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.