Patterico's Pontifications


Quote of the Day

Filed under: General,Humor — Patterico @ 10:22 pm

It’s at Hot Air.

Sock-Puppet Article Linked; Authorities Approve

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:44 pm

Several readers have written offering to slit my throat if I don’t post a link to this New York Times article on sock puppets. So here you go.

L.A. Times Finally Corrects Error in Article on Libby’s Sentence

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:11 pm

That error that Stu707 noticed in an L.A. Times article on Scooter Libby’s sentence has finally been corrected:

Libby sentence: A July 4 article in Section A about President Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison term, comparing that 30-month sentence with penalties in cases similar to Libby’s, cited the case of a decorated Army veteran sentenced to 30 months for lying to a federal agent about buying a machine gun. The article incorrectly said the veteran had no criminal record. He had been convicted in 1986 of making false statements in connection with a firearms purchase. Sentencing guidelines did not count that against him because it was more than 10 years before the more recent offense.

It took only 13 days from the day the article came out — which was the same day I spoon-fed them the correction. And all it took was two e-mails to the Readers’ Representative, one post pointing out the error, and one post bitching about the delay.

P.S. In that post, I said:

[S]ome may argue that the error is indeed trivial, because under the Sentencing Guidelines, Rita’s previous conviction did not count for purposes of calculating his criminal history points. In fact, if we ever do see a correction on this, I have absolutely no doubt — none whatsoever — that the paper will include a sentence trying to minimize the importance of the error by noting this fact.

Call me Karnak. (I think it’s supposed to be spelled “Carnac,” but I prefer “Karnak.”)

P.P.S. In the same post, I also noted that U.S. v. Booker (which Rita accepted as applicable precedent) held that the Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory, meaning that the judge could have taken Rita’s previous conviction into account despite the Guidelines. So the weaselly correction is misleading. Now there’s a first!

DRJ Analyzes Johnny Sutton’s Fact Sheet in Anticipation of Sutton’s Testimony Today

Filed under: General,Immigration — DRJ @ 5:28 am

[Thanks to DRJ for this typically thorough and enlightening post analyzing Johnny Sutton’s fact sheet on the Ramos/Compean trial in the light of the trial transcript. I have summarized what I think are some of the more significant findings in a post at Hot Air, here. — Patterico]

[posted by DRJ]

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing to examine the prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean. Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas whose office prosecuted the Ramos/Compean case, is scheduled to testify at the hearing.

Johnny Sutton has an impressive resume. From 1988 to 1995, he was an Assistant District Attorney in Harris County, Texas, which includes the city of Houston. He worked for George W. Bush during his terms as Texas Governor and as President from 1996-2001. In November 2001, Sutton was appointed as a U.S. Attorney by President Bush, and in 2002 he was appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys. Sutton served as Vice-Chair of the Advisory Committee and was named the Committee’s Chair in March 2006. Sutton also serves on the Advisory Committee’s Border and Immigration Law Enforcement Subcommittee.

I hope Mr. Sutton’s testimony at this hearing helps answer my questions and concerns about the Ramos/Compean trial and verdict. In an effort to clarify my questions and concerns and to facilitate a better understanding of the testimony tendered to the Committee, this post will compare the Ramos/Compean trial transcript with the U.S. Attorney’s most recent press release.

If you are unfamiliar with the Ramos/Compean case or need a refresher on the facts, this February 2007 article by the AP’s Pauline Arrillaga (Washington Post link) contains a concise summary.


Be Liberal! Or Don’t! Or . . . Do!

Filed under: General,Media Bias,Morons — Patterico @ 12:01 am

You gotta love the chameleon-like Chicago Sun-Times.

A week ago, they pledged to be liberal. No kidding. Visit the link if you don’t believe me.

What a bold pledge for a Big Media paper! The Editorial Page Editor reported the marching instructions that she had received from the publisher:

“‘Don’t be conservative,’ Cruickshank [the publisher] urged me. ‘We don’t want you to hold back.'”

“Don’t be conservative! We don’t want you to hold back.” I love it! It’s like we’re reading the internal e-mails at the L.A. Times!

But then the party ended. Just as quickly as the paper had decided to be “liberal,” it decided not to be. And so, three days ago, the order to become more “liberal” was abruptly reversed.

Or was it?

Just yesterday, the paper reported that a “staunch Republican” had undergone an astounding turnaround: he would, henceforth, support Democrats:

After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers’ group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

He will support the Democrats.

“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”

My goodness. That really tells you something! And it gains extra credibility, because it comes from the one newspaper that has assured its readers that it will not be too liberal.

Just one problem: “staunch Republican” Jim Ronca of Philadelphia appears to have supported Democrats before.

That’s a subtle point that a liberal paper might miss, in trying to slam Republicans.

Thank God we have assurances that the Chicago Sun-Times is not a liberal paper.

(Thanks to “jimboster.”)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0661 secs.