LAT pokes fun at Bush, passes on Pelosi

On the front page today, the LAT pokes fun at President Bush over a comment he made yesterday at his news conference when he seemed surprised to hear that someone was predicting $4 gasoline. The joke is on the LAT. Bush's comment isn't newsworthy. Reporting it only satisfies a twisted mind that is confused about what is newsworthy and what isn't.

The LAT has not yet reported that a majority of House members favor passage of the Senate-passed bill to renew the Protect America Act but that Nancy Pelosi has blocked House consideration of it. That is newsworthy and the LAT should report it.

Substandard writing on business and economics

LAT reporting on business and economics is seldom worth reading because it so seldom is accurate. Too much reporting is interpretive instead of objective. Usually, such interpretations are anti-business, pro-union or pro-government (advocating more governmental restrictions on businesses or investors.) Tom Petruno and Peter Gosselin are most likely to do this but others do it as well. The one bright spot is Kathy Kristoff, who invariably reports factually and who almost always has the facts right.

Heilbrunn on conservatism's death

Today the LAT provides op-ed space for Jacob Heilbrunn to argue that with Buckley's death conservatism has died also, because the current crop of conservatives have allowed it to "collapse". Reports of conservatism's death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain.)

LAT praises Buckley, sort of

On the editorial page today, the LAT eulogizes William F. Buckley, with a few good words but many critical words as well. Taking a shot at the conservative movement, the LAT says today's conservatives are shrill and lack humor. Wonder if they ever read their own product?

Kind words for NAFTA from the LAT

Will wonders never cease? The LAT editorializes this morning on NAFTA, and has kind words to say, unlike most liberals and especially unlike the two Democrat presidential candidates, who can't find enough bad to say about it, though Hillary's husband pushed it through Congress.

LAT reports on Buckley death

The LAT reports this morning on the death of William F. Buckley, and puts it on the front page with a picture, but below the fold. Inside, they devote an entire page to his life, which is good, but it doesn't compare to the space they gave Fidel Castro when he resigned. And Castro isn't even dead yet.

Petruno on the front page

LAT columnist Tom Petruno appears on the front page again this morning, offering little new information but lots of opinion. It's routine and it's a disservice to readers.

LAT misdescribes McCain's apology

On the front page today, the LAT describes John McCain's apology for remarks made by a warm-up speaker before his own speech as an apology for racial remarks. It wasn't. It was for all the other remarks the speaker made that McCain thought were over the top. The LAT chooses to make it about race, which it wasn't.

LAT nitpicks refueling

In an editorial today, the LAT is outraged that American planes carrying terrorists refueled twice in 2002 at the joint U.K.-U.S. military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Why shouldn't U.S. flights refuel at a base jointly financed, built and run by the American and British governments? Well, the LAT thinks, without proof and despite statements to the contrary from the governments involved, that terrorists on those flights may have been waterboarded somewhere in the world either before or after the refuelings. It's hard to imagine how presumed adults could get so excited about so little but the liberal rage against Bush knows no bounds.

Petruno of the LAT

Petruno made the front page today, bad-mouthing the economy and predicting doom and depression, a theme that never varies, in good times or bad.

LAT reports on conservatives they've discovered

On the front page today, the LAT reports they've found a young man who claims to be a conservative but likes Obama. The young fellow has friends who don't believe in abortion but he doesn't condemn them for it.

Ill-mannered

Some Oscar winners never learned any manners. Invited to a party because of artistic achievement, at least one winner thought he was there as a political pundit.

Samuelson on Obama

In a column titled The Obama Delusion, Robert J. Samuelson hits the nail on the head, saying Obama's offerings are "standard goodie-bag politics." Samuelson calls "the contrast between his [Obama's] broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda stark." Obama "seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public" with the result that there is "mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't." All true. That so many people can behave so stupidly over Obama is disgusting.

Beautiful music, gorgeous children or vice versa

At Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church's 11:30 a.m. mass today, gorgeous children dressed in red vests over white tops with dark pants or skirts below sang beautiful music beautifully, raising this old fool's spirits.

Late breaking news on wiretapping

The LAT reports today that Mukasey and McConnell have changed course, and now say that telecoms are cooperating without retroactive immunity. It must mean that the administration was lying before when it said they weren't, the LAT suggests. It's serious backpeddling, according to a LAT anonymous source. On the record, the ACLU says Bush wants "sweeping powers to wiretap without warrants" and is "playing politics with domestic surveillance legislation." Depend on the ACLU to put the most negative spin on anything Bush does or wants to do. The LAT still doesn't mention that Pelosi blocked legislation that was sure to pass the House before the Protect America Act expired.

LAT: FISA lapse no problem

In an editorial today, the LAT argues that the Bush administration exaggerates the danger of allowing the Protect America Act to expire. When Congress returns to work after its break, the LAT says, a compromise should be worked out, one that does not provide what the administration and the telecoms insist is necessary: immunity for past acts. That's no compromise.

The LAT fails to mention that the bill the Senate has already passed would now be law if Speaker Pelosi had allowed it to come to a vote in the House. Majority does not rule in the House. The Speaker does, and she blocked the bill out of spite, ignoring potential dangers and possible damage to U.S. intelligence efforts.

Castro rehabilitation

LAT reporter Hector Tobar, in a page one piece this morning labeled news analysis, further tries to rehabilitate Fidel Castro, saying he's "widely admired." Tobar essentially blames the U.S. for Castro's failures, arguing that Castro's "struggle against U.S. 'imperialism' left his [Castro's] people impoverished and isolated." Castro's revolution was "the defining event"of Latin American history in the 20th Century, says Tobar. No other leader was able to "confront the United States for half a century and survive." Tobar's piece includes the obligatory reference to the communist revolutionary Che Guevara, folk hero to the American left.

Lexington for independents

The Economist's Lexington columnist wrote in the Feb. 14th issue that independents may determine the next president. Perhaps. Lexington's conclusion is not so much the issue.  His or her reasoning is. That and the cheap shots. 

Lexington begins by calling George Bush the "polarizer-in-chief," an unnecessary assertion having nothing to do with the central theme. Next, he or she mentions Arnold Schwarzenegger, suggesting Arnold's "post-partisanship" makes him what? Quicker? Faster? Stronger? Then Lexington cites Colin Powell, who supposedly said he would vote for the presidential candidate who will "do the best job for America," as if that were a unique thought.  

Arnold and Colin are personalities but neither has been inspiring in his second career. It could be argued that both prove the truth of the Peter Principle. Bush is no more polarizing than Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, either Clinton, Carter, Kerry, Gore or any other Democrat. 

Lexington goes on to argue that Republicans, "by a chapter of accidents," may have "stumbled" into nominating a man who may appeal to independents, though the "silver-tongued" "Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents." We're lucky Lexington isn't biased.

O. C. Register judges surveillance program

In an editorial today, the O. C. Register argues that the terrorists surveillance program, aka warrantless wiretap program, is illegal and ought not be renewed when the House of Representatives returns from Presidents' Day break, at least not in the form passed by the Senate. The editorial includes the following:

"Although it's doubtful the program did all that much to frustrate terrorists, surveillance programs begun under it can continue for a year even though the law has expired, so the supposed damage to intelligence is minimal at best."

The CIA head and the Director of National Intelligence have testified to the opposite: that the program has helped to prevent new attacks and that the one-year rule does not prevent damage to national intelligence. Communication companies will not cooperate with the intelligence agencies until they are given immunity from legal liability, which awaits House passage of the bill.

But the O.C. Register knows better, apparently, or they think they do. Based on what we don't know because the Register doesn't say. Moreover, the Register does not mention in its editorial that the House's failure to act before taking its break was a spiteful act perpetrated by the Speaker and intended to stick it to President Bush, without regard to how the delay might affect national security.

Peggy Noonan on Barack

In today's column, Peggy Noonan repeats a sentiment from a previous column: Barack Obama is "a brilliant and accomplished young black man with a consensus temperament, a thoughtful and peaceful person who wishes to lead." Young black man? Yes. Brilliant and accomplished? Not yet proven. Consensus temperament? Merely an assertion without proof. Thoughtful and peaceful? How would anyone know? Wishes to lead? Definitely.

Who's behind the NYT's McCain story?

Answer: Dean Baquet, former LAT editor. At some point, he ought to be made to pay for the damage he has done to the newspapers he has worked for. According to the New Republic, Baquet persuaded NYT editor Bill Keller to publish the McCain piece. The two have combined to produce substandard journalism before, and then tried unsucessfully to justify it by jointly publishing a 2006 op-ed in the NYT and LAT. 

Analyst: one that analyzes

California's state legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill has adopted a new role, that of policy advisor. The formerly non-partisan budget analyst now critiques the governator and legislator and offers policy recommendations, including tax increases. Thus she is no longer an analyst.

LAT's Paul Richter favors Castro

On the LAT's front page today, reporter Paul Richter praises Fidel Castro and laments his resignation, or seems to. "One U.S. president after another tried to rid himself of Castro through invasion, assassination and economic blockade," Richter says. According to Richter, "... turning over power to Raul was part of a long-laid script for a gradual shift to minimize the chances of political upheaval. Castro, who had one of the longest tenures as head of state, took greater care than many other authoritarian leaders [otherwise know as dictators] to perpetuate what he had created." Castro's Cuba, Richter says, "symbolized the threatening proximity of revolution."

Richter's piece was one element of a very large spread in the LAT concerning Castro that covered roughly two-thirds of the front page and three whole inside pages. Generally, the coverage was favorable to Castro and even incorporated references to Castro's fellow revolutionary Che Guevara, another LAT favorite.

On the LAT website's home page at this hour, Castro is hardly mentioned. Does this reflect a difference in editorial judgment between online editors and those who publish the newpaper?

LAT criticizes McCain vote

In an editorial today, the LAT takes John McCain to task for voting against a Dem bill that would have outlawed waterboarding, arguing that waterboarding is torture. The waterboarding argument is old and tiresome, because it never gets to the central issue: Is waterboarding torture? To the LAT, that isn't even a legitimate question. Everyone knows waterboarding is torture, end of story, the LAT seems to think.

But why? Waterboarding actually is a mild form of persuasion, doing no actual harm. Instead, it scares the person being waterboarded to the point of spilling the beans. Apparently, it's very effective, and, again, it does no damage to mind or body.

So, why are liberals apoplectic over waterboarding? It's political, and besides, no one has challenged them on their definition of torture.

LAT acknowledges Iraq progress

In an editorial today, the LAT finally acknowledges the recent political progress in Iraq, but not before examining the souls of military and civilian leaders like Gates and Petraeus and concluding those leaders will do the wrong thing, which in LAT parlance means staying in Iraq too long. To the LAT, of course, 5 minutes is too long.

Accomplishment

In a column today, Peggy Noonan offers Hillary Clinton some advice, among which is to tell potential voters the truth. One "truth" that Noonan says Clinton should tell is: "I'm up against an opponent who's classy and accomplished ...".

Obama classy and accomplished? Classy to some, maybe, but accomplished? What has he accomplished? He was a state legislator and then was elected to the U. S. Senate. That's accomplishment but it hardly qualifies a junior senator for the presidency. Perhaps Noonan thinks reading speeches well is an accomplishment. Or being thin? Well, OK, leading Clinton is an accomplishment, but Clinton is a flawed candidate. But Obama lead the other Democratic candidates, too. That's an accomplishment.

But shouldn't "accomplishment" mean something like finding a cure for cancer, or discovering a new way to explain how markets work, or negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Shouldn't an accomplish person be someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a truly thoughtful and dignified writer, thinker, administrator and legislator.

O. C. Register on waterboarding

The O. C. Register editorializes this morning on waterboarding, calling it torture. It makes no distinction between mild, non-injurious methods of persuasion like waterboarding and damaging acts of torture like putting out eyes, pulling off fingernails, drilling through bones, pulling limbs out of sockets, etc. To the O. C. Register they're all the same. It makes you wonder whether they've thought through their knee-jerk opposition to waterboarding.

House contempt vote

Yesterday's vote by the House of Representatives holding Bush administration officials Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress was meant to stick a finger in the eye of President Bush, nothing more. Nothing will come of it. The Justice Department will not act on the contempt charge. Congressional Democrats can take it to court but their chances there are slim and none. The vote was a waste of time and it was petty. Where were the adults among Congressional Democrats, if any?

Waxman hearing on doping in baseball

The Congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, in which baseball pitcher Roger Clemens and admitted doping facilitator Brian McNamee testified, got Waxman lots of ink and air time, but it had nothing to do with governing. Doping in baseball is a baseball problem and ought to be handled by the Commissioner of Baseball and the players' union. Speaker Pelosi ought to assign some useful work to Waxman, who is a publicity hound, besides which he is partisan, biased, unfair and tyranical.

LAT on terrorists' trials

The LAT argues in an editorial this morning that the planned military trial of six Al Qaeda terrorists presently held at Gitmo is illegal because prosecutors may use in the trial evidence obtained by waterboarding, and further that the prosecution is immoral because prosecutors will seek the death penalty. Finally, the LAT argues that military trials are illegitimate because Congress authorized them by passing an "odious" statute.

Waterboarding was legal then and likely is now in some situations, besides which it caused no bodily harm and was effective. The death penalty is a lawful penalty under federal and some state laws for some crimes. Congress has the power under our constitution to make laws -- some of which may be odious to some people -- subject only to presidential approval, except when overridden by a super majority. Does the LAT insist on U.N. approval of our laws?

Lexington on populism

In The Economist, the Lexington columnist this week writes on populism, arguing it will remain a factor in American politics even if the main populists in the presidential campaign have lost, a fact that seems not to matter to Lexington, presumably a committed populist. The arguments that John Edwards, the most committed populist of the presidential candidates, made were contrived and unconvincing. The majority of registered Democrats, the most liberal of Americans, weren't buying what Edwards was selling. Why would America's remaining political candidates choose to run for office using populist arguments that the majority of voters have already rejected?

Brooks on torture

David Brooks appeared on PBS's NewsHour last night, as he does most Friday nights. He was asked about Republicans generally, conservatives, McCain, Huckabee and waterboarding. On every issue he appeared a conservative light. On waterboarding, he essentially ridiculed the administration and took special aim at the vice president. He said that without Cheney, the Bush administration's position on waterboarding would be much clearer.

The liberal, moderate and conservative light position on waterboarding is irrational, or it's political, or both. Waterboarding is rarely used and then only in special circumstances. It does no bodily harm, merely frightens. Thousands of our own military and intelligence people have been waterboarded in training, apparently without permanent damage to minds or bodies. If waterboarding is torture then every effective method of persuasion is, including bright lights, loud or obnoxious music, high or low temperatures and isolation.

Noonan for Obama

Peggy Noonan argues in a WSJ column today that Hillary has lost and Obama has won, and she seems happy about it. He's brilliant, she says. He will campaign on the issues, she says, he will not go low like Hillary and, ugh, Bill. Consultants for Republicans will not dare attack him for fear the media will call them racists.

On that last point she may be right. But Hillary hasn't yet lost, though it would be good for Democrats if she did. Obama hasn't won and may not and in any case is not unbeatable. He is young and attractive but also young and inexperienced. His assertions that he will unite the country are mere assertions. What he's offering will not unite the country because he is offering what all liberals offer: defeat in Iraq, government healthcare, higher taxes, more government regulation, more government, period. These are not winning themes in a general election.

LAT speaks on taxes

The LAT editorializes on federal taxes today, and says that for President Bush to argue on the same subject is "laughable." It's an indication of the LAT's arrogance and poor judgment. According to the LAT, it's fair for editorial writers to express themselves but wrong for a president of the United States to do so.

More specifically, the LAT and Bush were arguing about whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Bush, of course says yes. The LAT says no; that instead measures that are "truly temporary" are needed, which is stupid. Taxpayers cannot tolerate constantly changing tax policy, which rules out policies that are "truly temporary."

Stimulus concession

In a front page piece in today's newspaper, LAT reporter Noam Levey, a Democrat propagandist, first says the passage of the stimulus bill yesterday by the Senate was a bipartisan compromise. In the very next paragraph, he says the measure passed because of "a concession by Senate Democrats." It can't be both.

In actual fact, the Democrats got all they could get. They couldn't get more because they didn't have the votes. They wasted a week or more beating a dead horse, something they repeatedly have done since they took over Congress, which is why they seldom get anything done. For some reason, they can't face the fact that their margin in the Senate is very small. Either that or they can't resist the pressure being applied by their base, which is even less realistic. The WSJ argues it's about adding to the Democrat margin in the November election. That would be rational, at least.

Partisan or non

The LAT's Noam Levey, a Dem propagandist, has a piece in today's newspaper about negotiations over the stimulus bills. Levey highlights a quote from liberal Senator Olympia Snowe, one of a small number of Republicans who support the Senate version, lamenting its failure so far and suggesting that other Republicans are partisans for opposing it. Most Republican Senators apparently were willing to pass the House bill, which was nonpartisan, last week. The fact they oppose a partisan Senate bill does not make them partisans.

Stimulus confusion

This morning we learn that what the Senate decided yesterday or the day before on the stimulus bills has been undecided and a new plan has been formulated. The situation is fluid and confused as to tactics but it still seems likely the House bill will pass, perhaps with some amendments. If amended it would return to the House where it could be amended again and then passed back to the Senate. It's even possible that no bill can be agreed on, which might not be a bad thing.

Petruno-less

The market was down big yesterday. Normally, you would expect to see Petruno today in the LAT. Is he sick? Has he been fired? Is this the end of an era?

McCain as front runner

If John McCain is to be the Republican front runner then he needs to do something about his wife's fashion sense. She dresses like an uptown whore.

Headlines

The LAT headline this morning has the Democrats' split on the top line, McCain's victory on the second. The OC Register has McCain's win on top, the Dems' split on the second. This treatment reveals the relative significance of the events to the two newspapers.

LAT picks a loser

The LAT argues this morning in an editorial on behalf of the Senate stimulus bill instead of the one passed by the House. The Senate bill will not clear the Senate because of Republican opposition. Tinkering with it only delays passage of the House bill and wastes "valuable" legislative time.

A report from another news outlet says the Senate last night voted 80 to 4 to invoke cloture on the House stimulus bill, with the result that the Senate will take up the House bill tomorrow, February 6th. Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on the Senate bill first. If that fails, which it surely will, the Senate will take up a number of amendments to the House bill before a final pass or fail vote on the amended House bill, probably near the end of the week.

Disillusioned young people

The LAT's Stephanie Simon, who has produced some good work recently in this old fool's opinion, writes today about how cynical today's college students are about the future of our country. They say government is "lost" and doesn't listen, she says. If the young people she interviewed are representative, their points of view say more about the education they're getting than about America. Judging from Simon's reporting, college students appear as brainwashed zombies, uttering the same nonsense they've been programed to replay. Besides that, they're not too hot on geography, history and so forth, judging from Jay Leno's Jaywalking.

One of Simon's interviewees said she was moving to Italy after graduating from college and never coming back. That's good if she likes old churches, museums, statues and such. It's also good if she likes riding motor scooters. But Italy's government is a laughing stock compared to America's. Italy's economy isn't that great either.

Something for nothing

A woman named Tina Dupuy writes on today's LAT opinion page that she has no healthcare insurance, and that it's terrible being without it but she can't afford it though she's married and she alone makes $47,000 per year -- her husband's earnings aren't mentioned. She doesn't come right out and say it but she leaves the impression that what she's arguing for is something for nothing, meaning she wants other people to pay for her healthcare. She probably smokes.

Pictures don't lie

The front page of today's LAT has four pictures of equal size displayed prominantly above the fold. The top two are of Democrats presidential candidates Clinton and Obama. The bottom two are the Republican candidates Romney and McCain. Was this intentional or oversight, the placing of Democrats over Republicans? Answer: probably the former.

LAT has a cow

This morning the LAT loses its cool over AG Mukasey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on waterboarding. By overstating its case, the LAT loses whatever credibility it started with. The LAT assertions about when in the past waterboarding has been used and who has been prosecuted for it need to be proven before they are to be believed. The LAT has in the past published untrue "facts" in its editorials (see 60 million Americans live on $7 a day).

As regards waterboarding, whether it's torture or not isn't clear. Waterboarding doesn't endanger a life and it does no physical damage to the human body. On the other hand, plucking out eyes, pulling off fingernails and burning testicles does. With waterboarding, the tortured merely get wet. Whether waterboarding does psychological damage isn't yet known, or proven. We have only the testimony of irrational Bush haters, such as the LAT, on that question.

Anyhow, Mukasey wasn't testifying on those questions. He was merely saying he thought it was inappropriate to issue a legal opinion based on hypothetical facts. A careful lawyer should take that approach.

Columbia free trade

The LAT and other liberal media oppose a free trade agreement with Columbia because, they say, Columbia doesn't treat it's unions right. Could this be a subterfuge? Columbia is engaged in a war of words with the socialist Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Having socialistic tendencies themselves, are liberals on the side of Hugo Chavez?

Lexington displays Bush hatred, again

Continuing a pattern, The Economist's Lexington columnist devotes the entire column this week to Bush bashing. Everything Bush does is wrong and is done for the wrong reason according to Lexington. The "bipartisan stimulus package" was put together without White House involvement, Lexington says. Wrong. It was negotiated by Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, with House Democrats and Republicans. Bush isn't important to the "surge" in Iraq, Lexington argues. Wrong, there would be no "surge" without Bush.

Lexington ridicules Bush's "war on pork-barrel spending." Bush has promised to veto any bills Congress sends him that don't meet his conditions. How does Lexington expect Democrats will get around that?

California influence

Pundits and journalist, especially those from California, express satisfaction that the California primary finally will mean something -- in the past it was held after the presidential nominees had been chosen by the respective parties and therefore had no significance. This year, the California primary is on Super Tuesday. Good for California but maybe not for the Republican Party. In the general election, California will vote Democratic. Why should California voters have a say about who Republicans nominate?