes several complaints it has about the Bush administration, which it calls lawless. The LAT argues that attempting prosecution of people like Cheney and Rumsfeld would be wrong and pointless. The LAT, in other words, is taking the high road, unlike some on the left. That's the claim, at least.

But the supposed crimes and excesses of the Bush administration are a crock. Nothing the LAT describes is either criminal or unethical. Left-wingers, including LAT editors, have hated Bush for 8 years. They've said he is an an illegitimate president, that he wasn't elected but appointed -- by the Supreme Court. They can't get over their failure to steal the 2000 election. To these left-wingers, Bush can do nothing right, which is a symptom of their sickness.

LAT: End the supermajority

The LAT argues this morning in an editorial for an end to California's constitutional requirement that budgets and tax increases be approved by two-thirds of legislators. It's interesting.

Democrats in the legislature refuse to bargain with Republicans because Republicans refuse to consider tax increases. Democrats refuse to cut expenditures sufficient to balance the budget. Who's at fault? Californians are already among the highest-taxed people in the world. If they were under-taxed a tax increase would make sense.

Democrats don't let a little thing like the state constitution affect their decision-making. They just ignore the constitution. They call a tax increase a fee and go about their business, illegally.

It doesn't pay to trust such people.

LAT: Bush "utterly eclipsed" by Obama

The LAT today published a piece by Tribune reporter Howard Witt that contains the following sentence, speaking of President Bush: "And he's utterly eclipsed by a charismatic successor."

First, Obama isn't Bush's successor until Bush leaves office and Obama takes the oath. Second, who said Obama is charismatic, other than Witt? Michelle and the girls? Third, in what way has Obama eclipsed Bush?

Huffington, free market capitalism expert

Arianna Huffington has a piece on Real Clear Politics in which she claims that free market capitalism, or laissez-faire capitalism, is dead. It "has been a monumental failure in practice, and soundly defeated at the polls," she says. "It's time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is."

Huffington quotes Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford, Al Hubbard, Alan Greenspan, and William Seidman but primarily she seems to rely on a New York Times article published December 20th which blames the Bush presidency for nearly everything. 

Huffington offers no specifics. She doesn't identify what it is she finds objectionable about free market capitalism. She has no suggestions about how to replace free market capitalism or what should replace it. Her only suggestion is to scrap it. It isn't arguable, she says. 

That doesn't help much.

Skelton: Raise taxes, er fees, by majority vote

LAT columnist George Skelton argues this morning that the governator has offered confused and confusing reasons for his recent veto threat concerning the Democrats' legislative approach to solving California's budget crisis. Skelton is right. The governator has been incoherent.

But the plan that Skelton and the Democrats espouse is illegal. They can't legally raise taxes by majority vote. California's constitution requires a two-thirds vote. Democrats want to call some of the tax increases "fees" because fee increases do not require tw0-thirds. Democrats hope that some court will rule in their favor and bail them out.

But you can't change the nature of a thing by changing what you call it. The proposed "fees" are disguised tax increases. If it quacks like a duck ...

Basic rights

The right to say what you wish is a basic right. It's in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it's not an unrestricted right. You don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, to use a well known example.

Gays insist that the right to marry is a basic right. It isn't in the Constitution or any amendment but let's assume for a moment that it is a basic right. Does that mean that it can't be restricted in any way? If it's anything like the right to free speech then it must be subject to some restrictions.

What kind of restrictions might be appropriate for a right to marry? Let's try a few. Let's say you're not free to marry a child, say an 18 month old baby. Surely, no one would object to such a restriction. So let's put a minimum age on the right to marry. Let's say no one under age 18 may marry.

If you can swallow that one, let's try another. Let's say you can only marry one person at a time and you can't already be married. Is that too restrictive?

No? Then let's say you can't marry a close relative, like a brother or sister. Let's set the limit at second cousin. Let's say you can marry anyone more distant than second cousin. Is that OK?

Now let's say you can't marry anyone of the same sex. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex who's 18 or over and isn't a close relative but you can only marry one and you can't be married at the time. Have you been denied a basic right?

Gays would say you have been but why is the same-sex restriction a denial of a basic right but the other restrictions are not? Gays have offered no answer. They just repeat the same unconvincing argument over and over, louder and louder. If you don't agree they try to intimidate you and call you intolerant, a bigot, hysterical and homophobic.

LAT: Religious right intolerant and hysterical

The LAT, in an editorial today, argues that the religious right is intolerant and that some on the right are hysterical concerning same-sex "marriage". 

You could argue that the LAT is intolerant because they're judgmental about the religious right. Or because they don't allow non-journalists to write their editorials. Or because they are selective about which letters they publish. Or because they dumped Michael Ramirez as their editorial cartoonist. If they were really tolerant, they'd have a pro-religious right columnist on their op-ed pages. 

People have a right to disagree with the LAT without being called intolerant, hysterical or homophobic.

A fool and his money are soon parted

The LAT has a front page piece today about a couple who invested $600,000 with Bernard Madoff, indirectly. It grew to $1.2 million on paper, then zero. The fellow they invested with directly, Stanley Chais of Beverly Hills, and who in turn invested with Madoff, was unlicensed.

The couple said it seemed like a safe bet. Chais was a wealthy investment advisor and trusted family friend who produced strong returns for relatives for two decades. The couple enjoyed consistent returns of about 15 percent per year. Chais took about 4 percent for his services.

Quarterly statements provided to the couple by Chais were vague. The couple couldn't tell from the statements what trades were made, how they were made or by whom. The whole thing was hush-hush.

There are all kinds of alarms here. Chais was unlicensed. The investors didn't know how the funds were being invested, by whom or in what. Reporting was vague. Returns were excessive for conservative investments. The advisor took too much. Trades were being made by someone other than the investors. 

Learning a little about investing wouldn't have taken the couple much time and would have saved them much grief. Reading a book such as "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Princeton professor Burton Malkiel would have given them an understanding of the relationship between risk and reward and might have led them to understand the dangers in what they chose to do. 

There's a tendency to want to bail out people like this couple. As sad as their situation is, that would be a mistake. People must take responsibility for their own affairs, financial and otherwise.  

Zimbabwean money

Robyn Dixon has a fascinating piece in today's LAT about Zimbabwean money. It shouldn't be missed.

Lame duck bails out carmakers

President Bush, the lame duck who Barney Frank criticized as being AWOL, bailed out GM, Chrysler, the UAW, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats generally when he agreed to lend $17.4 billion to GM and Chrysler from the TARP. Whether he prevented economic Armageddon remains to be seen.

Truth be told, the $17.4 billion is probably a sunk cost, never to be recovered. It's the price of a three-month postponement. Unless the carmakers get concessions from the UAW they cannot survive. They will not get adequate concessions until a bankruptcy court orders them. Even then, there's no assurance that they can survive without new management at GM.

That's how it looks from here.

Impeach the AG

California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, swore to defend California's constitution. He's also California's top law enforcement official. By arguing before the California Supreme Court in an 11-page brief that Prop. 8 should be overturned, Brown violated his oath. It's grounds for impeachment.

Clearly, Brown has been intimidated by gay demonstrations following the November 4th election. He'll regret caving to gays.

Regulation

Most everyone says that what we need now is more regulation and better regulators. If we had had those things, Madoff could not have made off with $50 billion of investors' money. Everyone is wrong.

Hedge funds and funds like Madoff's need to be regulated to protect investors, some say. But why should the wealthy not be able to invest in unregulated funds? They have the resources to hire people to check out potential investments before they part with their money. Why should taxpayers be saddled with protecting such people?

People like Mort Zuckerman, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg invest in funds like Madoff's for a better rate of  return. There would be no other reason to invest with Madoff. They could invest in U.S. Treasury Bills without risk, but would need to accept the low rate that Treasury Bills return. They could invest in index funds where the potential rate of return is a little higher, but the risk also would be higher. The people who invested with Madoff wanted better rates of return than Treasury Bills and index funds provide and they were willing to accept greater risks to achieve the better returns. Their rates of return were excellent for a while but then they lost all they had invested. They gambled and lost.

Regulation is necessary for investment vehicles in which amateurs invest and for investment advisers who advise amateurs. Those who enforce such regulation need good training, tools and supervision. But wealthy people should be allowed to invest however they wish. They should be allowed to take such risks as they are willing to take. They are able to look after themselves. The government should have no role in protecting such people.

Today's LAT editorials

In the first, the LAT ridicules the California legislature and the governator for their ineffectual, ridiculous and laughable attempts to solve California's budget crisis. The situation in Sacrament is a little like an Abbott and Costella routine: Who's on first? What's on second? (This old fool's analysis, not the LAT's.)

The second editorial concerned Obama's selection of Rick Warren. The LAT's view is the correct one. Warren does no harm to anyone. Gays are overreacting, as they nearly always do. It isn't helpful to them. It does not earn them the respect they so desperately crave.

Gays angry at Warren, Obama

What else is new. A gay representative appeared on last night's NewsHour on PBS demanding that Obama not disrespect him and other gays. Pastor Rick Warren favored Prop. 8 and that angers gays. Obama shouldn't have selected him for the inaugural invocation because it disrespects gays. If gays don't start getting more respect they're going to do something. That's the threat.

What can they do? Become Republicans? Gays have no where to turn except to Obama and Democrats.

About a week ago, gays demonstrated their impact on the economy by staying home from work and not shopping. No one missed them.

Governator vetoes

California's governator vetoed the legislature's illegal budget fix that would have raised taxes without the required two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. Good for the governator, good for Californians. But the governator didn't give a coherent reason for the veto.

Noonan's mood, redux

Peggy Noonan, WSJ columnist, today writes pessimistically about America and its economy, and especially about what she sees as its lack of leadership. As a Bush hater, presumably she especially senses a lack of presidential leadership.

She zeros in on the $50 billion Madoff scandal and suggests that's just one of the reasons for her despair. She laments what she sees as the collapse of faith in our institutions. "Not only in Wall Street but in our entire economy, and in government. And of course there's Blago." "The reigning ethos," she writes, "seems to be every man for himself."

But it has always been like that. Relying on the government or a bank or brokerage firm or financial planner to protect you from economic loss has always been stupid. Those people and organizations have always been motivated by self-interest.

Noonan always seems surprised and depressed that stuff doesn't work out as she had hoped. Nothing ever does. Events happen that can't be anticipated. People react in unexpected ways. Plans, therefore, constantly must be updated.

Noonan closes with the hope that Obama will rescue her and everyone else. It's OK to hope that. If she expects that then she will be disappointed.

Substance vs. form

Democrats in the California legislature have a plan. To solve the budget crisis, or partly to, Democrats plan to raise taxes, then lower them, then raise them again but call the new taxes "fees." That way, they can avoid (evade) the Constitutional requirement that tax increases be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature.

Republicans, who constitute a little more than a third of legislators, have been blocking Democrats' attempts to raise taxes using the two-thirds requirement. According to newspaper reports, Democrats -- who apparently are a little slow on the uptake -- have finally realized that Republicans are never going to vote for tax increases.

And the courts -- which invariably look to substance rather than form -- are never going to approve this Democratic pipe dream.

Rutten on Madoff

LAT columnist Tim Rutten writes today that the $50 billion fleecing that Bernard L. Madoff gave the securities markets and investors is the result of insufficient regulation. Deregulation has failed, he writes, and the "absolutists insistence on the superiority of 'individual choice' and 'free markets' now is exposed as so much vacant rhetoric." Rutten doesn't explain how unfree markets and lack of choice would work or why it would be better than what we have now.

Rutten then writes of people like Mort Zuckerman and Jeffrey Katzenberg and questions why such people, who presumably are sophisticated investors, would allow themselves to be taken in by someone like Madoff. One answer, though not Rutten's answer, seems to be that they were looking for a higher rate of return than others were getting. Madoff seemed to be producing that higher rate of return.

Bob Citron, treasurer of the County of Orange, California, produced higher rates of return than other treasurers in the years leading up to the 1994 bankruptcy. Until the bankruptcy, everyone thought he was a genius, like investors thought Madoff was. He wasn't. He just took more risk than anyone else did.

There will always be Madoffs and Citrons and Enrons and Worldcoms. No amount of regulation can prevent it. Bureaucrats aren't that smart. Investors need to be wary. It's extremely foolish to think you can beat the market.

Today's LAT editorials

The LAT rightly argues today in one editorial that the Big 3 carmakers can only be made right in Chapter 11. Hurray for the LAT.

In another editorial , the LAT argues that California's legislature must raise taxes or the budget crisis will not be solved. But California's taxpayers already are among the highest-taxed in the world. Taxing them more is dead wrong. Cancel my subscription.

LAT's Steve Lopez is the voice of reason, not

LAT columnist Steve Lopez wrote a column recently in which he defended a woman who had contributed to the pro-Prop. 8 campaign in a small way and later was harassed by gays for her contribution. Today, Lopez writes that he has taken a lot of guff for that column but doesn't regret it, first because lots of people read that column (and that is a measure of how secure Lopez's job is) and second because he's the voice of reason.

Ordinarily, this old fool doesn't read Lopez because his column is mostly trash. The column on Prop. 8 is the exception.

In the original column, Lopez took the position that the lady who got harassed had a right to contribute and vote any way she chose and that that's a basic right. Lopez is right about that right.

But today Lopez suggests that people who supported Prop. 8 and who are opposed to gay "marriage" are bigots or worse (religious) or both. To prove his point, Lopez quotes Voltaire: "Prejudices are what fools use for reason." Fools seem unreasonably inclined to call people (especially religious people) bigots and homophobes.

Same-sex couples in civil unions in California have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. That they do not in other states is not an issue that Californians can decide, either by popular vote or judicial fiat.

The California Supreme Court last May voted 4 to 3 to declare unconstitutional a proposition that California's voters had approved by a wide margin. By approving Prop. 8, voters overruled the Supreme Court and amended the Constitution, which was their right.

Lopez and others argue that the Prop. 8 campaign was "ugly" or unfair or untruthful or bigoted or illegal or unconstitutional or whatever. But the behavior of gays and their supporters following the election has been worse by a magnitude of 10 or 20. That behavior is not productive. It does not make gays look good. It makes them appear vindictive, unreasonable, despicable.

LAT misrepresents Bush's regrets

In a piece published this morning in the LAT, reporters Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed write that President Bush "acknowledged regrets about relying on bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction when he invaded Iraq ...."

It's a case either of poor listening or imprecise writing. Bush didn't say he regretted relying on that intelligence. It was the only intelligence he had and he had a right to rely on it. What Bush said is that he regretted it wasn't accurate.

Then again, maybe Susman and Ahmed wrote exactly what they intended, knowing it was misleading. It's the kind of thing LAT reporters might do.

Zimbabwe report

The LAT published a piece yesterday by Robyn Dixon that summarized the disastrous history of Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. It shouldn't be missed. Here's a link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mugabe14-2008dec14,0,4418603.story

LAT: Senate GOP took a swipe at unions

Not exactly. The auto workers' union is a principle reason why the carmakers need a bailout. If the Big 3 were competitive then they would not need to go to Washington begging for money from the government (other taxpayers.) The Big 3 are not competitive because they pay union employees more than non-union carmakers pay their workers.

By insisting on current wage rates, the UAW likely will force the Big 3 into bankruptcy where, if the companies are liquidated, workers will have no jobs and no pay at any rate. The UAW is betting that Uncle Sam will bail them out.

Perhaps for a while. Not forever.

Democrats rely on lame duck

President Bush, the lame duck, the nonexistent president that Barney Frank lamented missing only days ago, is the last fond hope of Congressional Democrats and the UAW. Wonder how they feel about Mr. Bush now.

They probably still hate him and still insist he's an illegitimate president. Good works go unrewarded.

Lexington on preventing genocide

The Economist columnist Lexington writes this week about an Obama task force that is researching genocide and ways to prevent it. Lexington writes of Rwanda and Darfur but fails to mention the ongoing genocide in Zimbabwe. Why?

The Economist: Zimbabwe's people are dying of cholera

The disease may spread into South Africa. People in Zimbabwe are starving. Mugabe refuses to help. In fact, he's the reason why there is famine and cholera in Zimbabwe. The international community must force Mugabe out. Just not yet, according to The Economist.

How many more must die?

Noonan's mood

Peggy Noonan, in her WSJ column today, claims the country has a new mood, then goes on to try to describe it. Perhaps Noonan's mood is a New York mood, since that's where she lives.

Whatever, near the end of her column she takes up "Blago," the Illinois governor, who she describes as a "lipless, dull-featured, wig-wearing moron with a foul-mouthed harridan of a wife." Noonan adds "The minute I saw him I thought, That's exactly what a guy like that would look like!" That alone is justification for reading her column.

Reporting on Zimbabwe

The LAT reports again on the situation in Zimbabwe, which is pitiful. The reporter is Robyn Dixon, who deserves a medal for her work. Alongside the piece on Zimbabwe, LAT staff writer Thomas Maugh explains cholera -- what it is, how it affects humans, how the disease spreads and how it is treated.

The NewsHour on PBS last night broadcast sickening pictures of people suffering from cholera in the epidemic in Zimbabwe in which more than 700 have died. The epidemic is the direct result of Robert Mugabe's policies. He's a criminal and ought to be tried as such.

Congressional Oversight Panel reports

The panel is supposed to oversee the Treasury Department's handling of the $700 billion TARP fund that Congress authorized to bail out banks and other financial institutions. The report consists of 10 questions, many of which are questions for the Treasury Department. A section of the report discusses each of the 10 questions and raises other questions.

The panel was formed over the last two weeks and probably hasn't had time to delve into the matter thoroughly but the report is disappointing nevertheless. It reveals a sort of bureaucratic approach to the panel's oversight function and a sort of nitpicking approach as well. Panel members seem unclear about what Congress intended when it passed the TARP legislation and about what the Treasury Department is supposed to be doing with the funds. You'd think they would have a clear understanding of such matters before they accepted their assignment.

LAT revisits Proposition 8

In an editorial today, the LAT charges that pro-8 forces are responsible for starting the nasty get-even tactics and intimidation that have characterized the post-election reaction to the passage of Proposition 8. According to the LAT, before the election the Yes-on-8 campaign sent letters to some California businesses saying that if the businesses contributed to the No-on-8 campaign they would need to make an equal contribution to the Yes-on-8 campaign or "risk being publicly outed as opponents of 'traditional marriage' (the implication being that they would then face a boycott)."

The LAT says boycotting is a "time-honored method of expressing opinions and pushing for social or political change," but suggests that the Yes-on-8 campaign's letter-writing was either uglier than the tactics used by the other side or came earlier and therefore justified the ugly post-election negative reaction to Prop. 8.

The LAT editors must not have watched the demonstrations much on TV. People have been threatened and perhaps injured by anti-8 demonstrators, streets and intersections have been shut down, demonstrators have blocked access to Mormon temples and churches. Anti-8 forces have mailed white powder to church officials; not letters to businesses. The LAT doesn't mention the violence but does acknowledge that some people have lost their jobs because they contributed to the Yes-on-8 campaign.

In the end, the LAT rightly argues that citizens ought to be able to vote and contribute without fear of intimidation. If only the editors were a little more evenhanded and objective in their view of Prop. 8 reactions.

Bush the lame duck

Bush isn't active enough, they say. Obama hasn't been sworn in yet but he's the only one doing anything. Saying we have only one president at a time may be overstating the number of presidents we have, according to Barney Frank.

Congressional Democrats are crafting a bill to offer a $15 billion bail out to the Big Three carmakers. They're crafting it in such a way as to gain Bush's approval. Barney Frank is intimately involved in the crafting.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has handed out $335 billion to financial institutions since October 1. Paulson works for Bush.

Apparently, Bush has been more active and influential than people think.

Breaking news: LAT critical of Bush

The LAT's Peter Nicholas, of the crack, nonpartisan Washington bureau, reports today that Bush "detractors" say the following have marred the Bush presidency: "the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib."

If that's the best Bush's "detractors" can come up with then Bush should leave office with a high approval rating. He won't but he should.

Washington awash with bail outs

According to today's WaPo:

With Congress poised to vote on a rescue for the nation's auto industry and President-elect Barack Obama promising to launch a massive public spending program, Capitol Hill has once again become the scene of a lobbying free-for-all, with industry and local governments alike seeking some of the billions in taxpayer dollars that Congress is likely to spend in the not-too-distant future.

It figured.

Sack Wagoner

The Wall Street Journal reports this morning on the demand that GM management be replaced as a condition of the proposed $15 billion short-term bailout currently being considered by Congress. The WSJ reporting included the following:

"On Sunday, Jerome B. York, an adviser to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian who served as a GM director in 2006 when Mr. Kerkorian owned a stake in the company, called publicly for sweeping change at GM. 'Aside from a failure of leadership at the most senior executive management level, GM has five long-serving directors who have been on the board 10 years or more,' Mr. York said in a telephone interview. 'They have approved of and overseen many of the moves that have contributed to the company's troubles. They should also resign.'"

Yup.

Money and money grabbers

Barack Obama's stimulus plan could cost $700 billion. That's in addition to the $700 billion Congress authorized for the TARP program. The carmakers want$34 billion and may get $15 billion this week. They may need as much as $125 billion according to one estimate. The states want a bail out estimated at $125 billion or more. The Federal Reserve has pumped more than $1 trillion into credit markets.

The sources of all this money are: (1) borrowing and (2) money creation. Both are inflationary. When will this inflation be reflected in the economy? Soon is a good guess. Does this mean we could replicate the 1970s when the economy suffered from stagflation -- inflation and stagnation? Could be.

When will the demand for bail outs subside? As long as there are bail outs, someone will want one and will justify the need for one the same way the carmakers and the states are justifying their demands.

Save the Big Three; unionize all carmakers

That's the theory of a sociology professor at Wesleyan University whose op-ed piece was published in today's LAT. The professor wants to unionize Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW and other auto makers manufacturing in the U.S. That would make GM, Ford and Chrysler competitive, the professor writes. Looney left newspaper publishes looney left professor.

Death at WalMart

The LAT has a story on today's front page that describes the scene on Black Friday as a rioting crowd charged a WalMart store in a New York suburb, killing a store worker. The story is detailed and well written. What happened is disgusting. People in the crowd behaved like animals, which suggests that humans aren't far removed from the animal kingdom.

LAT: Obama team crafts ambitious stimulus plan

The LAT reported that this morning, before Obama's radio address. According to the LAT, the Obama team was considering some ideas that appeal to special interests.

Pelosi reversal

The LAT reports this morning that the carmakers may get $14 billion from the previously authorized $25 billion Energy Department advanced technology fund. They could have had that before Thanksgiving if Pelosi and Harry Reid had not blocked it. The Bush administration urged Congress to take that approach in mid-November.

Lexington: Obama outlines his stimulus plan

In the December 4th issue of The Economist, the left wing columnist who opines under the Lexington pseudonym wrote that Barack Obama has outlined "his proposed stimulus plan. A lame-duck Congress may even pass a version of that plan before Mr Obama comes to office."

Must have missed it. Where is it? What is it? And how, with their one-vote margin in the Senate, will the Democratic Congress pass Obama's nonexistent "proposed stimulus plan?" Does Lexington write the column from Europe?

Today, in a weekly radio address, Obama did outline a stimulus plan with, according to the Washington Post, "no price tag and few details." Maybe Lexington can reuse the December 4th column.

The carmakers

If a company is 30 days from being unable to pay its bills, as GM says it is, the discussion should be about how to end it, how to liquidate, who gets assigned to turn off the lights. The party's over. The end is near. Hoping an angel will appear who will save the company is fantasy.

With only 30 days left, management has waited too long. All the nonessential assets that are salable should already have been sold, especially the corporate jets and the headquarters building. The home office should be like a ghost-town. It should be possible to fire a shotgun through the office and not hit anyone.

With only 30 days left, remaining employees should be shredding documents, auctioning off office equipment. Bankruptcy lawyers should occupy the remaining desks and chairs. The liquidation plan should focus on salvaging as much as can be salvaged for shareholders, if anything can be salvaged.

With only 30 days left, the rats should be deserting the sinking ship. The company has no future and employees know it, and they know they have no future with the company. Resumes will be polished. Job interviews will be arranged. Next month, employees will be collecting unemployment.

GM is either in this situation or its CEO is lying to Congress. Either way, he needs to be canned.

Parker: Republicans need less God

On the WaPo op-ed pages today, Kathleen Parker returns to a question she raised in a previous column: What's wrong with the Republican Party. She claimed then that Republicans have a religion problem. Today, she tries to reinforce that argument, or restate it:

Reacting to Ramesh Ponnuru, who wrote in National Review "that social conservatives 'could present themselves more attractively,' and 'pick their spokesmen more wisely,'" Parker replied:

"That's a start, but let's take it another step. How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one's values, but let reason inform one's public arguments."

"That was and remains my point. It isn't so much God causing the GOP problems; it's his fan club."

"The broad perception among centrists, moderates, conservative Democrats, renegade Republicans, etc., is that the GOP is the party of white Christians to the exclusion of others, some of whom might also be social conservatives."

Well, she certainly cleared up that.

There's a perception that Republicans are white, either that or they're Christian or they're both white and Christian. And the perception is caused by social conservatives bringing God into their arguments, which Parker forbids. Why? It offends her. Why does it offend her? It isn't clear.

But it isn't God that offends Parker so much. As she says, "It's his fan club." They turn her off. Why? It isn't clear.

Got it?

OCR: California's voters could break budget deadlock

A column on today's Orange County Register op-ed pages argues that California's budget crisis could be solved by putting it up to a vote of the people. They could be presented with alternatives -- say a tax increase or a spending cut. The people could vote for one or the other and the winning strategy would be employed to break the deadlock.

It's a dumb idea. Voters would be pleased to increase someone else's taxes, just not their own. Or to cut someone else's favorite governmental program, just not their own. TV ads would misrepresent the issues. Voters would get confused. It makes no sense.

In the November 4th election, despite an $11 billion budget shortfall (and growing), California's voters approved a $10 billion bond issue for a high speed rail line connecting northern and southern California. Why would we expect better judgement from voters in the future?

LAT analyzes Big Three bailout arguments

In an editorial today, the LAT reviews the Big Three carmakers' financial situation and then analyzes some of the arguments for and against a government bailout. In doing so, the LAT assigns undeserved significance to some arguments and fails to take up others.

For example, the LAT says, "There's little difference [between the Big Three and foreign automakers] these days in the average wages paid and benefits offered to new (emphasis added) employees, or in the time spent producing each car." True but unimportant. It's wages paid and benefits offered to long-time employees and former employees that put the Detroit automakers at a disadvantage.

The LAT argues that no "large gaps remain in quality, reliability and innovation" but then laments "the public's perception that their [the Big Three's] products are inferior." The LAT thinks Detroit's cars are as reliable, innovative and of high quality but car buyers don't. It's car buyers who matter. Their perception make take years to change.

The Big Three have made a satisfactory case for temporary help from the government, the LAT believes. The foreign carmakers have suffered from lower sales in recent months too, the LAT points out, suggesting the Big Three may not be such poor marketers after all. Either way, the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for billions of dollars because of "massive liabilities for workers' pensions," the LAT says. "We think there would be less pain caused by restructuring into smaller and more efficient units without dipping into liquidation."

It's true that Japanese and German carmakers have suffered recently from lack of demand. But the Big Three have suffered for years. Because workers' pensions are guaranteed by the underfunded Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government entity, it's true that taxpayers will be on the hook whether or not the Big Three are bailed out. But the bailout alternative will be more expensive and will not force the carmakers to reorganize and restructure. No one is talking about liquidation, only reorganization under Chapter 11.

In the final analysis, no government entity, official or agency can make the Big Three competitive and profitable. Congress can't. Neither the outgoing or incoming president can. The carmakers must do it themselves. They will not until they face a "come to Jesus" moment. That moment is almost here. A bailout can only postpone the moment for a few months.

LAT admits to churlishness

In an editorial today, the LAT misinterprets and mischaracterizes remarks made by President Bush to ABC's Charles Gibson in a recent interview. In the interview, Bush said he regretted that pre-war intelligence on Iraq was wrong about whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Rather than accept that at face value, the LAT tries to suggest that Bush really was saying he regretted attacking and invading Iraq. The LAT chastises Bush for saying in the interview that he can't now know what he would have decided in 2003 if he had known then that the intelligence was wrong.

Finally, the LAT admits it's churlish to ask Bush to confess that he made a mistake in 2003. Yes it is.

Pardons

The LAT argues this morning in an editorial that President Bush shouldn't behave like former President Clinton did as he heads out the door. Clinton handed out a slew of pardons in his final days and hours. The LAT urges Bush not to do the same.

Why do they think he would? Is there any evidence that Bush is like Clinton? Has Bush messed around in the oval office with an intern. Has he invited disreputable people to sleep overnight in the Lincoln bedroom in return for campaign contributions?

Beggin for bucks

Based on the LAT's reporting, the carmakers' business plans raise a lot of questions, such as: Were these plans developed during the last two weeks? If not, why weren't they discussed in last month's hearings? If so, why didn't the carmakers have plans before the hearings? Why are the carmakers asking for different amounts of money or credit now than they were begging for last month?

Why does GM's plan talk about things GM will do in the future -- like sell or close Saab and Saturn? Why hasn't GM already done these things? If GM needs $4 billion before the end of the year why didn't they say that last month? Can't they project cash flow more than six weeks in advance? If not, they need new management.

Chrysler says it's survival depends on finding a merger partner. Are they negotiating a merger? Have they identified potential merger partners? If so, who are they? If not, why not?

Bottom line, it appear that GM and Chrysler can't survive as currently structured. Why pour good money into companies that can't pay it back. Ford appears to have a viable plan and appears not to need a bailout.

Zimbabwe disaster

The LAT's Robyn Dixon reports in this morning's newspaper on the disaster that is Zimbabwe, describing starving people searching for food and dying infants suffering from HIV and malnutrition. Dixon deserves an award for her reporting. Zimbabwe strong man Robert Mugabe deserves to be strung up from a high place for the disaster he created. Zimbabwe was not a poor country before he made it one by confiscating productive farm land and turning it over to people who had no clue how to farm it.

Carmakers aren't the only beggars

Two state governors appeared on PBS's NewsHour last night trying to justify a federal bailout for state governments that have spent more than they take in. People need retraining, states need new bridges, airports, harbors and highways. The federal government ought to pay for these because it will put people back to work. The governors didn't seemed concerned about what to build, only that whatever is built should create jobs.

The argument sounds familiar. During the cold war, East German factories made things East Germans didn't want and wouldn't buy, creating surpluses of things people didn't want and shortages of things they did. Socialism in action.

LAT: Recession could last into 2010

Gloom and doom is what the LAT predicts, for a few years anyway. LAT reporter Maura Reynolds quotes one economist as saying the current recession will be the worst since the great one and will not bottom out until 2010, which suggests that economist thinks the recession could last into 2011 or 2012 since once the economy bottoms it must then recover.

Economist, like journalists and others, ought to stick to what they know. Reynolds violates that principle right away in her report by saying that last week's run up in stocks was "built on hope that the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama could turn the economy around." How does she know that stock traders were thinking that last week and who in their right mind would think any administration could "turn the economy around"?

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.

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.