Tag Archives: LA Times
LA Times Acknowledges Friedman Unit Is Up
As you no doubt have read by now, on Sunday The LA Times editorial board, in an editorial titled “Bring Them Home,” belatedly called for an end to American troop presence in Iraq.
The U.S. should immediately declare its intention to begin a gradual troop drawdown, starting no later than the fall. The pace of the withdrawal must be flexible, to reflect progress or requests by the Iraqis and the military’s commanders. The precise date for completing the withdrawal need not be announced, but the assumption should be that combat troops would depart by the end of 2009.
Don’t ya love when the Times issues these strong declarative statements about what the U.S. SHOULD do in times of war as though a. they’re the first to even consider such a thing and b. they have any credibility left?
Over…
First of all, where the f- have you been? You make statements like:
it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation.
and
there is no reason to believe that the surge will help bring about an end to what is, in fact, a multifaceted civil war.
as though these conclusions are surprising. For months principled elected officials in Washington who are sick at the toll this war has taken in blood and treasure, having come to these conclusions long ago, have been trying to do pretty much what you recommend, albeit on a faster schedule.
And where were you? March, 12:
By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.
Incredibly, even now, in what is essentially a reversal of your support for the surge, you can’t bring yourself to give any credit to Democrats.
No, to the LA Times editorial board, Democrats’ motivations are nothing more than “domestic political needs,” hence the call for a late 2009 end date. Their judgment is that because 2008 is an election year, the Democrats’ desire for withdrawal is merely political and, hence, by definition hasty.
Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout.
In yet another of the editorial’s if-it-weren’t-so-sad-it-would-be-funny statements, the board states:
Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war.
Are you kidding me? The people want out. Now. They’ve been calling for it for months. What is an editorial board’s function if not a forum to reflect the sensibilities of its readership? On that score, you have proven a miserable failure.
You are however absolutely right when you say:
But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.
Which begs the question why do you call for yet another Friedman Unit by demanding the withdrawal begin no later than the fall? On what planet are you living if you think the administration will heed a measured recommendation such as yours? You apparently, and foolishly, still see an inherent virtue in deference to the commander in chief in a time of war without acknowledging what to most observers is obvious: a. that you’ve been duped before; b. that the administration has long since squandered any trust or benefit of the doubt on this war; and c. that it is about time the Democrats were given a little leeway and deference of their own.
Writing Online 101; Does the LA Times get ethics?
The San Francisco Chronicle has figure it out, why not the paper of record? Why can’t newspapers learn to link to what is cited in the online version? There is a bright-line and if you purposefully don’t cite it is unethical (unless you despise the site so much that you state your unwillingness to link to it).
This is unethical:
From Nov. 16 to Dec. 7, there are only a handful of e-mail messages, a fact that Talking Points Memo, a Web site that has been following the furor with microscopic attention, pointed out Wednesday morning.
An ethical publication would post:
From Nov. 16 to Dec. 7, there are only a handful of e-mail messages, a fact that Talking Points Memo, a Web site that has been following the furor with microscopic attention, pointed out Wednesday morning.
Will the LA Times follow the lead of Sfgate or of NYT?
Ethics Scandal at CA Newspaper Websites; Marinucci Learning?
Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle had a front-page story on a youtube video. The day before, the LA Times had a major story on TPM and the USA purge scandal.
However, the unlike the above paragraph, the online version of neither story actually included a link to what they were talking about. This is a blatant violation of accepted ethical guidelines and it is far past time for newspapers to start forcing ethics online.
Have web editors finally decided to get on the right side of an ethical briteline? Carla Marinucci (who once famously used the SF Gate Politics blog to quote verbatim without attribution) has a new story that actually includes a link.
But it is clear that at least at SF Gate, there isn’t a clear policy to prevent this ethical scandals. In a story last night on a food recall, there was a link at the bottom of the story but look at the awkwardness of this:
A complete list of the recalled products along with product codes, descriptions and production dates was available from the Menu Foods Web site, .
For some reason, SF Gate decided to cut out a website from an AP story (others didn’t).
Anyway, most people saw this weeks ago, but here is the original spot. Since I’m linking, you can see what it is I’m talking about. When Drudge read Marinucci’s Sunday story he had to go searching for the ad and ended up linking to a copy. But at least he linked — that is how things work online.
The only reason you don’t link is if you believe the website in question is beneath contempt.
Hopefully web editors will figure this out, I’m shocked Romenesko hasn’t been all over this.
L.A. Times: Post-Partisanship “An Illusion;” Sky Still Blue
I think I threw up in my mouth a little when I read the headline of the L.A. Times ‘news analysis’ this morning:
This is news? You mean some people actually thought “post-partisanship” was, like, real?
The conclusion of the article:
conditions are ripe for the kind of partisan clash that Schwarzenegger says is vanishing.
More…
As contemptuous as we are of Arnold’s “post-partisan” nonsense, the article casts Republicans as the biggest opponents of the governor’s invented style of fake governance:
Post-partisanship, said a rueful state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) “is the process by which Arnold sits down with Democratic leaders and gets them to do exactly what they wanted to do all along.”
And…
“A lot of the large goals accomplished last year didn’t feel bipartisan to us,” said Michael Villines (R-Clovis), leader of the Assembly’s Republicans. “It just felt like we got steamrolled.”
Certainly, Republican support was scant among the three accomplishments the article cites as Arnold’s pillars of “post-partisanship”: “a multibillion-dollar public works project, a plan for cutting prescription drug prices and a program to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.”
But the state’s elected Democrats aren’t exactly doing a jig either.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), who voted for the environmental bill last year, now says the market-based carbon-trading system the state adopted won’t do enough to curb global warming.
And…
On his recent trip to Washington, the governor met with the state’s congressional delegation to discuss ways to get more federal money for California and to urge members of both parties to work together…U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) said the meeting yielded little in the way of concrete accomplishment; she described it as more cosmetic than substantive.
In other words, despite the fact that Schwarzenegger plans to tour the country over the next year touting the unifying nature of “post-partisanship,” the governor has actually managed to alienate both Democrats AND Republicans.
So I guess the MSM deserves kudos for noticing and reporting what we’ve known for a while: that “post-partisanship” is merely Arnold v.3.0, a role he’s playing based not on some core principle of above-the-partisan-fray governance, but rather on political calculation.
national political analysts said Schwarzenegger’s style could be tough to export. Few Republicans elected in classic “red” states see the need to accommodate Democrats in ways that Schwarzenegger has felt necessary in his “blue” state.
“If you’re in a solid red state, I don’t think you have to do that,” said G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania.
The key words in those paragraphs: “need” and “have to.” “Post-partisanship” IS politics, reflecting the political reality that governors of one party who run a state dominated by the other party have known forever. It’s just that no one before has so brazenly claimed it as his own and felt the need to brag about it.
But then again Arnold is unique; he knows how beneficial it is to one’s career when a sequel does better than the original.
The Tapes, Part Deux
UPDATE: The CA Majority Report is now reporting that the Angelides staffers that had the tapes deny that they released them. Mavigilio pontificates on the possibility of Arnold releasing the tapes as some sort of dirty trick. That would be sort of weird though, as Arnold was up big when the tapes came out. You never know though, maybe they were going for the kill.
Since the CHP (shockingly!) declared that there was no crime committed in the so called “TapeGate”, we are know getting access to the rest of the tapes.
Sidenote: By the by, the whole “crime” thing still pisses me off. The Governor’s team incompetently leaves material out in the open, and they go accusing Angelides of a crime. Ridiculous. But don’t underestimate the incompetence of the Angelides team. It’s like they’d never done oppo research before. They got a good bit and they go running to the Times as fast as they can. Whatever.
Back to the tapes. The LA Times is now getting to releasing more of the tapes. Apparently Mr. Schwarzenegger enjoys talking about people behind their back.
In the latest recordings, the Republican governor describes Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) as a “very sick man” and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) as “a political operator coming from the union background” who evinces no real “passion” about issues. … Proud of his legislative achievements, Schwarzenegger plans to deliver speeches around the country this year, touting California as a model of bipartisan cooperation. But the recordings suggest that he and his most trusted aides have sometimes viewed his legislative partners with disdain.
Brilliant…simply brilliant. He’s postpartisan, but still not above calling Sen. Perata “a very sick man”. Underneath all of this hooey about post-partisan, is a man who is growing ever more isolated. Heck he can’t even get anybody to introduce his health care plan in the Legislature. Not even one legislator want so to carry that steaming pile of refuse. He has no friends on the GOP side, and he makes fun of the Dems who work with him. Doesn’t seem very post-partisan at all.
I’m not cynical enough
crossposted from Left in SF
It never fails. Bills that seek to make small, but tangible, changes in people’s lives are dismissed as ridiculous by the people they don’t affect. Take Pedro Nava’s Safe Passing bill, AB60, which would mandate that cars give bicyclists 3 feet of space as they pass. Sounds minor, but it could potentialy save dozens of lives every year in California, and make biking in the state more appealing (and remember, everyone who bikes instead of drives means less pollution, less traffic, and a healthier person).
No sooner had I fired off this email to my Assemblymember, Mark Leno, in support of this bill
Dear Assemblymember Leno,
I am writing to encourage your support for AB60, the Pedro Nava Safe passing law. As I am sure you know, the city of San Francisco’s efforts to make bicycling safer have been held up by the intervention of some of our narrow-minded citizens. The State, however, is still allowed to act.
Nava’s bill would help to make cycling safer. I depend on my bicycle as my main mode of transportation and it’s a rare day nobody cuts a pass overly close, occasionally even driving me into the curb.
Every year, more than 100 cyclists are killed in California. It’s time to do something about it.
when I saw this post from the LA Times’s blog Political Muscle:
Another year, another zillion bills. The Times’ Nancy Vogel has sifted through the mounds of legislation already filed by California’s 120 lawmakers. Here are a few offbeat highlights, with our own proposed names attached:
The Lance Armstrong ‘Back Off Buddy’ Protection Act: Assemblyman Pedro Nava wants to require motorists to stay at least three feet to the left of bicyclists when passing them. Under AB 60, violators could be fined up to $250. Perhaps violators will also be required to participate in the Tour de France by riding a Big Wheel.
I can’t read this without hearing Beavis and Butthead saying “heh-heh, heh-heh, he said big wheel”.
I’m pretty clear that this bill is not going to be on the top of many people’s legislative agendas, but it’s a pretty small change that could save plenty of lives.
Click through for what prompted this.
Here’s the email I got today that prompted me to write Leno in the first place:
Hi team mates,
Some of you may have heard that my father was hit and killed while riding his bike lawfully last summer on Highway 35 near Skylonda, which is why I’ve been off the bike more than usual this fall and summer.
A civil case and a criminal case against the elderly driver are pending, but even if we win both (likely, I think) it will really have only a small effect. If one thing could come of this, I’d like to at least think that I was able to make it less likely to happen to another cyclist, including me and you.
Fortunately, I just learned today that State Assemblymember Pedro Nava, who has just assumed chairmanship of the Assembly Transportation Committee, has re-introduced AB 60, a state bill that would require motorists to give cyclists a minimum 3-foot berth when passing.
Here’s a Sacramento Bee article on AB 60:
Here’s the full text of the bill:
I encourage everyone to write letters of support for this bill. I think a letter to Nava, and to your own state assemblyperson would be good.
The writer of this letter, and the hundreds of thousands of Californians who ride a bike, deserve better than a snide comment by our state’s version of the Kewl Kids–the political insiders who think they can define what’s important to Californians. The triathlete whose death prompted Nava to introduce the bill, Kendra Chiota Payne, deserves better.
It’s why I’ll never be a kewl political reporter for the LA Times. I care more about the content of the law than whether it’s “offbeat”.
Photo by Richard Masoner.
Odds and Ends 11/14
Originally I had planned on only doing this until the election, but I’ve found it quite satisfying to just write a short pithy comment on each story and move on to the next. Also, I felt that I had been ignoring so many issues out there. These will probably be shorter now, but I’ll try to get these out daily during the week. No guarantees though. 🙂
So, teasers: Waxman attacks?, Jerry goes to DC, the failure of the metrics, and the LA Times saga continues. Plus more!!
The much-touted Schwarzenegger/Republican get-out-the-vote effort in this election turned out to be a big flop. It’s not the first time the GOP effort to turn out its own voters has failed; but this year the party convinced itself that it would make a difference.
The Schwarzenegger campaign spent millions on phone banks and mailers, the campaign flooded Republican mailboxes with slick brochures and pestered voters with robo calls at dinner time, something Republicans call micro-targeting. (I received three calls from “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger” telling me to vote while hosting an early election night party at my home and I had voted weeks ago.)
They said this would bring out Republican voters, but it did not. Why? There are several reasons. Certainly a factor was Republican disgust with Bush and Iraq that kept many of their voters home. A large number of safe Republicans saw their vote percentage fall from 2004 levels. For instance, Sacramento GOP Rep Dan Lungren received only 59 percent this year; two years ago, he received 62 percent. That three percent drop was stay-at-home-Republicans. All the robo calls in the world could not get these voters to the polls.
But that’s not the whole story. Republican registration is just 34 percent of statewide voters, an historic low. Republican strategists seem to believe they can overcome their registration deficit by pushing a higher turnout among their loyal voters, thus the robo calls and slick mailers aimed at GOP voters.
But they fail to recognize that an appeal to the GOP base alone is not sufficient to win any longer in California. There are simply not enough like-minded voters outside the Republican base to forge a victory. Just look at the difference between Schwarzenegger and the rest of the Republican ticket.
Bob Salladay is the best comedian EVER
So, I know some people might think it’s in poor taste to make fun of the Foley brouhaha, but I’m not one of them. Bob Salladay posted a fake (I hope) IM conversation between Arnold (schatzi47) and Don Perata (tonySop45). It’s funny. Really, freaking, funny:
tonySop45: Bush is in town today. u going to be with him?
schatzi47: who?
schatzi47: don’t i get u horny for roads and ports?
tonySop45: it was my idea, remember? scene hog. 🙁
schatzi47: awwww. don’t b that way.
tonySop48: u have a camera fetish.
schatzi47: what u wearing?
tonySop48: fabian fabian fabian. and yesterday, Gray Davis? what about Dick Ackerman? do u ever talk to Republicans?
schatzi47: brb. Maria is yelling.
See, what’d I tell you? Funny.
The LA Times: Back off you Chicago Suits!
So, just in case you haven’t heard about the drama involving the LA Times, Marc Cooper gives a nice little recap:
Some have called it an “Alamo strategy.” The editor of the L.A. Times, Dean Baquet, has boldly drawn a line in the sand against his own employers, saying he refuses to make $10 million in cuts being demanded by the Tribune Company.BaquetDean_L.jpg
The general public may shrug it shoulders, but this battle is indeed of titanic proportions for journalists and for the future of journalism. Baquet has been joined in his public defiance by none other than publisher Jeff Johnson. And by an ad hoc group of 19 L.A. luminaries who suggest that the best thing to do is for the Tribune Co. to back off and maybe to relinquish control of the Times to local entrprenuers (several local billionaires including David Geffen have already volunteered to make the buy).(Marc Cooper 9/19/06)
First of all, I must admit that I have a little bit of a grudge against the Tribune Co. As a lifelong Cubs fan, why the hell can’t you people field a winner!?! You know why? It’s because of their corporate philosohpy, “Put the bare minimum in, and not a penny more.” The LA Times isn’t exactly the greatest paper in the world, but it’s sure as hell far better than the Chicago Tribune.
These staff cuts would hobble the Times, and prevent it from gathering the stories that it should be gathering. The Times should be the paper of record on the West Coast. The Tribune Co. would abdicate that role faster than the Cubs swoon in June.
So, everybody, write letters to the editors of the Times, supporting them for their principled stance. We need the Times more than the Tribune Co. needs a few more pennies.