What the L.A. Times Talks About . . . And What It Doesn’t Talk About
To fully understand Big Media bias, sometimes you have to look at what they don’t say as well as what they do. Perspectives that support the Democrat agenda get splashy treatment, while perspectives that favor the Republican agenda are either whispered and then immediately contradicted — or not even mentioned at all.
The L.A. Times does this twice today.
First example: Today the L.A. Times runs a story titled Cheney’s assertions of lives saved is hard to prove. The deck headline reads: “Arguing against Obama’s policies, he says that the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism spared ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands.’ Experts say no evidence of that has emerged.”
The story is very weak to begin with. Cheney said that Bush administration policies were effective against al Qaeda; that effectiveness saved lives; the number of lives saved could be in the thousands and could “perhaps” be in the hundreds of thousands. The experts in the story (both of whom I have written for comment) don’t contradict this; instead, they merely say it’s hard to prove. Not mentioned: the fact that Obama is sitting on the proof, which wouldn’t help the terrorists (even as he releases details of techniques, which does help them).
Meanwhile, as reader Dana points out, The Times reported President Obama’s recent claim that Guantanamo Bay’s prison “likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”
Is that assertion hard to prove? I suspect it’s every bit as unprovable as Cheney’s statement, if not more so. One wonders why the President’s assertion gets no scrutiny, while Cheney’s merits an entire article of second-guessing.
Editors: can we get an article quoting experts who say that assertion is hard to prove? Together with headlines disparaging the claim? Thanks!
Second example: On today’s front page, The Times runs an above-the-fold article about how horrible proposed California budget cuts would be:
We’re told that businesses could be driven out of the state by . . . tax cuts? No, by — I’m not making this up — decreased government spending:
The long-term effects of Sacramento’s financial woes, meanwhile, could far outweigh the near-term effects. In particular, the expected deep cuts in education spending could thin the state’s human capital, potentially forcing California companies to look elsewhere for skilled workers as well as new plants or even headquarters.
Lower government spending also hurts business that keep the bloat in our oversized bureaucracies:
Distressed car dealers could see sales to state agencies shrink, printing shops may lose business as courts and other government operations shorten their workweek, and office-equipment suppliers would lose sales as cash-strapped agencies make do with aging copiers.
Heaven forfend that bureaucrats have anything but the very latest in Xeroxing technology. That’s worth a few billion right there, isn’t it?
Promising students would go to other states, taking their future skills, earnings and, possibly, Nobel Prizes elsewhere. California companies would then find it harder to attract high-value employees who might be dubious about moving to a state with sub-par schools.
If we cut public education, we’ll lose Nobel prize-winning students? That strikes me as . . . difficult to prove.
Now, I’d always heard that businesses were driven out by excessive regulation and taxation, and that high government spending, and not spending cuts, were part of the problem. And indeed, the only example of an actual business moving out of state is not because of education cuts, but rather high taxes:
Still, companies such as Solaicx have found the burden heavy enough to look elsewhere to invest.
In 2007, the company built a plant in Portland, Ore., in part because the state offered a tax incentive unavailable in its home state. California had an added disincentive: It is one of only a handful of states that charges sales tax on manufacturing equipment.
But you must risk ink-stained hands and paper cuts and turn, turn, turn those big pages allll the way to Page A16, to learn this, as well as the fact that “Businesses have long complained about big-spending government in California.”
Where is our front-page article about that? Answer: nowhere. But on the front page, we are promised a story of the “faces of the cuts.”
When was the last time the L.A. Times ran a story called “The Faces of the Tax Increases”?
The pattern is clear: this paper has certain perspectives to which it gives inches of column space and front-page treatment, like the Horrible Impact of Spending Cuts and the Questionable Nature of Republican Claims. And it has other perspectives to which it gives Page A16 treatment — or no treatment at all — like the horrible impact of tax increases and the questionable nature of Democrat claims.
The bias couldn’t be more clear.
Yeah, those promising upcoming Nobel bound students wouldn’t possibly qualify for schools like USC or CalTech. Private schools scoff at the cream of the student crop.
Soronel Haetir (a3f11b) — 5/23/2009 @ 4:19 pmThis is usual paen to unions crap that always occurs in times of financial hardship.
“It’s for the children”
It’s also for the birds.
drjohn (862e69) — 5/23/2009 @ 4:20 pmYou’re really good at taking apart the L.A. Times. I’d almost feel sorry for them if they weren’t in a position to do so much harm.
DRJ (2901e6) — 5/23/2009 @ 4:31 pmWhen was the last time they questioned Obama’s jobs created or saved actual or projected. Isn’t that difficult to prove?
Mary (1dc631) — 5/23/2009 @ 4:35 pmDid the LA Times cover Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame and marvel about how even-handed he was in just wanting all sides to just have a conversation about abortion? I’d say that’s something else that’s damn hard or impossible to prove. His mind is made up, he’s with NARAL and he doesn’t want to countenance any conversations on abortion, but he doesn’t want to say that publicly.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/23/2009 @ 5:06 pmTHAT…was good, P.
Andrew (6d7d89) — 5/23/2009 @ 6:12 pmEspecially after listening to a fill in host on a nationally syndicated financial radio show today bemoaning the demise of daily newspapers. He was insisting that readers will be missing out on a wide variety of valuable information if the papers go away. Callers were throwing in on both sides, but I never heard any caller mention the biggest problem- what the papers decide not to print.
…the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism spared ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands.’ Experts say no evidence of that has emerged.”
Oddly enough however, the USA has not been attack since 9-11 and even weirder, Saddam Hussein is no longer slaughtering his neighbors and his fellow Iraqis. How did that happen?
Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 5/23/2009 @ 6:28 pmI heard a statement recently that I had heard before. For elementary through high school education, our state provides more than $300,000 per classroom. Anybody really think our children are getting that value out of their experience? What about the 50% dropout rate?
Who could staff a classroom for less? Horrors!
ManlyDad (e3dfe1) — 5/23/2009 @ 6:53 pmGood grief, the state is awash in “academic talent.” I’m sure we all know an academic freeway flyer, driving to and fro each of their community college teaching gigs, hoping against hope for the elusive tenure track position.
And with so many kids never finishing high school, it’s only going to get worse.
I don’t understand how Obama can save the deficit by spending more on health care, but I’m sure the LAT will explain it on p. 1 tomorrow.
Patricia (2183bb) — 5/23/2009 @ 7:34 pmPatterico:
ManlyDad sort of cut my thunder out from under me, but his point was the first that leapt out at me:
Yep, I guess we’ve conclusively proven that there is a one to one mapping between money spent by the state on “education” — and actually educated students, skilled workers, and suchlike.
Whew! I’m glad we finally resolved that problem. I reckon, since we’ve been spending billions and billions more on education in the last fifteen years, that California students’ scholastic achievement, graduation rate, and success on standardized testing has just skyrocketed!
Uh… can someone point me to the studies that show that? I’m sure it must be easy to prove…
Dafydd
Dafydd the Puzzled (990eb0) — 5/23/2009 @ 7:55 pm300 thousand smackolas per classroom?
THink I found where all the money was going….
EricPWJohnson (73e11d) — 5/23/2009 @ 8:02 pmP:
In particular, I must assume that if we could only get voters to okay an additional $10 billion per year for more school administrators, higher-paid janitors, and many, many more Ed Department bureaucrats, our students’ educational attainment would simply shoot through the roof! We would instantly jump to number one in the nation — nay, the world — on any properly constructed testing regime you could imagine.
Oh, but wait… I recall reading somewhere (perhaps in the L.A. Times) that standardized school testing is biased in favor of white, middle class, middle-aged males. It doesn’t pick up the tremendous improvement in the “other ways of knowing” exhibited by women, minorities, progressives, and any primary or secondary school student under the age of 35.
We must spend an additional $5 billion to develop tests that produce the results we know we must be getting from having spent all the previous money — tests that aren’t focused on such patriarchal arcana as “math” and “science” and “history,” but rather “empathy,” “community,” “sensitivity,” “activism,” and “her-story.”
So I suppose another $3 billion is in order for classes in Womyn’s Studies, Afrocentrism, Empowerment Training, Sex Ed (more of a “how to”)… and of course, the return of Bilingual Ed.
See? Every problem has its silver solution.
Dafydd
Dafydd the Condescending (990eb0) — 5/23/2009 @ 8:07 pmDafydd – The impact of a very large cadre of highly compensated administrators on the academic outcomes of a public education system is terribly misunderestimated by the American public.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/23/2009 @ 8:15 pmErr … is anybody interested in talking about what kind of students attend public schools?
nk (a1896a) — 5/23/2009 @ 8:20 pmI didn’t think it was possible, but the LA Times has deteriorated. This shrill, dogmatic and nearly fact-free alleged news article is filled with leftist sources whose political agendas aren’t even identified. I won’t go to the trouble of providing them, just Google the think tanks and it becomes obvious. Okay, here’s one link.
This is not just sloppy, piss-poor “reporting”, it’s disinformation.
Businesses have long complained about big-spending government in California. But with state and local spending accounting for about one-fifth of the state’s gross domestic product, California is in line with some other heavily populated, expensive-to-manage states, such as New York and Florida.
Funny they didn’t mention Texas!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/23/2009 @ 8:22 pmBBJFC.O.R
Well, Texas is dead last in state sending – spends about 3,800 to California’s 7000 per person
Texas has the lowest educated populous and the most needy but somehow doesn’t give the store away and somehow the poor manage to get along
Rick Perry is probably the one to give the most credit – Liberals want him dead moderates hold their nose and vote for him – consevatives worship the ground he walks on
He’s a hammer, ball peen hammer
Look for Perry in 2012
EricPWJohnson (73e11d) — 5/23/2009 @ 8:33 pmIn reading the article that Patterico notes Faces of the Cuts, it’s again interesting to make note of what what the LAT tells us and what it chooses to skip.
If you read the profiles of the three families in the story, they all have Hispanic surnames. However, the LAT feels it important to tell us that the third family profiled are legal immigrants, but don’t mention any immigration status of the other families profiled.
Why this particular distinction? Shall we assume that the other two families are illegal then? And if so, shouldn’t this be a critical piece of information to tell us as it would most likely affect the views of readers who are being manipulated (too strong?) into reacting sympathetically for Californians hit hard by the budget collapse? Might readers feel differently if these were illegal aliens benefiting from services where citizens are unable to?
Dana (aedf1d) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:07 pmThe problem with Vice President Cheney’s assertion is that we don’t know whose lives were saved, or how many deaths were prevented. We can identify every last soul slaughtered on September 11th, because we have their dead bodies — or, in some cases, simple disappearances — to document their deaths.
But the terrorist attacks foiled? Well, we can’t know exactly how effective they would have been, or when they would have occurred. Even if we knew that they would have blown up the Compton courthouse while you were in there, we couldn’t know that you, personally, would not have survived.
Nor can we say that, absent the information obtained through waterboarding, the attacks would definitely have proceeded and succeeded; some other factor might have prevented them.
This gives our friends on the left the opening they think they have: if you can’t say, with certainty, that the attacks would have occurred without waterboarding, or whom or how many people would have been killed, then, for them, it means that Vice President Cheney’s claims are unproven and unprovable.
The difference between liberal thinking and just plain naïveté is very small indeed.
The Dana who lives in the real world (474dfc) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:11 pmThe much better looking Dana wrote:
Racist. Ethnic profilingist. I’m sure that someone here will denounce you for that.
The snotty Dana (474dfc) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:15 pmSnotty Dana, but I used a question mark therefore safely designating it as a question rather than fact which everyone knows protects me from racist/ethnic profiling denouncements!
Dana (aedf1d) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:19 pmWhen, where, how and why did the press become the publicity arm of the government?
It simply makes no sense to me. I may send my diploma back and get an ag degree from Cornell.
Ag80 (7dd7b7) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:48 pmReal-World Dana,
The problem with Vice President Cheney’s assertion is that we don’t know whose lives were saved, or how many deaths were prevented.
Not really. Cheney has urged Obama to release the memos of the information gained so the American people can judge its value. That Obama won’t do so is powerful evidence in favor of Cheney.
This challenge, and Obama’s refusal to accept it, has caused me to re-evaluate Cheney in a more favorable light.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:57 pmComment by Ag80 — 5/23/2009 @ 9:48 pm
The government and newspapers don’t mix. And shouldn’t.
The First Amendment, as re-imagined by the DOJ and FTC, is actually an affirmative grant of state power that allows unelected lawyers the right to seize control of publications if they deem it in the “public interest.”
To that end, the DOJ is currently pursuing litigation against two West Virginia newspapers, who have been operating for decades under a joint operating agreement. The DOJ wants to dissolve the agreement because it is dissatisfied with the editorial quality of one of the papers, the Daily Mail.
Dana (aedf1d) — 5/23/2009 @ 9:58 pmWhich Dana am I responding to anyway?
I’m well aware of the role of government and the press. I was a member of the press for several years.
I believe you may have missed my point, but I’m not sure what to say here because I don’t want to offend someone who may actually agree with me.
If my point was unclear, I will try to clarify.
Ag80 (7dd7b7) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:08 pmThe government and newspapers don’t mix. And shouldn’t.
Absolutely. But some journalists are so fearful, or so convinced of their divine right to compel others to pay them, that they argue for a BBC-style tax.
A journalist at a going-away party for a colleague made that argument to me recently, saying it could be structured so government wouldn’t dictate news coverage. I’m very doubtful of that.
Of course, these proponents envision the tax money would go mostly to existing newspapers. Nice way of avoiding the rigors of the free market if you can swing it. I’m sure compulsory union membership will be part of the plan.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:08 pmWhich Dana am I responding to anyway?
Dana is always signed just Dana. She’s also got the nifty photo blog her name links to.
The other Dana adds various adjectives. His name links to a political blog.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:11 pmBradley:
Thanks. I don’t think she knows where I’m coming from, but her photos are good.
Ag80 (7dd7b7) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:15 pmWe’ve seen 8 years of people ridiculing George W.Bush and reviling Dick Cheney.
But it did not take 4 months for the comedy team of Obama and Biden to show just how much W & Cheney were serious adults and just how juvenile the democrats appear in contrast.
I thought that Obama was an empty suit but I did not think he’d demonstrate it so clearly so quickly. I really thought he was not up to the job but the actual deficient performance is beyond my imagination.
Astonishing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:20 pmAg80, please clarify.
Dana (aedf1d) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:22 pmSPQR:
I could not agree with you more. I despair to think how the next three years will go. Or the next four after that.
Rich Lowry said it better than I ever could, but I honestly believe the more he talks, the faster people are going to figure him out.
I’m not quite sure how to embed a link here, but Lowry’s article is not hard to find on the NRO site.
Ag80 (7dd7b7) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:33 pmDana:
Sorry for the confusion, but the press should be the faithful watch-dog of the people.
I don’t care who is in office or what party they belong to, the role of the press is to question the government and clarify the issues so the people can make responsible choices.
Right now, the press seems to be the faithful lap-dog of the party in power and its enabler in thrusting the current dogma down the throat of the people.
I will be happy to clarify further, if necessary.
Ag80 (7dd7b7) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:41 pmI also wanted to see how many times I could get the word “dog” in a post without giggling too much.
Ag80 (7dd7b7) — 5/23/2009 @ 10:42 pm“Obama: Bailing out the UAW while throwing the non-unionized, non-subsidized car dealers under the bus.”
“Obama: We are out of money but Freddy Freeloader keeps spending to buy votes.”
“Obama: double talk is the norm, how public statements make no sense given voting record and big-money grants to extreme Abortionist.”
If only someone had courage to write about simply the FACTS.
HeavenSent (ac3026) — 5/24/2009 @ 6:13 amMaybe they are having a competition with McClatchy as to who can be more openly and rabidly anti Cheney.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/05/22/response-to-cheneys-speech-ignored-some-inconvenient-full-truths/
Mark E (0acf2c) — 5/24/2009 @ 6:38 amI admire Dick Cheney, he’s served our country well and honorably for a number of years. We’re fortunate men of his stature are willing to accept high office and subject themselves to the gutter sniping of lesser men.
The smarmy smear merchants at the LA Times lack the personal integrity to empty Dick Cheney’s wastebasket. His contribution to the welfare of our nation should be recognized and celebrated as an example of what the best of us can accomplish.
Instead, envious and resentful little men try to to besmirch a reputation they could never earn, and they reveal the deceit and the poverty of their ideas and intellect in the process. Again and again the LA Times proves itself a willing handmaiden in service to an outworn creed.
Ropelight (e36d4f) — 5/24/2009 @ 7:25 amI just got a gander of Dana’s link to Reason.com on the Dept. of Justice’s suit re the West Virginia newspapers. Whole Lee Curappe. If anyone thought talk radio will be left alone by the Obama-nable Snowman just because no legislation or policy specifically named “The Fairness Doctrine” is on the table, the West Virginia situation will shake you into consciousness.
L.N. Smithee (447f98) — 5/24/2009 @ 8:51 am
Leviticus (f41eec) — 5/24/2009 @ 9:07 amhaveI’m not as awesome as Dick Cheney, apparently.
Leviticus (f41eec) — 5/24/2009 @ 9:08 amDon’t sell yourself short, Ldeviticus. You are not nearly as awesome as Cheney 😉
JD (7cda0f) — 5/24/2009 @ 9:36 amNobody is.
Leviticus (46c548) — 5/24/2009 @ 9:56 amNot mentioned: the fact that Obama is sitting on the proof, which wouldn’t help the terrorists (even as he releases details of techniques, which does help them).
If such is the case, the previous administration could have avoided what they surely expected.
The White House could imply KSM questioning substantially dealt with futile attempts to tie Saddam’s Iraq with bin Laden. Without the transcripts, who the hell can say?
If Cheney is right, then it’s a safe assumption torture will be used, regardless of national policy prohibiting it.
Anxious to hear Gary Schmitt’s reply.
steve (187be6) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:15 amIf such is the case, the previous administration could have avoided what they surely expected.
Why? Because Obama doesn’t want to destroy his own argument with the truth?
steve, why are you so intent on blaming the previous administration for the actions of the current one?
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:42 amIf such is the case, the previous administration could have avoided what they surely expected.
Had to hit on this again…
You know, if the Bush Administration had made that information public, the press would have ignored them as “Bush Propaganda” like they and the Left does to every unarguable proof about Bush since the early 90’s (Bush was AWOL!)
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:50 am__________________________________
In particular, the expected deep cuts in education spending could thin the state’s human capital, potentially forcing California companies to look elsewhere for skilled workers as well as new plants or even headquarters
Oh, really, LA Times?! Well, I’d say you therefore also should be wringing your hands about the information per below.
And while you’re at it, you might want to spend a bit more time looking in the mirror and analyzing the viability of your own future—eg, possible headline on an upcoming front page of the newspaper: “Los Angeles Times To Cease Publishing — Internet and Plunging Readership Force Us to Close Up Shop”—-above and beyond any negative effect that can be traced to tax-and-spend lunacy in Sacramento.
__________________________________
Mark (411533) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:56 amIf such is the case, the previous administration could have avoided what they surely expected.
One more time…
steve, isn’t that assertion difficult to prove?
And before to come back at me with a “difficult to prove” over my assertion about the press, remember similar actions have been cataloged on this site and many others for years…a well-established pattern of behavior. In fact it would be more “difficult to prove” that the MSM doesn’t take such actions.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:58 amОчень было интересно читать, спасибо!
Ferinannnd (7992ee) — 5/24/2009 @ 11:24 amОчень было интересно читать, спасибо!
allan (6ade7d) — 5/24/2009 @ 11:52 amGesundheit!
You know, if the Bush Administration had made that information public, the press would have ignored them as “Bush Propaganda”
Depends.
Contemporaneous memos and interrogation transcripts with agents’ names redacted?
Yes, it would be instructive to learn what KSM disclosed and what was asked over and over, but to assert this “wouldn’t help the terrorists” is a bit hard to reconcile.
steve (f86bac) — 5/24/2009 @ 11:55 amIt’s my understanding the Bush Administration kept all memos classified to protect US intelligence sources and methods, and that’s why they didn’t release any memos even though they could have. But once the Obama Administration released some memos (especially memos that detail the intelligence tactics themselves), there’s no reasonable basis to withhold memos that detail the fruits of those interrogations.
DRJ (2901e6) — 5/24/2009 @ 12:47 pm“By what they leave out.” Therein lies the biggest lies. If it’s not said, then it cannot be a fact to put on the table. If it’s not said, then it might as well not exist. If it’s not said, the people have no way of preparing for ………….. You fill in the blank.
Todd (0c8993) — 5/24/2009 @ 12:55 pmContemporaneous memos and interrogation transcripts with agents’ names redacted?
Oh, you mean like releasing interrogation tatic information to specifically support the “torture” argument while suppressing anything that refutes it?
How about removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s?
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 1:12 pmYes, it would be instructive to learn what KSM disclosed and what was asked over and over, but to assert this “wouldn’t help the terrorists” is a bit hard to reconcile.
Really?
How would it help them?
Since this “wouldn’t help the terrorists” is a “bit hard to reconcile” it should be simple to prove.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 1:14 pmContemporaneous memos and interrogation transcripts with agents’ names redacted?
Once again on this one…
Ok, steve (if that’s your real name) please reveal you real full name, real address, real telephone numbers and the real names of all family members here on this thread.
Oh, you want to keep to your information private?
Why? Because you are afraid that someone you don’t want to track you down will harm you and your family?
Then don’t complain about redacted names on reports.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 1:22 pmBy the way, steve, have you contacted the New York Times about their sources that leaked actual classified information?
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 1:25 pmAll Obama has to do to shut Cheney up is release the memos with the information gained from the interrogations. That Obama won’t do so is a pretty strong indication the information would back Cheney’s claim.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/24/2009 @ 1:26 pmExactly, Bradley.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 1:42 pm“The White House could imply KSM questioning substantially dealt with futile attempts to tie Saddam’s Iraq with bin Laden.”
steve – How many different ways does Wilkerson’s fable have to be exploded before you start believing he is just making shit up? He really has no remaining legs to syand on at this point if you’ve bothered to do any research.
Most lefties have also moved on from the EIT are not effective debate and shifted the goalposts to unprovable assertions that other techinques would have worked just as well.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/24/2009 @ 2:10 pmCheney’s already won this argument, but the MSM and Obama just can’t quit him – the more they keep talking, the more they keep drowning in their irrelevance. Either release the rest of the memos or admit that maybe, just maybe, Bush and Cheney deserve at least some credit for keeping the country safe since 9/11.
As for Cheney, I admired him during his tenure with the Ford administration, and his actions during the immediate minutes after the towers were hit says pretty much all you need to know about the man’s character. When everything was up in the air and the 4th passenger airliner was still on it’s way to the target, Cheney gave the order for the military jets to shoot it down unless the passengers took control from the terrorists. He made it clear that it was his decision alone, and that the responsibility was on him if the order had to be enacted. Whether or not you agree with his actions on that day, the man has kahunas gonads, wish we had more like him these days.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 5/24/2009 @ 2:15 pmFunny how the further you go to the left, the less stringent the standard of proof becomes.
Jim Treacher (671d28) — 5/24/2009 @ 3:38 pmIt’s hard to “prove” feelings, and that’s all they have.
AD - RtR/OS! (cc5dea) — 5/24/2009 @ 4:59 pmI call it bias by inclusion…ie; all dem all the time, and bias b exclusion….like when my local Portland Maine did not mention a word about the Gore whoppers after the first debate and refused to print any letters that mentioned them, even though the NY Times and Washington Post had sort of put the worst of them on the front page…
Jim Verdolini (1c165d) — 5/24/2009 @ 5:49 pmIf it was truly for the children, we wouldn’t be selling them into indentured servitude.
As a member of the school board for a local catholic grade/middle school (k-7), we maintained a graduation rate from Servite and Matre Dei of better than 99%. For a per student cost of approx $5500 in a mainly hispanic section of Stanton. This was 9 yrs ago. More than 85% of our budgets went directly to teachers.
I believe LAUSD was heralding the benefit of charter schools at $8K per student at the time.
I voted NO.
Gino (fe0147) — 5/24/2009 @ 7:26 pmBut once the Obama Administration released some memos (especially memos that detail the intelligence tactics themselves), there’s no reasonable basis to withhold memos that detail the fruits of those interrogations.
This is not sports…it is not pick one team or the other. If Bush and Cheney were wrong, then they will stay wrong no matter what missteps the Obama team may make.
I’m up for proving Cheney right. If he is, torture will be used regardless of national policy prohibiting it.
steve (1254cc) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:19 pmsteve,
I don’t look at this as a sporting event. But, now that you mention it, Obama has certainly treated this as a Bush vs. Obama competition.
DRJ (2901e6) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:25 pmMy favorite unprovable claim is Obama’s “Create or save x number of jobs”. You cannot prove that you saved jobs. No one in the liberal media has ever knocked that one down, so Obama keeps on using it and he’s “hoodwinking and bamboozling” the American public by doing so.
OxyCon (1a59f5) — 5/24/2009 @ 10:40 pmThis is not sports…it is not pick one team or the other.
Tell it to the Obama Administration and all the other BDS sufferers on the Left.
If Bush and Cheney were wrong, then they will stay wrong no matter what missteps the Obama team may make.
So why doesn’t Obama smack Bush and Cheney down by releasing the memos with the information gained from the interrogations? If Bush and Cheney were wrong, and they will stay wrong no matter what missteps the Obama team may make, what do they have to lose?
I’m up for proving Cheney right.
Then demand that Obama release the memos with the information gained from the interrogations, since this is not sports and you’re not picking one team over the other.
If he is, torture will be used regardless of national policy prohibiting it.
Stop cheapening the word “torture.” We didn’t drill into arms, chop off fingers and toes, cut off ears and noses, carve out eyes or burn off skin with a blowtorch or clothes iron, like this Al-Qaeda Style Torture Manual shows.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 11:41 pmDRJ or anyone else with moderator’s privileges, please pull my last comment out of moderation; there is a very important link included in it, and delete this comment when you do. Thank you.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/24/2009 @ 11:44 pm“Cheney’s claim that torture (OPE) saved lives lacks credibility. The evidence against that position is substantial”
It’s too bad you couldn’t trouble yourself to present any of that substantial body of evidence supporting YOUR position, as usual.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/25/2009 @ 4:31 amThe only person talking about their gay sex fantasies are you, racist.
Shorter racist, I believe Teh One more than Cheney, so it is okay for the LA Times to be dishonest in their reporting.
JD (2e1461) — 5/25/2009 @ 5:18 amDark Beergod:
I won’t disparage you or your opinions, that’s the method of the progressive. I will repeat what a wise man once said – “Trust, but verify”.
I can see from your comment that you trust Obama (based on what besides your liberal predilection?), you don’t trust Cheney (based on what besides your liberal predilection?), and therefore everybody else should feel the same. I say trust them both, they may have different viewpoints and knowledge of the situation, but verify. Aye, there’s the rub! The verify part is the responsibility of the LAT, and they aint doing it!
Old Country Boy (b3e94e) — 5/25/2009 @ 6:35 amIt is quite the SHOCKA that the construct it created gives all sorts of leeway to its ideological fellow travelers, and imposes heightened scrutiny on those that it disagrees with. Convenient, that.
JD (8e9826) — 5/25/2009 @ 6:53 amWow. That’s a nice arrangement of speculation, projection and strawmen, Dark Beergod.
A responsible media must apply scrutiny in inverse proportion to the credibility of the claim in question.
Too bad our responsible media doesn’t apply that standard to, say, Nancy Pelosi.
Cheney’s claim that torture (OPE) saved lives lacks credibility. The evidence against that position is substantial, if not overwhelming.
Then you should roast the feet of Barack Obama for withholding damning evidence, and call for the interrogation memos to be released immediately.
If you want to claim that scrutiny of Cheney’s claims is biased, you have to first dispose the evidence that Cheney’s claims are inaccurate.
Strawman.
No one is calling for the disposal of evidence. We’re calling for everything to be put on the table. As Bradley pointed out above so well,
Moreover, Cheney has a well-established record of lying specifically about national security issues.
And your source for this “well-established record” is what? The Democratic Underground?
He also adopts an imperial attitude about government prerogatives in war time — additional reasons his comments on this particular subject objectively warrant more scrutiny than those of, say, Obama.
The Messiah is second to none in imperious attitude. “I won” Also, once again, Obama is sitting on evidence. If Cheney “has a well-established record of lying specifically about national security issues,” why doesn’t Obama simply release the memos and prove Cheney a liar beyond a doubt?
I’ll let Patterico respond to the rest of your evidence-lacking assertions, since they are directed specifically at him.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/25/2009 @ 7:02 amThe Left loves to claim that the CIA (and I suppose by extension, the Pentagon) engages in “torture” of terrorist detainees, yet they are unable to identify any “enhanced interrogation techniques” that would fall into the “torture” category as defined by the Congress of the United States – a Congress that has specifically declined to list “water boarding” as such in the statutes.
AD - RtR/OS! (f03f38) — 5/25/2009 @ 8:50 amUntil they can actually present facts to buttress their arguments, they should be dismissed as the immature teen-age girls they are.
Please don’t feed the troll.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/25/2009 @ 9:40 amThe real complaint here is not about bias, it is merely that the bias points the wrong way,
I won’t even say in the “wrong” way, as much as I’ll say it consistently points in one way — in a “lefty” way — and one way only.
Equally irritating, or more crucially, is that so many people in the media are foolish and dishonest enough to claim they’re not biased or they’re not biased to the left. Then again, most liberals tend to be clueless about the fundamentals of human nature, including their own. So for them to deny or not understand what makes their own brains tick is par for the course.
Mark (411533) — 5/25/2009 @ 9:41 amOh come on, AD, it is far more entertaining to eviscerate their poor-grade, no-visible-means-of-support arguments.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/25/2009 @ 9:47 amShorter yet: should one hold the sitting president’s statement to more scrutiny and to show evidence of or does the statement of an ex-vice president’s statement require more analysis and verification? One is currently in office with power to make policy, the other is a private citizen with no power to make policy.
I know whose statement I consider the more relevant to prove.
Dana (aedf1d) — 5/25/2009 @ 10:39 amLike gays and the Catholic Church, or lesbians and the girl’s volleyball team, It’s becoming clear that journalism is one area of society that bitter political partisan leftists just gravitate toward. It’s a place where one can satisfy that appetite for attacking the opposition in one of the most effective albeit dishonest ways possible, that being under the legitimizing guise of neutrality. Every day offers a new opportunity for blissful, lustful feeding of that need to strike out and score political points.
Ever notice the sheer thrill in the eyes of a reporter bringing you breaking news of some big Republican scandal or electoral defeat, or the reluctant agony of having to report on those of a Democrat?
What’s really a scandal is that so many of our institutions of information and even entertainment are dominated by ulterior, politically motivated individuals abusing and misusing their public trust — and that trust is wearing very, very thin with many, many Americans.
It’s time these proverbial foxes are flushed out of our proverbial hen houses.
Gary (44b490) — 5/25/2009 @ 10:59 amPlease don’t feed the troll.
Carving up its arguments like a Memorial Day steak without fulfilling any of its “predictions” isn’t feeding the troll, Bradley.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/25/2009 @ 11:16 amOne notable missing part of DBG’s usual meme is the inability of conservatives to support their own daily newspapers.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/25/2009 @ 11:38 am“Conservative daily newspapers”…Who knew such existed?
AD - RtR/OS! (f03f38) — 5/25/2009 @ 11:50 amHow amusing that Dark Beer thinks that making up stuff is proof that someone else makes up stuff.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2009 @ 12:06 pmTheir projection is so cute.
AD - RtR/OS! (f03f38) — 5/25/2009 @ 12:21 pmJust saw this:
they should be dismissed as the immature teen-age girls they are.
AD, that’s an insult to all teen-age girls.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/25/2009 @ 12:41 pmPaul (creator of “Staunch Brayer”),
I must say you have a point, in that troll-carving can be delicious fun.
And your mention of Memorial Day steak has done made me hungry . . .
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/25/2009 @ 1:30 pmYou know, I keep hearing that this delusion troll isn’t one of our banned favorites who liked posting in the middle of the night.
Of course he/she/it isn’t connected to those other people.
But I have never made fun of this troll (or any other) regarding gay sex. More power to you, no matter your preference.
Sheesh.
Of course, JD will denounce my heteronormative prejudices.
Eric Blair (0793db) — 5/25/2009 @ 1:40 pmDBG will be very disappointed that his fan club is not reacting more strongly.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/25/2009 @ 1:54 pmDark Beergod:
Hidden bias is dangerous because it taints the conversation, and it doesn’t matter which way it tilts.
DRJ (2901e6) — 5/25/2009 @ 1:56 pmMaybe he’ll throw in a few “Boss Limbaugh” lines, daley.
Eric Blair (0793db) — 5/25/2009 @ 1:56 pmWell, if we can’t have pre-conceived notions, what kind of notions can we have?
AD - RtR/OS! (f03f38) — 5/25/2009 @ 1:59 pmAnd, are they worth having?
Eric – I believe we’re thinking of different people, unless they commented under multiple names already.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/25/2009 @ 2:07 pmDBG will be very disappointed that his fan club is not reacting more strongly.
Yup, we aren’t fulfilling its predictions.
A torrent of insult: none so far; Wildly speculative, paranoid claims about my identity. I couldn’t care less who or what it is; JD, Eric Blair and maybe Brad Fikes will present their gay sex fantasy about me as an inside joke: and a last bit of projection to top it all off.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/25/2009 @ 2:15 pmI believe we’re thinking of different people, unless they commented under multiple names already.
Daley, considering how many trolls just can’t quit us, I say that that’s a strong possibility.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (14d6a1) — 5/25/2009 @ 2:17 pm“Hidden bias is dangerous because it taints the conversation, and it doesn’t matter which way it tilts.”
Purity of conversation is a dangerously utopian ideal and inimical to the innate scepticism and embrace of human imperfection that make traditional conservatism attractive.
We can never achieve a bias-free press. As demonstrated in this blog, we cannot even agree on what bias is.
Far better, then, to rely on the presumption that all media will be biased in some way.
While I am disappointed and at times infuriated that, for example, Fox News dutifully parrots RNC talking points, I have never been fooled by any of it. And I’m confident that the average American is at least as smart as I am and at least as capable of detecting bias.
Do you really believe Americans are tricked by liberal bias in the media? Don’t you think we’re smarter, on average, than that?
Dark Beergood (23258e) — 5/25/2009 @ 4:00 pmThat Hussein won’t release the documents is proof of Cheney’s assertions. No amount of spin will change that fact.
As for California’s budget woes, the solution is is simple. Fire one third off all the administrators and one fifth of all non essential employees. Then eliminate the union contracting rules for state and local contracts (the Davis Bacon equivalents). Continue by canceling all present pension obligations and restart them from the last five years base salary without overtime, sick days and vacation time from the calculation. Simple straight base pay dollar averaged over the last five years worked with no COLA adjustments for five years. At this point not only would you have balanced the budget but would probably have a surplus comparable to the current deficit.
And that is not cutting one single program. Imagine if worthless and marginal programs were cut, welfare benefits and unemployment for teens and young adults were contingent on successfully graduating high school? Drop out and you do not qualify for ten years? California would run huge surpluses, the kind that could seriously pay down the states debts and free up cash in the long run for the services the tax payers actually pay taxes for. And in turn lower the income tax rate, the corporate tax rate and other taxes and make the state a place that would attract and retain capital and people who earn enough to pay taxes beyond the per capita allocation. Net tax payers instead of parasites. Imagine that.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 5/25/2009 @ 5:20 pmdaley, all you need to do is wait. The trolls who are posting under new ‘nyms cannot help themselves. Their writing style and previous hurts from earlier incursions keep showing up.
They would do better with one sentence posts, but they just cannot manage it. And all the verbiage keeps giving away the game.
Eric Blair (0793db) — 5/25/2009 @ 10:16 pmEric – Exactly. They each have tells.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/25/2009 @ 10:18 pmYeah. The “gay sex” comment was darned weird. The last person who carried on about that with me was JG, and it’s certainly not him.
Eric Blair (0793db) — 5/25/2009 @ 10:25 pm[…] recessions scrubone 2:49 pm If goverment spending is the way out of a recession, how come we have recessions? […]
Random Impretenant Question « Something should go here, maybe later. (6141c2) — 5/28/2009 @ 6:57 pm[…] ran an article about the Horrible Impact of Spending Cuts and the Questionable Nature of Republican Claims — while burying or omitting any discussion of the horrible impact of tax increases and the […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32) — 1/1/2010 @ 12:07 pm