Patterico's Pontifications


The L.A. Times Takes Another Small Step on the Road to Oblivion

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Jack Dunphy @ 11:37 pm

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

On Thursday, Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez asked readers to submit candidates for a list of “L.A.’s worst people.” Among those who qualified for this list, either in Lopez’s or his editors’ opinion, are those whose pictures appear in the below screen shot. They are, from left to right, Frank Shaw, the famously corrupt mayor who was recalled in 1938; homicidal madman Charles Manson; disgraced former President Richard Nixon; former LAPD Chief William Parker; Manson family murderer Susan Atkins; serial killer Richard Ramirez, also remembered as the “Night Stalker”; and O.J. Simpson, the Butcher of Brentwood.


An interesting mix, to say the least, but I was puzzled by Parker’s presence among the murderers and corrupt politicians. Lopez explains thus: “Nobody beats former LAPD chief William Parker, said author and former Timesman Bill Boyarsky. ‘He was the most damaging Angeleno of all time’ because of his ‘us-against-them, all-white, anti-minority attitude. That has done more lasting harm to the city than anything.’”

A year ago, responding to a similar smear against Parker from Times columnist Tim Rutten, Glynn Martin, a retired LAPD officer now serving as executive director of the Los Angeles Police Historical Society, wrote that Parker must be understood as a man of his time, and that examining him through the lens of modern sensibilities distorts the memory of a man who integrated the department and cleansed it of its endemic corruption.

Placing Parker in such loathsome company is emblematic of the pettiness one has come to expect from the Los Angeles Times. And yet they wonder why their circulation is declining.

–Jack Dunphy

O’Keefe to Appear on Hannity on Monday

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:33 pm

The only video I have seen to confirm this is courtesy of the morons at Media Matters. So be it:

I’m not sure one way or the other whether this is a wise move legally. But I admit to being curious as all hell. There’s some questions I’d love answered, which may or may not be:

  • Did they have tools, like wire cutters?
  • When can we see the tape?
  • Did they really ask to see the phone closet?
  • If so, what was their purpose?
  • Did they only go into the publicly accessible areas of Landrieu’s offices?
  • Etc. etc. etc.

Set your TiVos now.

Massachusetts Senator Kirk Continues to Vote

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 11:22 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

It’s been 10 days since Massachusetts’ voters elected Senator Scott Brown and yet interim Senator Paul Kirk continues to vote:

“The Senate has voted on three pieces of legislation today that required 60 votes–to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, to reduce the deficit by establishing five-year discretionary spending caps, and Ben Bernanke’s confirmation–all of which interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) has voted on. In addition, there have been other Senate votes since Scott Brown was elected as Massachusetts senator that Kirk cast a vote.

The main question here is: why is former Senator Kirk still voting on these legislative pieces? According to Senate rules and precedent, Kirk’s term expired last Tuesday upon the election of Scott Brown.”

This Boston Herald report suggests it could be at least 5 more days before the Massachusetts’ Secretary of State will certify Brown’s election, and possibly much longer.

In the meantime, I don’t know if Kirk is legally authorized to continue in office but no one seems to be objecting. It’s these kind of “go along to get along” decisions that drive people away from politics and political parties.


Flight Diverted to Florida

Filed under: Air Security — DRJ @ 9:25 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

A Continental flight from Newark, New Jersey, to Bogota, Columbia, was diverted to Florida because authorities feared a passenger on the No-Fly list had been allowed on board:

“A Continental Airlines jet flying from Newark Liberty International Airport to Colombia was diverted to Jacksonville, Fla., earlier today over concerns a passenger was on the government’s watch list of suspected terrorists banned from commercial flights. It turned out to be a case of mistaken identity.

Flight 881, which left Newark at 3:03 p.m., was diverted to Jacksonville International Airport at about 5:45 p.m. due to a “potential person of interest,” Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Ann Davis said.
The government was expected to investigate how the passenger was allowed to board the plane before he was positively deemed safe.

Airlines are required to check the government’s no-fly list before issuing a passenger a boarding pass.”

Hopefully it won’t be long before the TSA and/or airlines can figure out how to identify whether a passenger is on a No-Fly list before a flight takes off.


Obama Administration May Investigate BCS

Filed under: Obama,Sports — DRJ @ 9:09 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

President Obama has made it clear he’s not a fan of the Bowl Championship Series football ratings system and now he may do something about it:

“The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.

In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.”

Someone has too much time on their hands.


Ninth Circuit Orders Cyrus Sanai to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Sanctioned for His Misconduct Complaints

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:53 pm

Just before Thanksgiving, I reported that Judge Stephen Reinhardt had issued an order regarding Cyrus Sanai’s complaints against Alex Kozinski. That order concluded:

Although I do not believe it would be appropriate for me, in my present role, to initiate sanction proceedings against complainant, see Judicial Conduct Rule 10(a), complainant’s conduct warrants referral to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council for whatever action in this regard, including referral to the state bar, it may deem appropriate. See: In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008).

Four days ago, the Judicial Council ordered Sanai to show cause why he should not be sanctioned:

Complainant is ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by an order requiring him to obtain leave before filing any further misconduct complaints, or by issuance of a public reprimand, and/or by referral to the California State Bar Association. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 552 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). Complainant shall address also whether he violated 28 U.S.C. § 360 by publicly commenting on misconduct proceedings as listed in the sealed attachment to this order. Complainant has twenty-eight days from the filing of this order to file a response that shall not exceed 4,000 words in length . . . .

The Judicial Council explains:

Complainant filed three misconduct complaints naming nineteen federal judges, raising many frivolous claims. Complainant reiterated allegations previously dismissed, without providing new supporting evidence, and admitted using the misconduct process to further his litigation strategy, a clearly improper purpose. In publicly discussing the pending misconduct proceedings, complainant may have violated 28 U.S.C. § 360.

The admission referred to by the Court was made on this blog, in this post, in which Sanai told me that the investigation of Kozinski was “part of a litigation strategy.”

I’ll keep you informed as this progresses.

Oh, while we’re on the topic . . .

Back in December, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing a hearing officer’s order disbarring Fredric Sanai, Cyrus’s brother. A couple of people told me about it, but I was busy and didn’t have time to post about it in a timely fashion. No time like the present.

The 5-4 opinion is here. The dissent is here, and has some choice things to say about Cyrus Sanai:


CBS Issues O’Keefe Correction — There’s Just One, Er, Two Problems . . .; UPDATED: CBS Editor Responds

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:26 pm

Yesterday morning I noted that CBS News (and the L.A. Times) owed corrections to James O’Keefe, for saying that he was accused of trying to “bug” Mary Landrieu’s phone. Instapundit linked, focusing attention on the error and putting pressure on CBS News.

CBS News has now corrected.


I received this e-mail this afternoon:

Good afternoon — I just wanted to let you know we corrected the headline on the James O’Keefe story and video earlier today.


Kevin Hechtkopf Politics Editor

Well, that’s very up-front. Now let’s take a look at the pages themselves.

Here’s the original for one of the links, found here. The bottom now contains this correction:

*Correction: The headline and subhead of this story initially referrred to the suspects as attempting a “phone bug.” They have been changed to reflect the fact that the men have been accused of tampering, not bugging.

Sure enough, here is the original:

CBS Claims Bug Suspects 2


CBS Claims Bug Suspects 4

Here’s how that looks now:

CBS Corrects 3


CBS Corrects 4

It now says “Tampering Suspects” instead of “Phone Bug Suspects.” Good.

Let’s look at the other link, here:

CBS Claims Bug Suspects 1


CBS Claims Bug Suspects 3

And now:

CBS Corrects 1


CBS Corrects Blank

This is more of a stealth correction. There is no acknowledgment of the initial error.

Worse, it’s still wrong. Let’s look at that close-up again. What was that pesky little word at the bottom that still remains?

CBS Corrects 2

Nope. They’re not “phone bug suspects.”

That last graphic is courtesy of Retracto, the Correction Alpaca, who is still demanding a retraction.

The wooly guy’s right. I sent Mr. Hechtkopf an e-mail asking for the last “bug” to be squished.

I’ll keep you informed.

UPDATE: Mr. Hechtkopf has responded to my e-mail:

That headline should have updated when we updated the story it links to. I don’t know why it didn’t and can’t fix it from here, but I will look into it tomorrow.

That actually sounds reasonable. I thank Mr. Hechtkopf for the reply.

UPDATE x2: The error has now been fully corrected.

Obama the Ideologue

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 4:30 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Following President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 campaign finance decision during his State of the Union address, Vice President Joe Biden and the White House defended Obama’s comments:

“Vice President Joe Biden defended Obama’s remarks. “The president didn’t question the integrity of the court or the decision that they made,” Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” program. “He questioned the judgment of it.”

The White House issued a fact sheet defending Obama’s statements, noting that the four justices who dissented from the decision had raised concerns that it would open the door to unchecked spending by foreign-owned corporations.

But the majority decision in the case indicated the ruling was not addressing the question of whether the government could act to prevent foreign individuals or associations from influencing U.S. elections.”

I think this raises a real question about Obama’s willingness to listen to both sides of issues. He only listened to the 4 dissenters when it came to this opinion. Similarly, it was revealed last month that Obama likes to surf the web and read magazines but his preferences for the New Yorker, the Economist, Rolling Stone and Andrew Sullivan reveal a decided ideological tilt.

Is Obama an ideologue? Talking to Republicans today, he claims he isn’t. But that’s hard to square with reports like those above and a recent interview in which Obama said it doesn’t matter what you say or do if you are a good person who is “on the right side of history”:

“Obama, in an interview today for Washington Watch with Roland Martin set to air on TV One on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, explained why he was so ready Saturday to forgive the Nevada Democrat for telling the authors of Game Change during the ’08 campaign that Obama would run well because is a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

“For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that, makes absolutely no sense,” Obama said today in the taped interview, an excerpt aired this evening by CBS News (see it above) and on other broadcast networks. “This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.”

President Obama talks like an ideologue whether he thinks he’s one or not.


James O’Keefe Issues Statement

Filed under: General — DRJ @ 3:45 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

As Patterico noted in an earlier post, James O’Keefe has issued a statement that is posted at Big Government.


Roeder Convicted in Murder of Abortion Doctor

Filed under: Abortion,Crime — DRJ @ 3:43 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Jurors in Wichita, Kansas, took only 37 minutes to convict Scott Roeder for the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

“The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder for putting a gun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and pulling the trigger.

Defense attorney Mark Rudy described his case as helpless and hopeless.

“I’ve never seen anyone lay himself out as much as Mr. Roeder did,” Rudy said after the verdict, referring to his client’s confessions.”

Roeder claimed he acted to protect the lives of unborn children who were in “immediate danger” because of Tiller. His attorneys hoped for a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, “a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.” The Judge ruled the manslaughter charge could not be submitted to the jury because Roeder failed to show Tiller constituted an imminent threat.

Roeder could receive a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. The prosecutor may also seek a so-called “Hard 50” sentence that would require Roeder “serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.”


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1551 secs.