The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank mocks President Bush in this piece, in which Milbank gives new meaning to the term “clueless”:
Earlier this month, President Bush was almost done with a speech to a group of minority journalists when he dropped a rather startling proposal.
“We actually misnamed the war on terror,” he said. “It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World.”
Or, if you prefer to abbreviate, SAIEWDNBIFSWHTUTAAWTTTSTCOTFW.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Bushism has returned. The malapropisms that adorned Bush’s 2000 campaign before going into remission during much of his presidency have reemerged to garnish his reelection bid.
In other words, Milbank actually takes Bush’s little joke seriously, and uses it as an alleged example of a Bush verbal miscue.
Nice going, Milbank. Nothing like proving yourself to be a humorless boob to a nationwide audience of newspaper readers.
I could probably write a book on political correctness at the Los Angeles Times — especially when it comes to issues of race. I recently ran across a startling example of this attitude that I thought I’d share with you here. If the accusations I am about to relate to you are true, the Times deliberately sanitized an explosive story in order to protect the career of a public official favored by Times editors. (I believe the story is true, because I have personally witnessed something similar. Maybe I’ll tell you the story some day.)
This weekend, our friendly local Dog Trainer inflamed racial tensions in Los Angeles for the umpteenth time, with a story titled Canine Detail a Pocket of Concern.
The lede sentence reads:
A report has found that 83% of suspects bitten by sheriff’s dogs in Los Angeles County were minorities, and recommended that Sheriff Lee Baca’s crime-fighting strategies be “rigorously rethought.”
I don’t know what the point of this story is. I don’t know if the story is saying that the dogs are racist, like Hank Hill’s dog, or if the dogs are simply unwitting tools of racist cops.
I do know this: the story does not set forth a single scrap of information to answer questions such as the following:
- Under what circumstances are dogs typically deployed by police?
- What percentage of those situations involve non-white suspects?
- Is there certain behavior by a criminal suspect that might cause a dog to bite the suspect?
- What percentage of suspects who engage in that sort of behavior are non-white?
- Which sheriff’s stations use dogs, and where are those stations located?
It would presumably be easy for a large metropolitan newspaper such as the L.A. Times to answer such questions, since there are only a small number of dog bites by sheriff’s dogs each year. According to the article, the sheriff’s department has only 10 dogs. Only 30 suspects were bitten by these dogs in 2003, and only 15 in 1999.
Without an answer to questions like these, a story like this does nothing but inflame racial tensions. Not that we worry about such things here in Los Angeles.
But inflaming racial tensions is one of the things the Times does best.
P.S. I recently ran across another example of the Times‘s politically correct attitude on matters of race, and thought I would share it in this post. I think it provides some important context for how to view the paper’s treatment of racially charged stories such as the one discussed above.
Chrenkoff has the details.