Bush bashing

In today's LAT, Bob Woodward reports on a Guantanamo official who, he says, determined that a detainee was tortured. It wasn't the techniques used that offended the official, Woodward reports, but the frequency and excessive application of techniques that amounted to torture. (Woodward reports that the detainee sometimes had to stand naked before a female interrogator, which raises the question who was being tortured, the detainee or the interrogator.)

Woodward's reporting is straightforward and accurate, presumably, until the end, when he closes with a quote from the official, as follows: "We learned as children it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is for permission. I think the buck stops at the Oval Office."

That suggests the official believes that the president should have been at Guantanamo overseeing interrogators to insure they didn't act excessively. The official probably thinks he should have been at Abu Ghraib too.

Another voice for repeal of California's supermajority requirement

On the LAT op-ed page today, Peter Schrag, former editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee, argues for one of the following: Brain transplants for Republicans in California's legislature, fewer Republicans in the California legislature or repeal of the provision in California's constitution requiring a two-thirds majority of legislators for raising taxes or approving a budget.

Republicans have approved tax increases in the past, Schrag points out. One was Governor Ronald Reagan; the other Governor Pete Wilson. Schrag is right about both but California now is one of the highest-taxed states in the union and expenditures have increased exponentially since Reagan and Wilson served.

Schrag supplies some interesting facts about the Democrats in the legislature but his arguments against the two-thirds requirement are not new and they are unconvincing.

Hanging offenses

LAT columnist Michael Hiltzik writes today that what America needs is a show trial in which Wall Street titans, a former Federal Reserve chairman, a former SEC chairman, former Treasury secretaries and anyone else still having a positive net worth are brought before a Henry Waxman tribunal and convicted of lying, fraud, poor judgment and bad hair, guilty or not. Hiltzik's 401(k) is down 40 percent and somebody must be made to pay.

The trial will require a prosecutor having no political ambitions, or else he or she must be a Democrat or a socialist or both. Lacking crimes to prosecute, the prosecutor must make stuff up. Judge Waxman will be helpful.

Hiltzik wants to be fair but he wants convictions more.

Keynesian economics

The LAT's Peter Gosselin today explained the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes in an unrecognizable way, describing it simply as timely deficit spending. Keynes must have rolled over in his grave.

Keynes argued that government spending is expansionary but that taxing and borrowing are contractionary. If spending equals borrowing then they cancel each other out. Maybe there's a new twist but Gosselin's isn't it.

What recession?

On Saturday at Fry's Electronics the parking lot was full and you had to be careful, otherwise you could be flattened by a shopping cart.People were hauling out televisions,computers and printers. Don't these people know the economy is poor? Aren't they unemployed?

At Stater Bros. today it was like Fry's yesterday but not as bad. The cashier said business was good and Staters is hiring.

Who do you believe, Barack Obama or your own eyes?

Hype

On today's front page, the LAT's headline reads: "Job losses highest since 1945." But in 1945 the population of the U.S. was half what it is today. So, for current year losses to equal 1945 losses proportionately, they would need to be twice those reported in today's LAT. The LAT headline obviously is hype. Why would they want to hype the jobs report? Not because they have high standards and seek to report the news objectively.

Overstatement

Is it a Democrat tendency or what? Do Democrats naturally overstate how bad things are or how good their policies will make them? Are Republicans inclined to understate except on national security issues?

Listening to Barack Obama's speech yesterday brought those questions to mind. Then Tom Daschle's testimony before Congress yesterday reinforced the curiosity. Daschle couldn't have portrayed a more negative image of health care in the U.S. and Obama couldn't have protrayed a more desperate picture of economic conditions in the U.S. and around the world. Do they believe in what they're saying or is this just salesmanship? Will they continue to exagerate or was yesterday a fluke?