Patterico's Pontifications

Posted 10/30/2003 08:40:00 PM by Patrick
STILL MORE SLOPPINESS AND/OR DUPLICITY FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES: Re the Schiavo case, a reader alerts me to the similar case of a California man named Robert Wendland.

Wendland was not in a "persistent vegetative state" but rather a "minimally conscious state," but the case was otherwise very similar to that of Ms. Schiavo. The spouse and other witnesses said that he had told them he didn't want to "live like a vegetable." His mother and sister argued to keep him alive.

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a conservator could not refuse life-sustaining treatment for Mr. Wendland. (Wendland had died of pneumonia by the time the decision was issued, but the court decided the case anyway, due to the importance of the issues involved.) The court reasoned that, since he had not specifically indicated a desire to refuse such treatment in a formal way while competent, there was no "clear and convincing evidence" of his wish to die. The court stated that this ruling might be different if a patient were in a persistent vegetative state. However, in my opinion, the California Supreme Court's approach is well-suited to the Schiavo case.

While reading about Wendland, I learned a very interesting fact in an article about his death. The article says that his wife, who had argued that he should die,

praised Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist and bioethicist, for providing her with medical and moral advice during Robert's final days. Cranford, a consultant in several high-profile right-to-die cases, did not personally treat Wendland but advised doctors on his care. His presence at the hospital enraged some pro-life activists, who fired off a statement Tuesday denouncing his involvement.

Does the name "Ron Cranford" sound familiar? Maybe you remember him from the New York Times article I discussed here titled In Feeding-Tube Case, Many Neurologists Back Courts. As I pointed out in my post, the article failed to live up to its headline, because only one neurologist who had viewed the tapes believed that Ms. Schiavo had no chance of recovering: Dr. Ron Cranford.

The Times article mentioned that he had testified for Mr. Schiavo, and I discounted his opinion accordingly. But the article didn't mention that he also regularly takes a pro-death position in litigated, high-profile "right-to-die" cases.

In these cases, Cranford's opinion carries about the same credibility as that of Jack Kevorkian. To be accurate, the Times's headline should have read: "In Feeding-Tube Case, One Right-to-Die Activist Backs Courts." Wow! Stop the presses!

Posted 10/30/2003 08:03:00 PM by Patrick
MORE SCHIAVO INFO: Via Mickey Kaus comes this April 2003 Newsday.com story on Terri Schiavo -- packed with information I had not read previously. For example, a childhood friend named Diane Meyer testified that Terri

once uncharacteristically lost her temper when Meyer told a joke about Karen Quinlan. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" Meyer asked Terri in the summer of 1982. The punch line was "Karen Ann Quinlan."

"She said the joke wasn't funny and did not approve of what was going on in the Quinlan case," Meyer testified, referring to the legal battle to remove the woman from life support. "I remember one of the things she said is, 'How did they know she would want this?'"

Other friends and relatives testified that Terri described Michael Schiavo as "mentally abusive," and repeatedly talked about divorcing him, as late as days before her collapse. Also, as mentioned on this blog before, a guardian ad litem was appointed who "concluded that he had not found clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have rejected life support." The probate judge rejected this recommendation.

New to me was this astounding evidence:

The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time. And with it, they found Trudy Capone.

A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri . . . He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."

How was some probate judge able to find "clear and convincing evidence" of her wish to die, given these facts??

Posted 10/30/2003 06:07:00 AM by Patrick
TAKING A STEP BACK: THOUGHTS ON THE SCHIAVO CASE: Much of the blogging I have seen on the Terri Schiavo controversy is driven by day-to-day events. This is understandable, given the fast-paced nature of the story. (For instance, just yesterday we learned here that Michael Schiavo's lawyers (as expected) filed court papers challenging the constitutionality of "Terri's Bill.") But I think it might be worthwhile at this point to take a step back and look at some of the issues raised by the controversy, without getting bogged down in whatever happened today.

The Schiavo case is remarkable for the depth of feeling it inspires in people on both sides of the issue. I have received more letters on this topic than any other topic I have discussed since this blog began. I have had a regular reader tell me he is boycotting my site because he disagrees so violently with my opinions. Many others have written me to support my point of view, to share their thoughts, and to encourage me to continue the discussion.

The emotions people feel are understandable. Although there are far more serious issues in the world, this one has a deeply personal aspect to it. Many people have had a relative or friend in a similar position, and have had to make difficult decisions about life-or-death issues -- often based on limited information regarding what their friend or loved one would really want.

Even if you haven't been through such an experience, it is very easy to imagine yourself in the position of someone in the case. We wonder what we would do if we were the Schindlers, or Mr. Schiavo. Worst of all, we can't help but imagine what it would be like to be Ms. Schiavo herself.

Unfortunately, as often happens when people feel strongly about an issue, many are allowing their feelings to cloud their judgment. People (mostly from the political left) have been heard making all sorts of unreasonable arguments, and discarding compelling evidence on the flimsiest basis. For example, I had a debate with a woman on a leftist internet site in which she discounted three affidavits (filed by a nurse and two nurses' aides) because they were all notarized by the same person. When you start making objections based upon such trivia, we are in OJ-land.

To my knowledge, Terri Schiavo never killed anyone -- but many on the left advocate treating her worse than they would treat a convicted murderer. Early on in this debate I noted the irony that, at the same time a court had ordered Terri Schiavo to die in a manner (forced starvation and dehydration) that appears cruel, our United States Supreme Court had granted a stay to a man convicted of murdering two people, sparing him from a lethal injection -- because he has collapsed veins.

This is not the only way in which Ms. Schiavo has received less consideration than an accused or convicted murderer. Criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled to have their cases decided by a jury -- bringing to bear the collective experience and wisdom of a group of diverse people -- rather than by a single judge. Criminal defendants are also entitled to have their guilt decided according to the "reasonable doubt" standard -- whereas Ms. Schiavo was condemned to death based on findings made according to the less stringent "clear and convincing evidence" legal standard.

If nothing else, this case suggests that the procedural protections available to criminal defendants should be available to people who can't speak for themselves, whose very life or death hinges upon the trial court's decision. Is not Terri Schiavo's life worth at least as much as that of someone charged with a deliberate, cold-blooded murder? Why, then, do we not accord her at least the same protections under the law that we would accord to the suspected murderer?

We should also recognize that, even with all of these protections, the courts are fallible. Courts get things wrong, every day. Judges and jurors are people like you and me. They have preconceptions and biases. They make mistakes. You think the O.J. jury got it right?? You think O.J. deserved custody of his children??

If you have any doubts about the fallibility of trial courts, just look at the dozens of provably innocent people who have been on Death Row in this country. I support the death penalty in principle, but if you think that no innocent people make it onto Death Row, you just haven't been paying attention.

Yet the left continually argues that "19 judges" have ruled for Mr. Schiavo. This argument ignores the fact that the only judge whose opinion really mattered was the trial judge, who made the factual findings in this case. After that, appellate judges deferred to the trial judge's findings. For better or worse, our legal system depends to an incredible extent upon such findings of fact, and it is well-nigh impossible to obtain a reversal based on an argument that the factfinder got the facts wrong.

By the way, the deference that appellate courts show to factual findings made in the trial court is the main reason that innocent people on Death Row are rarely freed through the orderly workings of the justice system. Far too often, a defendant's innocence is revealed not by layers of judicial review, but rather by the efforts of activists -- who usually have to fight the judicial system to obtain a defendant's release, even when the defendant's innocence is clear.

Consistent with their other bizarre positions, leftists also purport to be outraged at the idea that the Florida Legislature gave the Governor the power to stop the starvation of Ms. Schiavo. If she had murdered someone, these same leftists would likely praise a commutation of the death sentence -- even though such an order is (like Gov. Bush's order in this case) an executive order that directly overturns a valid judgment rendered in a court of competent jurisdiction. But Gov. Bush's order was in essence a stay of execution for Ms. Schiavo. So what made it so outrageous -- the fact that she hadn't murdered someone before she was condemned to die?

The media, which often operates in effect as an arm of the political left, has been equally complicit in making silly arguments, distorting the facts, and generally behaving in an irrational and irresponsible fashion. As I have documented on this site, a one-sided view of the story has been presented in virtually all forms of available media, including news articles and editorials in major newspapers, articles in national magazines, stories on the radio, and TV talk-shows.

But here's the thing. Even after you strip away the silly arguments discussed above, society is still faced with a very difficult decision. We all have to admit that we don't really know what Ms. Schiavo would want in this situation. We can make the best judgment we can, based on the facts we know. But there will inevitably be facts we don't know, and will probably never know.

So what to do? I don't have all the answers. Here's what I do know:

Absent a clear written directive, issues of life and death should be resolved by a jury, not a judge, applying a stringent evidentiary standard. If this standard can be met by hearsay testimony from people with glaring conflicts of interest, the standard is too low.

I am not inclined to put blind faith in doctors, any more than I would in the courts. There are too many credible stories of people who were written off by doctors as vegetables and lived to tell the tale. If you are rabidly in favor of killing Terri Schiavo, I would like to introduce you to Rus Cooper-Dowda and Stephen Drake. Tell them that we need to trust the doctors. Tell them that when a doctor diagnoses someone as a "vegetable" with no chance of recovery, the doctor must be right.

Finally, I will agree with Mr. Schiavo and his attorney on one point: this case highlights the need to reduce to writing your wishes regarding such important decisions.

At the risk of seeming flippant, I think it also highlights the need to be careful whom you marry.

Posted 10/29/2003 08:30:00 PM by Patrick
YET ANOTHER ARTICULATE FORMER "VEGETABLE": Add Stephen Drake (author of this L.A. Times op-ed) to the list of people who were written off by doctors as vegetables -- yet lived to tell the tale:

I was born brain-damaged as a result of a forceps delivery. The doctor told my parents I would be a "vegetable" for the rest of my life -- the same word now being used for Schiavo -- and that the best thing would be for nature to take its course. They refused. Although I had a lot of health problems, surgeries and pain as a child, I went on to lead a happy life.

It's impossible not to wonder: how many Stephen Drakes or Rus Cooper-Dowdas weren't so lucky?

Posted 10/29/2003 07:34:00 AM by Patrick
BARKING MOONBATS ON THE RECALL: Troublemaker Mark Ridley-Thomas and "Expert on Everything"™ Erwin Chemerinsky have a joint op-ed in this morning's Dog Trainer titled Now That It's Finally Over, Let's Revamp the Recall.

They make a number of suggestions, starting with this one: "First, it is far too easy to qualify a recall for the ballot." This is clearly a major problem, since the state had to spend millions on a recall that, ultimately, was unsuccessful and changed nothing in Sacramento.

Right, Erwin? Is that the problem, Mark?

They state that their "most important" suggestion is that, "in the event of a recall, there should be no race for a successor." Rather, they argue, the lieutenant governor should succeed the governor in the event of a successful recall. Their reasoning? "We believe this would dramatically depoliticize the recall process."

Like the guy on the mattress commercials says: "Hey, Erwin!" The recall process is a political process! When a law professor starts talking about how he wants to "depoliticize" a political process, that's when you should get nervous.

Ridley-Thomas and Chemerinsky end with this lovely speech:

We know that everyone is exhausted from the events of the last few months, and it is tempting to pretend that this was a unique political earthquake never to be repeated and to just move on. But we owe it to the future of California to learn from what we have experienced and to create a better recall process.

Ignore the whole thing.

Posted 10/29/2003 06:31:00 AM by Patrick
QUESTION FOR ANTI-WAR PROTESTORS: I have a question for anti-war protestors: do you explicitly support the enemy and want the United States to fail? Assuming you answer "no," perhaps you should know that the groups putting together your anti-war rallies include a group that does, explicitly, support the enemy.

It appears that International ANSWER, a group which helped organize a recent anti-war rally, says on its web site: "The anti-war movement here and abroad must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance."

As Eugene Volokh notes, "the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance" refers to the people we are fighting in Iraq. You know, the enemy. The ones killing our soldiers. That enemy.

Make no mistake. This group is saying: "We are explicitly and unconditionally supporting the enemies of the United States." So the next time you plan to attend an anti-war rally, realize with whom you are associating yourself.

Posted 10/29/2003 12:32:00 AM by Patrick
DOG TRAINER CANCELLATION NUMBERS: L.A. Observed reports here that over 9,000 people cancelled their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Dog Trainer because they were upset by the Arnold hit piece, and by the paper's recall coverage in general. This is just a bit more than the 1,000 cancellations we'd heard about originally.

Posted 10/28/2003 11:27:00 PM by Patrick
FOR ANYONE CONVINCED THAT TERRI SCHIAVO SHOULD BE KILLED: Go to this link and listen to this four-minute interview with Rus Cooper-Dowda. Her doctors once thought she was in a "persistent vegetative state" and stood around her bedside talking about when they were going to kill her -- as she listened in horror. She barely managed to convince one nurse, who (acting against orders) documented her ability to respond -- contrary to the wishes of her husband.

She is now fully recovered. Oh -- and she is divorced.

I have discussed this woman previously in an update at the bottom of this post -- but her story packs a bigger wallop if you actually listen to her tell it in her own voice. Anybody who can hear this and shrug it off is as closed-minded as they come.

Posted 10/28/2003 11:07:00 PM by Patrick
BOX CUTTERS SHOWING UP ON PLANES AGAIN: They have been found on two US Airways flights: one in Philadelphia and another on a commuter plane at Logan Airport in Boston. (Links via Drudge.)

Posted 10/28/2003 08:06:00 PM by Patrick
L.A. OBSERVED: Patterico has made the list of blogs that have a permanent link at L.A. Observed. While I may not always agree with Kevin Roderick, he runs a great site with must-read commentary on the local media. Check out his site today.

Posted 10/28/2003 07:45:00 PM by Patrick
TIME TO MAKE A STAND: So, now that it's clear that the elite schools in the UC system are violating Proposition 209 (the Angry Clam has more) -- what are we going to do about it?

Pacific Legal Foundation? Are you listening? Is anyone there?

Posted 10/28/2003 05:51:00 PM by Patrick
GAME THEORY IN REAL LIFE: Good Lord. How can I get one of these -- and more importantly, keep you from getting one? (Via Hit & Run.)

Posted 10/28/2003 06:45:00 AM by Patrick
READER REACTION: I have received much thoughtful feedback from readers regarding the Schiavo controversy. This case arouses emotions like few other. Many people have been through similar experiences with a loved one, and view the controversy through the prism of their own experience. I have tentative plans to write a piece summing up my feelings on the whole controversy. In the meantime, your feedback:

I have received yet another e-mail from a reader working in state government telling me to ignore the wishes of my reader who is temporarily boycotting the site due to my Schiavo coverage. This reader says: "Let your regular reader continue the boycott. Were it not for you, I would not know this stuff about Beelzebub, er, Michael Schiavo."

[My reader is, I believe, speaking hyperbolically and/or a bit tongue-in-cheek. Nobody is actually saying Mr. Schiavo is the devil incarnate, okay? So please, do not send me e-mails in response to this post, saying that by printing this reader feedback, I am thereby portraying Mr. Schiavo as the devil. It is true that I have formed a distinctly negative opinion of Mr. Schiavo as I have learned more and more about this controversy. As I have documented on this site, I think there is significant reason to worry about his credibility. But there is a possibility that, as venal and self-centered as he may appear to me, he could be telling the truth about Terri's wishes. I don't think he is the devil. My opinion is that he is an incredibly self-absorbed and not very trustworthy person.]

Reader O.C. writes that

most people would not watch a dog starve to death, let alone a person. I don't care if she is brain dead. To die with dignity is for people who consciously make that choice when they are dying. That is not the case with Terri Schiavo. I also don't believe that food, via feeding tube or spoon, is "artificial." It's just basic.

O.C. goes on to say that if she were Mr. Schiavo, she would look for ways to make Terri's life the best it can be.

Reader A.M. from Maryland writes a long, thoughtful post. He chooses not to express an opinion on what should happen with Ms. Schiavo, having faced difficult decisions himself with respect to his mother.

Despite his lack of a strong personal view on this controversy, A.M. has been noticing the media bias on the story. He saw a segment on the "Today" show which made plain the view "that State intrusion into this affair was ill-advised and politically driven."

A.M. also describes hearing part of the Diane Rehm Show on NPR. According to A.M., Rehm says that there should be no discussion of "Michael Schiavo's conduct, including his live-in relationship and out-of-wedlock child" because (as A.M. characterizes Rehm's views)

it's inappropriate to bring this "sub-text" into the discussion, which should stay focused on Terri Schiavo's medical condition. Host and guests concurred that Michael Schiavo's conduct is irrelevant, and that, as husband, his role as the guardian of Terri's wishes and interests must be respected.

A.M. says:

I found this discussion to be a fascinating and disturbing journey into NPR-Upside-Down-Land. I say this as an NPR [financial] contributor, and a pro-choice Democrat (for what it's worth). For all its moral anguish, the facts as they are known about the husband's conduct are quite germane, and quite troubling. Mr. Schiavo suffers acute conflicts of interests that the let-Schiavo-die proponents seem unable to recognize. Yet, how can conflicts of interest possibly be construed as a "sub-text" that's "inappropriate" to consider? The mind boggles.

(Emphasis by Patterico.)

A.M. concludes: "it's truly a sad spectacle, witnessing people I'd hitherto respected jump with such alacrity into moral and logical swamps of their own making."

Thank you so much for these thoughtful e-mails. Keep them coming!

Posted 10/27/2003 10:35:00 PM by Patrick
SHOCKING NEWS: PROP. 209 BEING VIOLATED: In shocking news, the Oakland Tribune reports that the overwhelming majority of students admitted to the elite UC schools with SAT scores under 1000 were minorities. (Via Weintraub.)

Please save your nasty, knee-jerk e-mails. The point is not that minorities are stupid or inferior. I know many of you would love to conclude that this is my point, so that you can feel all self-righteous and write me e-mails saying I'm bigoted. But save it. There are plenty of applicants of all races with substandard qualifications. But you wouldn't expect such underqualified applicants to get into prestigious universities -- unless they were minorities.

When the Los Angeles Times first broke the news that thousands of applicants to the elite UC schools with SAT scores over 1400 were getting turned down, while hundreds of others with below-average scores were getting in, it didn't take a rocket scientist to surmise that Proposition 209 was being blatantly violated. All that remained was for someone to dig up the proof. Now someone has.

That's the point.

Posted 10/27/2003 10:13:00 PM by Patrick
MORE PRAISE FOR JANICE ROGERS BROWN: From Clint Bolick and Larry Solum.

Posted 10/27/2003 07:46:00 PM by Patrick
SCHIAVO ON LARRY KING: I just finished watching Michael Schiavo on Larry King. It is difficult to imagine a more sympathetic interview. King asked one or two tough questions, but left scores more unasked.

King was, as usual, completely unprepared. For example, he expressed surprise when he learned that Schiavo has had a child by his current girlfriend.

King asked nothing about the allegations, made in an affidavit under penalty of perjury by a registered nurse named Carla Iyer, that Michael Schiavo said: "When is that bitch going to die?" and exulted in how rich he was going to be when Terri was dead. There were no questions about whether (and why) Schiavo allegedly ordered Terri's television and radio to be left on the same station at all times.

Other aspects of that nurse's affidavit were discussed, however: namely, descriptions of Terri's responsiveness. The explanation given: Mr. Schiavo yelled at the staff a lot, because he was very concerned that Terri receive good care. Apparently the staff got mad at him as a result. So, they made these things up.

So, we are to believe that a registered nurse and two nurses' aides swore out declarations under penalty of perjury, accusing a relative of things like mental torture, denying rehabilitative care, and wanting to kill his wife for money -- because a concerned relative had yelled at them?

Does this pass the smell test? A caller seemed sufficiently doubtful that she asked Schiavo whether he would take a lie detector test. His lawyer stepped in and said that the best lie detector was the fact that "20" judges looked at the case (earlier in the program it had been only 19, so I guess a 20th judge reviewed the case during the first half hour of the program). To his credit, King pressed Schiavo on this a little, noting that he still could take a lie detector test. Schiavo, looking quite uncomfortable, said he would decline to answer the question.

Concerning the videos, Schiavo said that there is other film that shows Terri to be unresponsive. When King asked if CNN could go in to film her independently, Schiavo and his lawyer declined, arguing her right to privacy.

Schiavo maintained that he hasn't abandoned Terri; if anything, the family has. He didn't explain why the parents keep trying to visit her, and why he keeps preventing or restricting those visits -- and how this is all consistent with his assertion that the family has abandoned her.

King asked Schiavo why he didn't just walk away and let the parents take care of her. After some talk about how he loved her and owed it to her to kill her, Schiavo said that, anyway, he would never turn over Terri to her parents because of what her dad testified to at the trial. According to Mr. Schiavo, her dad had testified that he would cut off all her limbs, to satisfy his own personal desire that she stay alive. Wow -- that's pretty odd, huh?

Schiavo's attorney, George ~~Feiger~~ Felos, stepped in at that point to explain what had really happened at the trial. Felos said that he had asked the father at trial: if Terri had a medical condition that required you to authorize amputation of a limb to save her life, would you? Answer: yes. Question: a second limb? A third? A fourth? Mr. Schindler apparently testified that he would authorize amputation of all her limbs if it were necessary to save her life.

This testimony is hardly shocking, coming from a parent. But Mr. Schiavo had made it sound ghoulish, as if the father had testified to some sadistic urge to take a chainsaw and personally cut off all of his daughter's limbs. This was a clear example of Mr. Schiavo twisting the words of another to suit his own purposes -- and we are supposed to trust him that he didn't do the same with Terri's words.

But, Mr. Schiavo said, he was not the only one who had heard Terri say she didn't want to be kept alive by tubes. "Two other people" said this. However, Mr. Schiavo didn't volunteer that those people were his own brother and sister-in-law.

To me, the most revealing moments were when Schiavo was asked what the parents' motives are. He responded right away that Terri's father just wanted her money -- not for her, but for himself.

But Schiavo also claimed that most of the money is gone. (He said about $50,000 is left. That's not much if you are Terri's parents and plan to spend it on rehab -- but it's plenty enough to give Schiavo and his girlfriend a nice vacation in Europe. That's one of the things that Mr. Schiavo allegedly told RN Carla Iyer that he wanted to do with the money he hoped to inherit.)

So, King asked, if most of the money is gone, why are the parents still pursuing this?

King asked the question twice, and Schiavo gave different answers. The first time, Schiavo seemed dumbfounded by the question. He then argued that the parents know very well that Terri has no hope of improvement. In the next breath he said that the parents are getting fooled by their lawyers and the right-wing right-to-lifers. (Damn right-wingers! I knew they were behind this!) In the next breath he asserted again that the parents know perfectly well she won't get better.

Later in the program (perhaps having forgotten that he asked it before), King asked the question again. Why are the parents trying to keep her alive? Schiavo replied that he guessed the parents were just trying to make his life a living hell.

That was very revealing. When you strip away the veil, and his attorney doesn't step in quick enough to answer the question for him, the truth comes out. It's all about him.

UPDATE: Here is the preliminary transcript of the interview.

Posted 10/27/2003 06:38:00 AM by Patrick
DISNEY HALL: Last night I saw pianist Evgeny Kissin give the first recital at the new Walt Disney Concert Hall here in Los Angeles. I came away very impressed with Kissin and the Disney Hall.

Disney Hall is a remarkably intimate space. Virtually everything inside is made of wood. Many of the seats are crowded right around the stage, with large groups of seats above the stage to the left, right, and rear. I sat in a $15 "bench" seat (padded and very comfortable) behind the stage. I was in the front row of this section of seats, which is called "orchestra view." I felt it was one of the best seats in the house, and the people sitting next to me said the same.

In a choral concert or vocal recital, audience members in these seats will be looking at the back of the singer(s) head(s), but in a piano recital, you are simply on the left side of the piano instead of the right. Although the lid of the piano is swung open to send the sound in the opposite direction, the acoustics are so good that you can't tell the difference. Visually, it felt almost as though you were sitting in a living room watching someone play the piano. From my vantage point, I could not see Kissin's hands working their magic, but from about 30-40 feet away I had a clear view of his face (below the wild hairdo) making interesting expressions indicating intense concentration. Every so often as he played, he would shoot a glance our way as if he were thinking: "Hmm. I'm not used to seeing people sitting to my left."

Part of the phenomenon of good acoustics is that, not only you can hear the music very well, but you (and presumably the performer) can also hear the annoying audience noises better than ever. You almost felt as though you needed to hold your breath so as not to disturb the performer. Every cough from any section in the hall was like a gunshot. I was certain that everyone in the hall (including Kissin) could hear, for example, the idiot next to me undoing the velcro on his binoculars case, as well as the inconsiderate woman behind me noisily turning the pages in her program. It is unfortunate that the audience members did not all treat the hall, the music, and the performer with the respect they deserved.

Kissin started with the beautiful Schubert Bb sonata. He took the first two movements slowly, with feeling. The slow pace worked very nicely for the first movement, but was a bit too slow for my taste in the second movement. Some of the more lyrical passages lacked a flowing legato. After a chorus of coughs in the space after the first movement, Kissin dove right into the subsequent movements. The third movement was bouncy and fun, and the last well-executed. After an intermission, Kissin had a chance to show off his chops with some Liszt. He played four transcriptions of Schubert songs, as well as a couple of original (and naturally showy) Liszt pieces. He received several enthusiastic standing ovations, and played four encores. The concert ended up lasting almost 2 1/2 wonderful hours.

I have a slew of tickets for various Disney Hall concerts in the upcoming season, and I have to say I am excited. If the sound of a piano can fill this hall the way it did last night, it is almost impossible to imagine what a full orchestra will sound like. I had read that the members of the L.A. Philharmonic are learning that the acoustics of the hall are changing the way they play, increasing the subtlety and nuance. The orchestra can finally really hear itself play. I feel confident that the various visiting orchestras (including the Berlin Philharmonic in November) will respond with equal enthusiasm to the hall. Now the main obstacle to making this hall the perfect place to see a concert is making sure the experience is not spoiled by inattentive, noisy audiences.

Posted 10/26/2003 11:14:00 PM by Patrick
PICTURES OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES: Are here. (Via Michael Williams.) We are in no danger here, but you can smell the smoke inside our condo when the windows are open.

Posted 10/26/2003 04:15:00 PM by Patrick
MICHAEL SCHIAVO TO BE ON LARRY KING: Monday night, 9 p.m. EST. (Via Abstract Appeal .)

UPDATE: Apparently no such invitation has been made to the Schindlers, according to this.

Don't expect Larry "Eight Wives and Counting" King to be too tough on Mr. Schiavo -- especially on the whole multiple wives thing.

Posted 10/26/2003 03:49:00 PM by Patrick
FISKING THE NYT: David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy has a nice fisking (which you can read here) of the NYT editorial opposing the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown. (I mentioned this editorial on Friday.)

Posted 10/26/2003 02:54:00 PM by Patrick
JUST THE FACTS, SIR: An op-ed by a deputy public defender in our local Dog Trainer yesterday is titled War on Drugs Takes a Toll on the L.A. Justice System. The author claims that LAPD has enough officers, but they are simply misused in the war on drugs:

I have gained firsthand knowledge of the misguided priorities of the LAPD. I've witnessed the vast number of police personnel engaged in the failed prohibition against illegal drugs, the central feature of which is the so-called 'buy-bust' operation. During these elaborate undercover sting operations, involving 15 to 25 LAPD officers, a pathetic street person — who is usually a homeless, mentally ill, drug-addicted black or Latino parolee — is approached by an undercover officer and offered an inflated price for a rock or two of cocaine.

After the target seizes the opportunity to make a quick profit to feed his drug habit and sells to the undercover officer, the other officers swoop in to complete the arrest.

My wife and I have about 14 years of criminal law experience between us, all in Los Angeles. Neither of us have ever heard of an undercover operation designed to catch a single person, involving 15 to 25 officers. In a typical street narcotics operation where several sales are taking place over time, you might have two officers watching the sales activity, perhaps two to four more to chase down the buyers, and (if it's an undercover operation) one more officer working undercover. That's maybe seven officers total, who will make several arrests of multiple buyers, as well as the seller(s). But 15-25 officers on an operation against one guy? That would be outrageous -- which is why it doesn't happen.

Now, reasonable people can debate whether the "war on drugs" is wise. There may be a valid argument that LAPD would have sufficient resources to address other crime if it wholly abandoned its duty to arrest drug offenders. But let's get our facts straight.

If anyone has examples to the contrary, feel free to let me know.

Posted 10/26/2003 02:32:00 PM by Patrick
HOW MANY IS "MANY": As long as my regular reader is boycotting us, let's talk Schiavo some more. I just finished reading a piece in the New York Times titled In Feeding-Tube Case, Many Neurologists Back Courts. The story continues the theme of the headline: that "many" neurologists support killing Ms. Schiavo. Acknowledging the existence of a videotape made by the parents that appears to show Ms. Schiavo responding to stimuli, the story claims:

To many supporters of Mrs. Schiavo's parents, who say she should be kept alive on a feeding tube, the tape demonstrates that she can still think and react. But many leading neurologists say that it [the videotape] means no such thing, that the appearances of brain-damaged patients can be very misleading.

Reading this, you might think that the story is about to give you "many" examples of independent neurologists who have examined the tape and say it proves nothing about whether Ms. Schiavo can think or react. In fact, the story contains not one such opinion -- unless you count a guy (Dr. Ron Cranford) who testified for (and was presumably paid by) Mr. Schiavo.

Is this their whole story -- that one guy who testified for Mr. Schiavo thinks the court made the right decision? Apparently so. Let's look at the other experts cited in the story, and what they actually do say:

* Dr. James L. Bernat "said he had not examined Mrs. Schiavo or seen any videotapes." He says: "Assuming she is in a vegetative state, I can say with medical certainty that there is no realistic hope that she'll recover." Verdict: didn't view the tapes; is assuming away the central question. Strike one.

* Dr. Richard Neubauer, director of the Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center in Florida, said in an affidavit that said he found Mrs. Schiavo "not in a vegetative state" and "at least semi-responsive to her environment." He was seeking to treat her by putting her in an oxygen-rich pressure chamber. Verdict: said Ms. Schiavo can think and react to a degree. Strike two.

* Dr. Michael P. McQuillen, a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester, describes a famous case of a "minimally conscious" state. The case was "that of a woman who appeared vegetative but, on overhearing her sister on the phone making funeral arrangements for a favorite uncle, began to cry."

That doesn't sound too supportive of the courts. Of course, later in the story, Dr. McQuillen does say that keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive artificially could be a burden on her:

For many terminally ill patients, he pointed out, "food is an absolute burden — it increases secretions and makes them uncomfortable."

Problem: she is not terminally ill. Verdict: describes how people might appear vegetative and really not be; clueless as to whether Ms. Schiavo is terminally ill. Strike three! You're out!

It may be that "many" independent neurologists have reviewed the tapes and still support the decision of the courts. But if the Times is going to make this claim, the Times ought to tell us who they are.

UPDATE: Turns out the one neurologist to opine in a way consistent with the headline is a "right-to-die" activist who regularly testifies for the pro-death side in high-profile "right-to-die" cases. More details here.

Posted 10/26/2003 11:24:00 AM by Patrick
TOM TOMORROW -- A HYPOCRITE TODAY: Liberal cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has this take on what he believes is Republican hypocrisy. I think many of his points are valid. Yet, in an ironic twist, every single one of these points could be turned around to demonstrate mirror-image hypocrisy on the left -- a fact to which Tomorrow seems blind.

I'll just give you one example. Tomorrow alludes to Republicans' defense of Arnold after the groping scandal, and says that this means that we have "learned from Republicans" that "sexual misconduct isn't such a big deal after all."

Cute. But it is just as hypocritical for Democrats to criticize Arnold, if they defended Clinton's sexual misconduct (or worse, his lying under oath and obstruction of justice). I'll bet every person reading this knows some liberal who is furious about Arnold's alleged transgressions, but winked at Clinton's crimes.

If you look at the cartoon you'll see that this exercise can be repeated in each panel. My guess is that Tomorrow's next cartoon will make this exact point. I will now sit here and hold my breath until that happens. Blogging may be light over the next few decades.

Posted 10/26/2003 11:10:00 AM by Patrick
ARKIN RETURNS: ~~Alan~~ Bill Arkin is back in the Los Angeles Dog Trainer this morning with a piece called A General Bind for Rumsfeld.

I count no fewer than 20 words or phrases within quotation marks. Are they accurate quotes? characterizations? sneers? random words placed within quotation marks? It's anyone's guess.

Posted 10/26/2003 10:46:00 AM by Patrick
RE-START THE CLOCK: Mickey Kaus has a compelling post on bias in an NPR story on the Schiavo case. Interesting stuff.

I have a reader who is boycotting my site for three consecutive days every time the Schiavo case is mentioned. I had hoped to swear it off the other day, but the Kaus piece is just too good. I should never say that I am not posting on a topic any more, because that promise will hold only until I become interested in the topic again. [UPDATE: After reading this post, my reader complains: "Made the mistake of getting on your site, thinking 'day three' may have come and gone. Not only do I find an entry on Schiavo, but a veritable deluge of Patterico propaganda. Your site is beginning to have a Stalinist tinge to it. I am extending my boycott to at least a week."]

Since I have lost this reader for the next ~~three~~ seven days, I might as well tell you some other interesting facts about the case that I found recently. I suppose you may have already heard these facts, perhaps on talk radio, but I haven't seen this level of detail in any of the online commentary I have seen. If you have already read allegations that, for example, Mr. Schiavo mentally tortured Ms. Schiavo by ordering her radio and TV set to be kept on the same channel at all times, or that he openly exulted about how rich he would be if she died, you can probably skip the rest of this post.

I have expressed frustration at my inability to access the original Schiavo court documents. However, I have recently found what purports to be copies of many of those documents -- including affidavits from a nurse and two nurses' aides. This material is contained here, deep within a huge document that appears to be a call to action by activists writing before the Legislature acted.

Knee-jerk folks from the "kill Schiavo" camp will naturally say that we don't know these are the actual affidavits, given the site where they are republished. But they sound genuine to me. If what is contained here is accurate, it's worse than I had thought.

Perhaps the most dramatic affidavit is from Registered Nurse Carla Iyer. Here are some excerpts:

One time I put a wash cloth in Terri's hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.

Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times. Terri would try to say the word "pain" when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like "pay." She didn't say the "n" sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying "pay" and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper and scooted in bed on her bottom.

When I came into her room and said "Hi, Terri", she would always recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way toward me, saying "Haaaiiiii" sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a "hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humorous stories about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle, sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body, upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart. Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurse's job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patient's condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act, and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that.

Here is the most amazing part of the nurse's affidavit:

Throughout my time at Palm Gardens [one of Ms. Schiavo's nursing homes], Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I recall him making include "Can't anything be done to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information. He made numerous statements such as "Make sure the parents aren't contacted." I recorded Michael's statements word for word in Terri's chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn't to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter.

Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI or fluid buildup in her lungs, colds, or pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die. He would say something like, "Hallelujah! You've made my day!" He would call me, as I was the nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently asking if she was dead yet. He would blurt out "I'm going to be rich!" and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things.

Certified Nursing Assistant Heidi Law:

During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I have heard her say "mommy" from time to time, and "momma," and she also said "help me" a number of times. She would frequently make noises like she was trying to talk.

The only stimulation she had was looking out the window and watching things, and the radio, which Michael insisted be left on one particular station. She had a television, and there was a sign below it saying not to change the channel. This was because of Michael's orders.

As a CNA, I wanted every piece of information I could get about my patients. I never had access to medical records as a CNA, but it was part of my job duties to write my observations down on sheets of paper, which I turned over to the nurse at the nurses station for inclusion in the patients charts. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I felt that my notes were thrown out without even being read. There were trash cans at the nurses stations that we were supposed to empty each shift, and I often saw the notes in them. I made extensive notes and listed all of Terri's behaviors, but there was never any apparent follow up consistent with her responsiveness.

Certified Nursing Assistant Carolyn Johnson:

I remember seeing Michael Schiavo only once the entire time I worked at Sabal Palms [another of Ms. Schiavo's nursing homes], but we were all aware that Terri was not to be given any kind of rehabilitative help, per his instructions. Once, I wanted to put a cloth in Terri's hand to keep her hand from closing in on itself, but I was not permitted to do this, as Michael Schiavo considered that to be a form of rehabilitation.

I cite this evidence only because I find it interesting, and because I find it reassuring that the right thing has happened. I don't expect to convince people on the "kill her" side of this issue. Their minds are made up, no matter the evidence.

For example, I was in a debate with some people at one particular internet site in which a woman named "Anne," who had read the above affidavits, discounted them because they were all notarized by the same notary public! Here is a direct quote from Anne: "Who is Patricia J. Anderson, Notary Public? What is her interest in all of this."

I don't mean to say that there aren't rational arguments on both sides of the issue. I think there are. But people like Anne are in OJ-land. The above evidence won't change their minds, because no evidence on earth could.

Posted 10/26/2003 08:31:00 AM by Patrick
FRIST PLEDGES TO WIMP OUT: I just watched Bill Frist on Fox News Sunday, discussing the anticipated filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown. Tony Snow and Brit Hume pressed him to say what he and other Senate Republicans are going to do to stop this. He first tried to evade the question. When pressed, his answer concentrated much more on the downside of taking action than it did on addressing the problem.

I said yesterday that there is little hope for Brown if the Retaliacrats™ can tell lies about judicial nominees and suffer no consequences. Frist's performance this morning has done little to reassure me.

Posted 10/25/2003 07:02:00 PM by Patrick
WOULDN'T IT BE SHORTER IF YOU SAID WHAT YOU GOT RIGHT?: Our local Dog Trainer today prints this rather elaborate correction.

Posted 10/25/2003 07:00:00 PM by Patrick
JANICE ROGERS BROWN NEWS: Thomas Sowell defends Brown in three separate columns. Here are Part I, Part II, and Part III.

If you're not in the mood to be disgusted, don't read this account of the confirmation hearings so far.

I am not optimistic. If someone as qualified as Miguel Estrada can be shot down by a campaign of lies -- with no consequences for the liars -- then there is little hope for Brown.

Posted 10/24/2003 09:47:00 PM by Patrick
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?: I am shocked -- shocked! -- to see that the New York Times opposes the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown.

Posted 10/24/2003 07:00:00 PM by Patrick
WATCHER'S COUNCIL WINNERS: Spiced Sass had the winning Council entry: American Sleepers Awaken. Stefan Sharkansky had the winning non-Council entry: A Brief History of the Imminent Threat Canard.

Posted 10/24/2003 06:35:00 PM by Patrick
MORE PROOF THAT CONGRESS IS STUPID: The passage of the bill calling for the FTC to set up a ~~please send me spam list~~ do not e-mail list.

You guys go ahead and sign up for that and let me know how that works out for you.

Posted 10/24/2003 06:31:00 PM by Patrick
I MAY BECOME A NAT HENTOFF FAN: Nat Hentoff is quickly becoming my favorite liberal. Back in July I noted his crusade against the Supreme Court's Michigan Law School affirmative action case. Lately he has been writing about Charles Pickering, in two columns titled The Ordeal of Charles Pickering and A Judge Who Did Justice. The former column has the wonderful subhead: "Are [New York] Times Editorials Fact-Checked?"

And he has another one coming next week!

Posted 10/24/2003 08:07:00 AM by Patrick
ANOTHER QUOTATION MARK CONTROVERSY: James Taranto reports here how CNN doctored President Bush's statement in connection with the partial-birth abortion ban.

See if you can spot the difference between the original quote and the CNN version. Here is the quote from Bush's written statement:

I applaud the Senate for joining the House in passing the ban on partial-birth abortion. This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America. I look forward to signing it into law.

Here is how CNN altered the quote in its story:

"I applaud the Senate for joining the House in passing the ban on 'partial-birth abortion,'" Bush said in a written statement. "This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America. I look forward to signing it into law."

Did you see the difference?

As Taranto points out, the CNN version adds quotation marks around the words "partial-birth abortion." Although the story purports to quote Bush's statement, the story adds quotation marks that were not in the text of that written statement.

Now, for the mainstream media, sneering quotation marks around the words "partial-birth abortion" are second nature. As a journalist, when you see the words "partial-birth abortion," your finger, in a conditioned reflex originating in the cerebral cortex, moves straight for the quotation mark key on your keyboard. As the CNN story shows, this reflex is so ingrained that trained journalists have been observed distorting the meaning of quotations through the use of these sneering quotation marks.

Bush believes that partial-birth abortion is just that, and it is a substantive misrepresentation of his beliefs to place non-existent sneer quotes around the term -- particularly when quoting a written statement. This is because, as everyone knows, the use of sneer quotes indicates a belief that the word within the quotes is inaccurate.

It appears that "journalists" like this CNN reporter, or Maureen Dowd, or ~~Alan~~ Bill Arkin apparently need remedial training in the art of quoting people. As a public service, I will now present some simple rules for these accuracy-challenged folks. First: Only direct quotes go in quotation marks. Characterizations do not, if there is the slightest risk that the characterization could be misinterpreted as a quote. (The "Arkin rule.") Critical context must be supplied, and ellipses must not be used to distort the meaning of the quote. (The "Dowd rule.") And quotations must not add or delete quotation marks contained in the original quote -- especially for sneering purposes. (The "CNN rule.")

I bet even Xrlq, who was uncharacteristically forgiving of the Arkin misquotation fiasco, thinks this one is beyond the pale.

Posted 10/24/2003 07:45:00 AM by Patrick
COMPARING BANS: Jacob Sullum compares the ban on partial-birth abortion with the ban on so-called "assault weapons" in this column at Reason.com.

Posted 10/24/2003 07:25:00 AM by Patrick
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: I criticize the Los Angeles Times a great deal, because there is a great deal of reason to do so. But I think it's appropriate that I also mention when this paper does something right. I think the Times has done a nice job recently in its reporting on admissions standards at the elite UC schools.

As the paper states the issue today:

At UC Berkeley and UCLA, several thousand students with SAT scores exceeding 1400 were not admitted to some programs in recent years while hundreds of others with below-average scores gained entrance to the prestigious campuses.

This is an important story with obvious potential ramifications regarding affirmative action. It appears likely that Proposition 209 is being violated. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the Times to ignore the story (or treat it as a non-story), and keep the P.C. elements in the newsroom happy.

Instead, the paper broke the news with this story, which revealed the findings of a confidential report criticizing UC Berkeley's admissions practices. The paper followed up yesterday with a similar story about UCLA. Throughout, the paper has given the story appropriately prominent play.

Let's give credit where credit is due. These stories have revived an important debate about the role of affirmative action in admissions processes. If the confidential findings had been buried or spiked, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I say kudos to the Times for reporting this story in the way it has.

UPDATE: Beware. It is written, somewhere, that praise of the Times by myself and Xrlq in the same week is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

Posted 10/24/2003 07:24:00 AM by Patrick
FROM THE ONION: The most recent Onion has the following "man on the street" feature:

An advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration recommended that the 11-year ban on the sale of silicone breast implants be lifted. What do you think?

My favorite response was from Wilma Hines, Political Activist: "The ban should not only be lifted, but separated, as well."

Posted 10/23/2003 10:59:00 PM by Patrick
FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T HEARD IT: The Bill O'Reilly interview with Terry Gross is here. At least one Patterico reader has heard it and believes that the interview was unfair -- a position agreed with by the NPR ombudsman.

Posted 10/23/2003 10:33:00 PM by Patrick
RICHARD POSNER TO BE INTERVIEWED IN HOWARD BASHMAN'S "20 QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLATE JUDGE" FEATURE: Read about it here. I am looking forward to December.

Posted 10/23/2003 10:22:00 PM by Patrick
KEYWORDS ARKIN, XRLQ, MISQUOTATION, HUGH HEWITT, PATTERICO, AND LILEKS: Xrlq says of the Arkin misquotation controversy:

Critics of Arkin, including Hugh Hewitt, Patterico and Lileks, have been quick to pounce on the fact that Arkin put quotation marks around the word jihad, despite the fact that Boykin had (obviously) never used that word himself.

Now, the main reason I excerpt that quote is because I just love seeing in print the phrase "Hugh Hewitt, Patterico and Lileks."

Still, I feel I must unfortunately express rare disagreement with my respected blogging colleague Xrlq. It seems to me that many people unfamiliar with the whole Boykin controversy might have been misled by the quotation marks. Arkin devoted an entire column to criticizing the way that Boykin expressed himself. In this context, it seems to me (and Hugh Hewitt and Lileks!) that Arkin had a special responsibility to make sure that words within quotation marks, which refer to Boykin's alleged beliefs, reflect things that Boykin actually said.

We've all seen roadside billboards that read something like this:

Exit 203, in 35 miles: Annie's Roadside "Cafe" featuring Annie's "fresh" apple "pie"!

My suggestion: Arkin should be "fired" from the Dog Trainer, and should be put to work creating these sorts of roadside billboards with superfluous quotation "marks" that mean "nothing."

Posted 10/23/2003 09:31:00 PM by Patrick
CARTOON OF THE DAY: The only good thing about the Los Angeles Dog Trainer is cartoonist Michael Ramirez. Today he scores with this cartoon about partial-birth abortion.

Posted 10/23/2003 09:26:00 PM by Patrick
VOLOKH ON JANICE ROGERS BROWN: Don't miss Eugene Volokh's explanation of how "People for the American Way" misrepresented basic facts about Janice Rogers Brown's record, in their bogus press release opposing her nomination.

Posted 10/23/2003 07:41:00 AM by Patrick
HEWITT ON ARKIN, AND CORRECTION WATCH: Today in the Weekly Standard, Hugh Hewitt asks: Who Is William Arkin? The short answer is that he is the guy who said General Boykin "believes in Christian 'jihad'" -- putting "jihad" in quotes, although he admits the general never used that word.

We are still waiting for a correction from the Los Angeles Dog Trainer, which printed this misquotation. Meanwhile, this far more important correction was reported in this morning's Dog Trainer:

Leather price — A caption accompanying the Wanted column in last Thursday's Home section incorrectly stated that a leather hide embossed with a crocodile pattern costs $440 a yard at Michael Levine fabric store in downtown Los Angeles. The price is for a hide that is about 55 square feet.

Thank God that's been cleared up.

Posted 10/23/2003 06:51:00 AM by Patrick
GOODBYE TO SCHIAVO CONTROVERSY: A reader asks me to shut up about Terri Schiavo already, and I think it's time to comply. What better way to say "goodbye" to this controversy than by directing your attention to a glib editorial about the case in today's Los Angeles Dog Trainer?

Although much of the editorial is serious in tone, I can tell that it was written by the idiot who does their light-hearted cutesy editorials (remember the one about the acronyms?). Bad choice. This one is "cleverly" titled To Be or Not To Be, and has lines like this: "By the way, there's a lingering family feud over $plitting a medical malpractice settlement." Get it? It's funny because of the dollar sign!

This editorial is worth discussing because it is an object lesson in how the news media does not give you the whole story. Like many of the news articles I have mentioned over the past few days, the editorial gives no hint of the peculiar facts (described in detail here) that set this controversy apart from many "right to die" cases.

Omitted from the editorial is any hint that maybe Mr. Schiavo shouldn't be the one making this decision. Omitted are the references to the nurse's affidavit saying that Mr. Schiavo asked, "When is that bitch going to die?" Omitted is the fact that Mr. Schiavo has been fighting rehabilitation for Ms. Schiavo, after collecting on a civil judgment obtained largely through the promise of pursuing such rehabilitation. Omitted is the fact that a world-renowned expert and Nobel Prize nominee has testified that Ms. Schiavo is not in a "persistent vegetative state," or that ten other physicians testified or gave statements to the same effect. Omitted is the fact that Terri once had a guardian ad litem who recommended against dehydrating her to death.

The Dog Trainer editors don't think you need to know this information. After all, it would interfere with the message they want to convey: that this is a simple "right to die" case. And the news media loves to accuse the public of being too simplistic.

Ultimately, the advocates of Ms. Schiavo's death would have you rely on the opinions of (some of) the doctors who examined Ms. Schiavo and have deemed that her vegetative state is "persistent." "Trust the doctors," we are told.

If the differing medical testimony I describe above doesn't make you think twice about putting blind faith in the opinions of doctors, perhaps this story will. It's about the recent wildcat strike by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies. If you haven't heard about this, deputies are striking for a better contract. Many have come down with a case of the "blue flu" and called in sick, paralyzing the jails and courts. As reported here, an Orange County judge issued a temporary restraining order early this month, barring further sickouts. However, "hundreds of deputies called in sick in the days that followed." For example, at the Central Jail, two-thirds of the deputies called in sick one day.

But, you see, it's okay. They all really did just get sick all of a sudden, at the same time that they were having a labor dispute. We know this really happened, because doctors said so: "Outside court, union President Roy Burns said all of the deputies had doctors' notes that excused them from work for that day."

UPDATE: For those who put their trust in the doctors, please read Rus Cooper-Dowda's piece entitled When I Woke Up.

Also read recent articles by Wesley Smith, including from Oct. 20, 21, and 22. (Via Tonecluster.)

UPDATE x2: No sooner do I announce that I am cutting off posts on the subject than I hear from a different reader who wants me to continue to follow the story, especially in light of reports like this one indicating that a guardian hasn't been appointed, and that Mr. Schiavo may be playing games again. I appreciate this reader's concern, and I recommend that he and others consult WorldNetDaily, which seems to have the most up-to-date coverage.

UPDATE x3: Sorry, can't resist this. A Reason article concludes that Schiavo should be allowed to die, but also reports:

Minnesota neurologist Ronald Cranford told the Washington Post, "There has never been a documented case of someone recovering after having been in a persistent vegetative state for more than 3 months."

Pretty convincing. But wait! There's more!

However, the journal Brain Injury reported the case, of a 26-year-old woman who, after being diagnosed as suffering from a persistent vegetative state for six months, recovered consciousness and, though severely disabled, is largely cognitively intact. However, it is generally agreed that if a patient doesn't become responsive before six months, his or her prognosis is extremely poor.

Looks like "Minnesota neurologist Ronald Cranford" didn't get the memo! But trust the doctors! Also, note that a lack of responsiveness after six months means the prognosis is "extremely poor" -- not "hopeless."

Posted 10/22/2003 11:49:00 PM by Patrick
COMEDY RELIEF FOR THE DAY: John Allen Muhammad's opening statement. Key to his defense is the cookie jar incident. Read it to see what I mean.

But Mr. Muhammad may not be as stupid as he looks, or sounds, or our best testing indicates. He has now reinstated his lawyers.

Posted 10/22/2003 07:47:00 PM by Patrick
SCHIAVO NEWS: Here is Michael Schiavo's statement, issued today. Here is a New York Times article about the separation of powers argument against the Florida Legislature's action. (This article, like the TIME article discussed below, omits the main evidence that Schiavo has a conflict of interest -- see that post for details).

UPDATE: The Associated Press reports here:

The family of a disabled woman now under treatment by orders of Gov. Jeb Bush is barred from seeing her because her husband won't allow it, the family's attorney said Wednesday.

Xrlq explains that this is, like everything else, according to Terri's wishes:

Michael Schiavo, the selfless, loving husband who is only acting according to his wife's dying wishes, has suddenly recalled a second private conversation with Terri. As it turns out, not only did Terri confide that she wanted to die if she became incapacitated, she also told him that she hates her family and never wants to see them again.

If the family is truly being barred from visiting Ms. Schiavo, what is the reason -- other than pure spite? If Mr. Schiavo were trying to prove that he is a selfish person not interested in his wife's best interests, he couldn't do much better than this.

UPDATE x2: He apparently changed his mind.

Posted 10/22/2003 06:39:00 AM by Patrick
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN: Other than Terri Schiavo's winning a chance at life, yesterday's big news was obviously the passage by the Senate of the partial-birth abortion ban. President Bush is certain to sign the measure soon, so its validity will depend upon the outcome of court challenges, inevitably ending in the Supreme Court.

I believe that this bill is constitutional. However, I believe that it will be found to be unconstitutional. Let me explain what I mean.

Prompted by the bill's passage, I sat down last night and read the text of the bill for the first time. The thing that struck me about the law -- and this is something you will probably not fully appreciate until you read it for yourself -- is that Congress has essentially characterized the issue as a power struggle. It's smackdown time: Congress vs. the Supreme Court. And that is why I think that the bill will ultimately be found unconstitutional. Because the thing about power struggles between Congress and the Supreme Court is, the Supreme Court gets to decide them.

The bill argues that the Supreme Court decision that struck down Nebraska's partial birth abortion law, Stenberg v. Carhart, was based on flawed factual findings by the trial court. The trial court had specifically found that the partial-birth procedure can minimize health risks in certain circumstances, and indeed was actually safer than other procedures. In the bill, Congress basically says that these findings were wrong. Congress goes on to make findings of its own -- findings which are wholly contrary to those relied upon by the Supreme Court in Stenberg. Then, Congress states:

These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

Translation: in your face, Supreme Court!

Congress clearly has a point. The facts underlying the partial birth abortion debate are hotly contested by both sides. A significant portion of the citizenry has a strong interest in the subject. Yet the resolution of these facts has been largely decided, not through public debate, but by some trial judge in Nebraska -- after a trial that received virtually no public attention. For example, this trial received only a tiny fraction of the coverage that Kobe Bryant's preliminary hearing has received.

But this is not about rationality. I repeat: it is a power struggle. And so I suspect that the Supreme Court will not accept Congress's argument. The Court will reject Congress's position politely, of course -- on the surface. The Court will explain that the Stenberg decision was based only in part upon the trial court's findings. Also important to the decision was the significant disagreement in the medical community on the necessity for the procedure, as reflected in various amici briefs as well as testimony in the trial record. Etc., etc. But if you read between the lines, the ultimate message will be: right back at ya, Congress!

I think the new law is indeed constitutional, but not for the reasons that Congress says. Congress has to accept the Supreme Court's landmark abortion decisions (Roe and Casey) as correct statements of constitutional law; Congress can't just say that those cases were wrongly decided. But they were. There is no point in my trying to explain why. Justice Scalia did it better than I could, in his dissent in Casey. That dissent has many wonderful quotes and should be read in its entirety, but to me the essence of his argument is that

the best the Court can do to explain how it is that the word "liberty" must be thought to include the right to destroy human fetuses is to rattle off a collection of adjectives that simply decorate a value judgment and conceal a political choice.

Scalia argues that such political choices should be left to, well, the political branches of government:

The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.

But, you may say, Roe and Casey are the law now, and they have to be applied. But the problem is that the applicable standard, announced in Casey, is completely unworkable because it is so vague. Under Casey, courts must determine whether the bill places an "undue burden" upon the supposed right to choose. This "test" is so nebulous that it is no test at all.

Again, Justice Scalia explains it best, so I will quote extensively from his dissent in Stenberg. Scalia explains that whether the statute creates an "undue burden" on abortion is a

conclusion that can not be demonstrated true or false by factual inquiry or legal reasoning. It is a value judgment, dependent upon how much one respects (or believes society ought to respect) the life of a partially delivered fetus, and how much one respects (or believes society ought to respect) the freedom of the woman who gave it life to kill it.

Because there are no consistent standards to be applied, Scalia argues, the argument really isn't over application of clear, neutral principles. Rather, the argument is over whose value judgment prevails. For the dissenters,

[t]he most that we can honestly say is that we disagree with the majority on their policy-judgment-couched-as-law. And those who believe that a 5-to-4 vote on a policy matter by unelected lawyers should not overcome the judgment of 30 state legislatures have a problem, not with the application of Casey, but with its existence. Casey must be overruled.

Given how contentious this issue is, Scalia concludes, he cannot understand why people persist in the belief that the Supreme Court,

armed with neither constitutional text nor accepted tradition, can resolve that contention and controversy rather than be consumed by it. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people -- where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it -- and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.

I couldn't have said it better myself (which is why I let Justice Scalia say it). For all the reasons in Justice Scalia's dissents in Casey and Stenberg, I think this new bill is clearly constitutional. Unfortunately, Justice Scalia's rational and reasoned view has not carried the day so far, and it probably won't this time around either.

Ultimately, I am afraid that the new law will accomplish nothing other than to give us the chance to read another brilliant and persuasive dissent from Justice Scalia.

UPDATE: Xrlq has this critique of the ban on federalism grounds. I claim no expertise on the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and I think it's debatable how the current Court would rule on the question. (You can look at the comments to Xrlq's post for competing viewpoints on the issue.) In any event, Xrlq has a plausible argument. Check it out.

Posted 10/22/2003 12:08:00 AM by Patrick
THANK YOU TO HUGH HEWITT: I would be remiss if I did not thank Hugh Hewitt for his kind words about my blog. Hugh brought me more visitors in the last 24 hours than I sometimes get in a month. I appreciate it.

I hope that readers who enjoy what they see here will take Hugh's advice and bookmark the site. I'd love to have you as regular readers. Also, I'd love any feedback -- which, until I move my blog to Movable Type, must be accomplished by e-mailing me at the link to the left.

Thanks also to Prof. Eugene Volokh for mentioning this blog the other day.

It's an honor to have these people as readers.

Posted 10/21/2003 07:30:00 PM by Patrick
THE DEEMING IS THE HARDEST PART: In my continuing quest to learn more about the husband's side in the Schiavo case, I present this TIME magazine article. Since it's TIME, you can be sure it is not taking a reflexively right-wing position. I doubt that any document short of Michael Schiavo's court filings will present a more sympathetic view of his arguments.

The article does not mention Michael Schiavo's "When is the bitch going to die?" comment. Nor does it mention the fact that he won a bunch of cash from a jury by arguing that he wanted to rehabilitate her, and then -- after the cash from the verdict had hit his bank account -- refused to pay for her rehabilitation. Only then did he mention that she had supposedly told him she did not want to stay alive through the use of extraordinary measures. These facts, which I find more compelling than any others, are nowhere in the article.

The story quotes an associate director of neuropsychology (who watched the videos of Ms. Schiavo) as saying: "There are many, many behaviors that look like conscious behavior that are reflexive or automatic." This guy says of the videos: "This is not compelling evidence. It's interesting and suggestive. But most of these responses could occur in a vegetative state."

This opinion appears to be different from what my friend -- a former head of neurology at a major metropolitan hospital -- told me based on his watching of the same videos (as described in this post immediately below). Still, as support for the Michael Schiavo position, the TIME expert's statement is underwhelming, to say the least. "Most" of these responses "could" occur in a vegetative state? This does not strike me as compelling enough evidence to justify killing someone when we don't know for sure that they want to die (because we can't trust the person who's telling us -- for details, read my posts here and here and the links in those posts).

My favorite part of the TIME piece comes after the main text of the article. There is a feature called called "Altered States" which is meant to describe varying degrees of consciousness. It contains this gem of an explanation: "A vegetative patient may recover; one deemed permanently vegetative will not."

Got that? It's all about the "deeming."

Posted 10/21/2003 07:20:00 AM by Patrick
A NEUROLOGIST ON THE SCHIAVO VIDEOS: Those people who defend the starvation of Terri Schindler-Schiavo often point to the opinions of so-called experts (like this guy), who claim to know that her apparent conscious reactions are "reflexive actions" that simply mimic ordinary human actions. I am highly suspicious of such explanations, because I wonder: how do they know?

As I said Saturday, I decided to pose the question to a friend of mine who is a brilliant neurologist. He was until recently the director of neurology at a major metropolitan hospital. He left that hospital to work at the hospital where his wife works, where he is now the sole full-time neurologist, and is working on setting up a center to treat multiple sclerosis.

I e-mailed my friend with a link to the videos of Terri. I asked him to answer the following question: "is she/could she be in a 'persistent vegetative state' -- and should it be okay to starve/dehydrate her to death?" I decided that, unless my friend objected, I would print his opinion regardless of which way he came down. Here is his e-mail to me (with emphasis added by me):

Hey Pat,

The responses she demonstrates indicate that her brain is functioning above the level of the foramen magnum and therefore she is not brain dead. Therefore, it is inhuman to stop feeding her or giving her hydration.

I don't know what exact medical condition led to her present neurological state but I saw that she was admitted to the hospital in 1990.

What usually happens in this case is that a person is admitted to a SNF -- Skilled Nursing Facility -- where nutrition (via PEG or by mouth) is given, other general medical issues are covered by the house doctor and whatever therapy is indicated gets done.

These cases go on all the time and if there is money involved, it gets messy.

I don't know what he means by that last sentence, and I am almost afraid to write him back and ask. Does he mean that people who are really not in a coma are being starved and dehydrated to death all the time, by people who want their money?? Is this case not unusual?? I'm not sure I want to know. . .

In any event, I respect my friend's opinion much more than the opinion of so-called experts whom I don't know personally. I am more convinced than ever that, as my friend said, what is happening here is inhuman. I pray that the Florida Senate acts on Terri's Bill this morning, and that something can be done to prevent what appears to me to be a deliberate, premeditated, state-sanctioned murder. That phrase -- often glibly misused by death penalty opponents protesting the execution of cold-blooded murderers -- seems to fit these facts distressingly well.

UPDATE: I have already reported this in updates to the post immediately below: the Florida Senate has passed the bill. Gov. Bush has signed it, and has ordered the feeding tube re-inserted. It will be when it is safe to do so. For further information, consult the links at the end of the next post.

UPDATE x2: Many readers are used to reading that most neurologists agree with the courts on this issue. But if you take a look at some of the stories making this claim, you'll see that it's not necessarily as cut-and-dried as it has sometimes been portrayed.

For example, see the post immediately above this one (here), showing that the key issue is whether Ms. Schiavo's vegetative state has been "deemed" permanent. Or read this post, which shows that a New York Times story on the topic fails to deliver what the headline promises.

Evidence about the case can be found all over this site, but this post has lengthy excerpts from affidavits by nurses and nurses' aides -- both about Terri's condition, and Mr. Schiavo's (alleged) incredible behavior throughout. And here is my reaction to a recent interview of Mr. Schiavo by Larry King.

I don't know all the answers, but I am looking at things with a critical eye, and I hope readers will as well. I have posted my reflections on the controversy here.

Posted 10/21/2003 06:59:00 AM by Patrick
TERRI'S BILL: It appears that the Florida House has overcome the obstacle I mentioned last night, that Terri's Bill is unrelated to "business incentives to get the Scripps research facility along the I-4 corridor." Xrlq, via Justene of Calblog, reports here that the Florida House has passed Terri's Bill. Xrlq says that debate in the Senate begins this morning at 8 a.m. -- meaning it should have begun about an hour ago Eastern time.

However, WorldNetDaily reports here that the President of the Senate, one Jim King (a Republican!), is known to oppose the bill. This may be why the staffer whom I quote in this post from last night said any bill on this issue coming from the House "would go over to the Senate to die." (Also, I am not clear as to whether it needs a 2/3 majority in the Senate as well. The whole Scripps incentives thing again. K. Lo from the Corner says yes, but I don't know if she's right.)

Sen. King's e-mail address (which I just love) is king.james.web@flsenate.gov. I don't see how it could hurt to write him, even if you don't live in Florida. I just did.

And for any smart-alecks intending to write Sen. King and tell him to oppose the bill, please read the opinion of my neurologist friend in the post immediately above this one. He says what is happening here is "inhuman."

UPDATE: The bill has passed.

UPDATE x2: Apparently, Sen. King had a change of heart, as this story describes him as a "supporter," albeit one with second thoughts. The e-mails and phone calls must have done some good.

UPDATE x3: Gov. Bush has signed the bill and ordered the feeding tube re-inserted.

With what we know, I think we have to be happy at the outcome; Mr. Schiavo's assertions regarding what Terri Schiavo wanted were not reliable, in my view. Still, one never knows for sure. I certainly hope this is what she would have wanted.

UPDATE x4: Kathryn Jean Lopez at the Corner says that a judge in Florida "has denied Michael Schiavo's request for a court injunction to deny the governor's order for the reinstatement of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube." But don't expect this to be the last attempt by Michael Schiavo to reverse Gov. Bush's order.

UPDATE x5: She is currently receiving fluids by IV. She's not ready for the feeding tube yet, because she has been starved and dehydrated for six days, pursuant to court order. (Via Xrlq.)

Posted 10/20/2003 07:24:00 PM by Patrick
GOOD EDITORIAL FROM THE GREAT WHITE NORTH: The Toronto Star editorializes against the starvation of Terri Schindler-Schiavo here:

Whatever one's view of euthanasia, Terri's plight is a dreadful advertisement for Florida's current law.

Absent an explicit directive, whose wishes should prevail in such cases?

The wishes of family who are willing to assume the burdens and costs of preserving life, not ending it.

The law must protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Amen. (Via Tonecluster.)

Posted 10/20/2003 07:07:00 PM by Patrick
FROM THE INAPPROPRIATE HEADLINE DEPARTMENT: Today's New York Times editorial has the unfortunate title New Look at Silicone Breast Implants.

Posted 10/20/2003 06:17:00 PM by Patrick
TERRI SCHIAVO AND THE SCRIPPS FACILITY: Kathryn Jean Lopez at the Corner reports that a Florida legislative staffer is not optimistic about Terri's Bill (an emergency measure described by Xrlq here), which appears to be Terri Schiavo's last hope to live. (Read more about her situation here.) The reason for pessimism, according to the staffer:

The session has been called for "the purpose of introducing a package of business incentives to get the Scripps research facility along the I-4 corridor" . . . "Any legislation outside that purpose would require a 2/3 vote for introduction in either chamber and, while that might possibly happen here, such bills would go over to the Senate to die."

It sounds like Terri Schiavo might be able to live if someone can successfully argue that preserving her life is somehow relevant to the far more important issue of business incentives for the Scripps research facility. Makes sense, right?

Patterico readers are a clever and resourceful lot. If anyone has an argument as to how preventing the murder of this woman could help attract the Scripps research facility, e-mail me at the link to the left.

Posted 10/20/2003 06:49:00 AM by Patrick
TO KILL THE MESSAGE OF "MOCKINGBIRD": The Indianapolis Star editorializes here in support of the decision of an Indianapolis High School to cancel a production of a stage version of To Kill a Mockingbird. (Via Volokh.) Why the cancellation? I think you can guess. Yup, black parents and the NAACP protested due to the use of the "N" word.

Eugene Volokh has the best comment I have seen on this:

Say, doesn't the "C" in NAACP stand for "colored"? Outrageous! Everyone knows that "colored" is a pejorative term nowadays; people would be very offended if you called them "colored." High schools should stop using texts that contain the organization's name.

Heh.

(By the way, if this organization is going to be renamed to conform to the terms used nowadays, I suppose the new name would have to be the "National Association for the Advancement of African-American People," or "NAAAAP." Hmmm. Maybe that's why they're sticking with "Colored.")

Prof. Volokh also says: "When an NAACP chapter objects to To Kill a Mockingbird, and a high school agrees, we've come to a strange, strange place, folks." I agree with this, but I would add that we've always been in that strange place.

For example, for as long as I can remember, there have been black activists somewhere trying to ban Adventures of Huckleberry Finn -- certainly among the top anti-slavery books ever written in this country. As explained in this essay, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been banned and challenged ever since it was first published in 1885. The initial objections came from the literary establishment, which saw the book as too lowbrow. But beginning in the 1950s and lasting to the present day, the objections to the book have come from black activist groups -- apparently composed of people who had never read it.

I'm afraid that, as long as there are people who don't bother to read the great books, there will be people who will be offended by what (they think) is in them. The To Kill a Mockingbird controversy is, alas, nothing new, and you can expect this sort of nonsense to crop up again.

Accepting the inevitability of such controversies, I still agree with Prof. Volokh: it's bad enough that the parents are doing this; even worse that the NAAAAP folks are participating; worse still that the school is caving to the pressure; but worst of all is the fact that the local newspaper supports the school's decision. But here again I am less surprised than Prof. Volokh. The political leanings of newspaper editors (even in the relatively smaller urban areas, as this shows) often cause them to embrace absurd "pro-minority" policies and viewpoints -- even when they know that these policies and viewpoints are wrong and/or harmful. This is another regrettable aspect of American society that I don't see changing anytime soon.

Posted 10/20/2003 06:20:00 AM by Patrick
THE SCOOP ON WILLIE BROWN: Mickey Kaus thinks that Willie Brown has abandoned his previously expressed intention of running for the state Senate seat currently held by John Burton (who gets termed out next year) (and good riddance). Kaus explains that Arnold is "wildly unpopular" in the district, so Brown's joining Arnold's transition sends a signal that Brown will not be running for elective office there. Plus, apparently Brown's unfavorability rating there is a high 40 percent.

No John Burton, no Willie Brown. My, my. Retaliacrats™ will have to come up with some other clueless buffoon to run the Senate for them.

I have confidence in their ability to do it.

Posted 10/19/2003 10:12:00 AM by Patrick
DOG TRAINER CORRECTION: As fresh potatoes first noted, on October 5 (before the election) the Los Angeles Dog Trainer printed an absurd article claiming that bureaucrats would defy Arnold if he tried to reverse the car tax by executive order. (As noted here, the Dog Trainer soon reversed itself without acknowledging that it had done so.)

The original article reported the startling news that "Jon Coupal, president of the [Howard Jarvis] taxpayers association, acknowledged that rescinding the hike could require court action." This sure seemed like a confirmation of the Dog Trainer's ridiculous premise. After all, it had been widely assumed that what the Governor had done by fiat, could be reversed by fiat. For the president of the state's principal anti-tax group to say that court action would be required was a big deal -- and flew directly in the face of what the Republican candidates were saying.

The problem is that Coupal never said this. Coupal immediately disputed the statement in a letter to the editor, which (as far as I can tell) was not printed in the Dog Trainer. The letter was reproduced at CaliforniaRepublic.org on October 7. (Scroll down to entries for 10/7/03 -- no permalinks). Coupal's letter stated:

Dear Editor: In your October 5 edition, Jennifer Oldham, in her story on efforts to roll back the car tax, says, "But Jon Coupal, president of the [Howard Jarvis] taxpayers association, acknowledged that rescinding the hike could require court action."

I did not acknowledge, say, state, imply, or even hint that this might be the case. As an attorney and expert in tax policy, it is my unequivocal opinion that a new governor can rescind the illegal raising of the car tax with the stroke of a pen.

Sincerely, Jon Coupal - President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Why am I discussing this now? Because yesterday, October 18 -- 13 days after the original article was published, and 11 days after Coupal's letter was printed at CaliforniaRepublic.org -- the Dog Trainer finally printed this correction:

Vehicle license fee — "An Oct. 5 story in Section A said that Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., acknowledged that rescinding the state car-tax hike could require court action. While Coupal acknowledges that a rollback of the car-tax hike could be challenged in court, he believes that the governor does, in fact, have the power to rescind it."

Hey, these things take time. We all know how thorough the Dog Trainer is. Better incredibly, inexcusably late than never . . . right?

Posted 10/19/2003 08:05:00 AM by Patrick
FRESH XML POTATOES: Spooky at fresh potatoes has a new XML feed. Add him to your aggregator now -- I just did. If you don't have an aggregator, or don't know what I'm talking about, visit him anyway (and then learn about the aggregator I use here.)

Posted 10/19/2003 07:21:00 AM by Patrick
SCHIAVO "RIGHT TO MURDER" CASE REVISITED: Terri Schiavo's parents are still trying to save her life. But it's not working.

Posted 10/18/2003 11:25:00 PM by Patrick
VOLOKH ON EASTERBROOK: As usual, Volokh has a sensible opinion. Calm down, folks!

UPDATE: isntapundit is right too. (Via Daily Pundit.)

UPDATE x2: Dean Esmay is not only also right, but puts it very well, calling the criticism of Easterbrook "over-the-top outraged bloviating." I love that word.

Posted 10/18/2003 11:18:00 PM by Patrick
LOCKYER COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET: Democrat Bill "More Prison Rape" Lockyer voted for Arnold. (Via Wizbang -- via The Southern California Law Blog.)

Asked why he didn't vote for Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante, Lockyer said: "You know the people in your profession really well. You know who works hard and who doesn't. Cops know that about cops. Doctors know that about doctors. I know that about politicians."

Ouch!

UPDATE: Weintraub omits this comment and says: "Lockyer didn't directly criticize Bustamante Saturday but said he looked at the list of candidates and it was 'a crappy list.'" A little misleading, Dan! The comment above is close enough to "direct criticism" to tell your readers about!

People make mistakes, but I have a deeper concern here: are the editors, with their hyperprotective attitude towards Mr. N-Word, keeping the truth from us? (An admittedly paranoid concern, but when you're talking about newspaper editors, a little paranoia is realistic and healthy.) Or (more likely) did Dan just miss this? I've e-mailed Weintraub to find out. (Do they edit his e-mails?)

UPDATE x2: Weintraub wrote back to say that I had a good point. He said that Lockyer had made the comments after his speech, while Weintraub was still blogging. He said he didn't catch up to the comments until later, and said he would do an update. The update is now on the site.

Pretty quick work, too. The update was up within a half-hour after he wrote me back. Which makes me wonder: did Weintraub have to call his editor on a Sunday morning to run this minor update by him? Does he have some freedom to post certain items without editing? If so, does that freedom apply only to items certain not to raise P.C. hackles? Inquiring minds want to know.

UPDATE x3: Inquiring minds won't find out. I e-mailed Weintraub with the question, and wasn't surprised that he (very politely) declined to discuss his arrangement with his editors.

Posted 10/18/2003 11:14:00 PM by Patrick
SHOW US YOUR TALL MAN: Nothing says "Boston" like this picture.

Posted 10/18/2003 11:13:00 PM by Patrick
SCHIAVO: I am not forgetting about Terri Schiavo. How could I? I have sent an e-mail to a friend from college who is a neurologist and a hell of a smart guy, asking him to look at the videos and tell me his opinion. If I hear back, and he says it's okay to publish it, I'll let you know what he says.

Posted 10/18/2003 10:57:00 PM by Patrick
FIND THE MAN'S HEAD: This is kind of fun. It took me a little over 5 seconds. (Maybe closer to 10, on reflection. I didn't time myself.)

But no pressure.

P.S.: I think I see a finger in there too.

Posted 10/18/2003 07:06:00 PM by Patrick
MUSIC QUIZ: Since I have a few new readers, I thought I might send you to this music quiz that I posted back in March. It's one question: can you identify the piece? You need some working media player and speakers.

Posted 10/17/2003 09:52:00 PM by Patrick
SCALIA AND GRAMMAR: A while back I ranted about how Justice Scalia's views were (once again) being wildly misrepresented by an out-of-control news media intent on taking his quotes out of context. In particular, I was upset that news outlets stated that Scalia had said he had "nothing against homosexuals" when what he really said was: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. . . "

Today, grammar pedant William Safire writes about how Scalia might have avoided this particular misquotation by correctly using the possessive before a participle. (The idiots intent on clipping his quote would have had to clip off, not only a few words, but also an apostrophe from the final word.) Safire even interviews Scalia regarding his grammatical decisionmaking in penning his dissent. It's all here, for those who like this sort of thing.

Posted 10/17/2003 06:09:00 PM by Patrick
THE DOG TRAINER'S NEW "AIR QUOTE" POLICY: The other day, the Los Angeles Dog Trainer (aka L.A. Times) ran an op-ed by one Bill Arkin, about that general named Boykin who has dared voice his religious beliefs. In that op-ed, Arkin wrote:

Boykin is also in a senior Pentagon policymaking position, and it's a serious mistake to allow a man who believes in a Christian "jihad" to hold such a job.

Incredible. This general used the word "jihad" to describe our war on terrorism? Well, actually, no. He didn't. Hugh Hewitt interviewed Arkin the other day, and describes the interview here. Hewitt asked Arkin about the "jihad" line, and says:

Arkin admits in my interview that Boykin never used the word jihad, even though it appears in quotes in his article. Arkin states it is a characterization. Right. In quotes.

James Lileks imagines the conversation he would have with his editor if he did this:

But he didn't say that.

Exactly? Well, he meant it, though.

He meant it.

Yes, and that's why I put it in quotes.

Quotes. Which are usually reserved for, you know, quotes.

Right, but I used them here to set the word apart. You know, show that it was a paraphrase.

By using the means we use to indicate direct transcriptions.

Well, sometimes, sure. But I meant them more as, you know, those air quotes you do with your fingers?

To my knowledge, the good folks at the Dog Trainer have not issued a correction of this non-quotation placed within quotation marks. Apparently they needed to save valuable space for this important correction, which ran this morning:

Critter-resistant container -- The Web site listed for the Bearikade Expedition Mark II that ran in the Outfitter column of the Outdoors section Tuesday was incorrect. The Web site is http://www.wild-ideas.net, with a hyphen.

You got that? With a hyphen! It is apparent that the pursuit of accuracy is Job Number One at the Dog Trainer!

You know, I think this whole schtick of placing "characterizations" inside quotation marks is the wave of the future. It really offers a tremendous freedom of expression. I think that today I will adopt the new Dog Trainer "air quotes" standard, exemplified in this critique of Arkin's column:

I just finished Bill Arkin's column on General Boykin, and I think it's a little over the top. I was taken aback that Arkin thinks that "anyone who expresses a belief in Christianity" is "necessarily a wild-eyed zealot" who "should not even be permitted to walk the streets." And I don't think that Bush's decision to appoint Boykin to a high military post was "a more evil act than any perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao." Clearly, Arkin needs to choose his words more carefully and avoid hyperbolic exaggeration.

Yup, now that I am using the Dog Trainer's standards as my benchmark for journalistic accuracy, there's no limit to the fun I can have.

Posted 10/17/2003 12:25:00 AM by Patrick
REST EASY: Undercover agents have smuggled "knives, a bomb, and a gun" past screeners at Logan Airport. But don't worry. The federal security director at Logan says Logan is "no better or worse" than other airports around the country. Whew! That's a relief.

UPDATE: And today, bags were found on two Southwest airplanes, each containing box cutters, modeling clay formed to look like a plastic explosive, and bleach (a corrosive liquid not permitted on airplanes). Read about it here. Southwest says that each bag also had a note that "indicated the items were intended to challenge Transportation Security Administration checkpoint security procedures."

According to the story, the FBI has caught the perpetrator, who said he was demonstrating gaps in security. Intensified security checks were ordered with no disruptions to service expected. Meanwhile, the guy who left the bags will likely face federal charges, as "proceedings were expected Monday in federal court in Baltimore." Patterico welcomes feedback from readers on the issue of what should happen to this guy.

I say: force him to pay any restitution to anyone inconvenienced, give him a misdemeanor with a chance of expungement -- and then give him a ticker-tape parade. Or at least an investigative job at a news agency. I think he has performed a public service. What in God's name is the government thinking? Why do we keep reading about successful attempts to smuggle dangerous weapons (or facsimiles thereof) onto airplanes? When is the federal government finally going to get serious about airline security?

A round of applause for the soon-to-be "convicted criminal."

Posted 10/16/2003 09:10:00 PM by Patrick
DEBATE: There is a lively debate going on in a couple of comment threads at L.A. Observed, where myself and some other folks have been debating the Jill Stewart/John Carroll imbroglio. The comment threads, where you can read the debates, are here and here.

Of special interest are some vitriolic comments attacking me, posted by this ex-newspaperman dude called "expat." His specialties include ad hominem insults and misreading the English language. Sample expat comment: "By now we're all familiar with Patterico's little reading comprehension problem, so no surprise at the response." (You will not be surprised to learn that the guy has a little problem interpreting the written word himself.)

It's scary that this guy was once actually a reporter somewhere, perhaps even at our very own local Dog Trainer.

Posted 10/16/2003 08:15:00 PM by Patrick
WORM?: There are an awful lot of internet sites down right now. Could there be a worm moving through the system that we haven't heard about?

UPDATE: The Southern California Law Blog reports here that the problem is an "intentional denial of service attack" at a very popular blog hosting company called "Hosting Matters."

Posted 10/16/2003 08:04:00 PM by Patrick
NO, THIS STORY IS REALLY NOT FROM THE ONION : The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that George Bush

told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

Hey, I'm a conservative, but irony is irony.

Of course, there's not much danger that Bush will see any such stories anyway, because Bush generally doesn't read newspapers. As Bush told Brit Hume in a recent interview transcribed here: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."

Meaning that when Bush said to his staff: "I don't want to see any stories quoting unnamed administration officials," his staff thought, in unison: "Okay, we won't show you any."

Posted 10/16/2003 05:43:00 PM by Patrick
JILL STEWART CORRECTION: Jill Stewart has issued a correction to that piece that I mentioned to you the other day, in which she sets forth her interview with a Dog Trainer staffer. The correction is at the end of the interview and reads as follows:

Note: In a previous version of this interview, the source stated that betting pool of 113 journalists conducted at the Times showed about 25 percent thought Schwarzenegger would win and recall would win. However, reporter Ken Reich, who conducted the pool, says this information is wrong and offers the following correction:

"Of the 113 participants, 74 picked both the recall to pass and Schwarzenegger to win the replacement race.... Of the 113, by the way, 101 picked Schwarzenegger to win the replacement race, 11 Bustamante and one McClintock."

Not sure what to make of this. On one hand, it appears to show that the interviewee was dead wrong about the betting pool. On the other hand, the betting pool was one of the most minor of several easily verifiable facts stated by the interviewee -- and this is the only fact that I have heard disputed by anyone at the Dog Trainer.

Patterico says: the jury's still out. Mickey, we need you!

Posted 10/16/2003 07:33:00 AM by Patrick
CUTESY EDITORIAL WATCH: The idiot who writes the cutesy editorials for the Dog Trainer is at it again. Today's topic: acronyms. Beware.

One day, perhaps all of this writer's editorials will be gathered together in a single volume, which we can then hurl onto a bonfire.

Meanwhile, I am guessing the editors are telling Mickey Kaus they're too busy to talk to him about Jill Stewart's piece.

Posted 10/16/2003 06:49:00 AM by Patrick
STILL MORE ON SCHIAVO: A reader e-mails regarding the Schiavo case to say the husband apparently has "some evidence of early tests including a brain wave probe that showed no response."

I wish I had access to more original court documents on this case. Perhaps after work today I will dig into it some more.

Here is more of the other side. I found this on my own. This New York Times article quotes Kenneth Goodman, director of the Bioethics Program at the University of Miami, as saying: "Very often, people in persistent vegetative states have reflexive actions that mimic for all the world an ordinary human action. If it's someone you love, you are inclined to attach meaning to it."

I can see this. For example, a director of bioethics may speak in apparent complete sentences, yet an expert like myself can tell that he is actually in a persistent vegetative state.

Posted 10/16/2003 06:45:00 AM by Patrick
MORE ON SCHIAVO: Regarding the Schiavo case, Xrlq asks: "Couldn't the Legislature convene tomorrow and vote to prohibit the intentional starvation of anyone who hasn't executed a living will?" Good question. They could even call it the "The Bitch Isn't Going to Die Yet, Mr. Schiavo" law.

Posted 10/16/2003 06:39:00 AM by Patrick
KAUS ON . . . BASEBALL: Nothing yet from Mickey Kaus on the John Carroll/Jill Stewart controversy. He's talking about that guy who caught the foul ball in Chicago.

Posted 10/15/2003 10:25:00 PM by Patrick
HUGH HEWITT ON THE POWER OF THE BLOGOSPHERE: Hugh Hewitt's Weekly Standard piece on the Los Angeles Dog Trainer is now available here. My favorite quote relates to the power of the internet to affect the bias inside the newsrooms:

The left-leaning newsroom isn't going to be corrected by editors sending memos, but by market forces feeding on the Internet's destruction of the oligopoly in news distribution. Stewart pens her article, I link to it here, it's then blogged by folks who never visit her site, and it gets posted and chewed over at various bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground. The Times can neither make the story go away nor spin it because opinion elites no longer depend upon news elites to set the table. They can order in.

Patterico plans to remain right here, serving up the truth at discount prices.

Posted 10/15/2003 08:46:00 PM by Patrick
SCHIAVO: I heard on the radio today that the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler-Schiavo has begun. She is the woman whose situation I discuss below.

I have looked extensively at the site her family has put together in an effort to save her life. The family has made videos of her, in defiance of an order from the judge in the case forbidding the family from providing her rehabilitative care or taking pictures or video of her. (What kind of an order is that?) Her husband's lawyer compares her to a "houseplant." It's clearly not true. Watch the videos.

I have searched the web for the other side to this story. I am just not seeing it. Here are the arguments I have seen or heard in support of the husband's position. All seem easily refuted:

Schiavo says his wife wanted to die. I have seen no contradiction of the following facts: She has executed no living will. Her husband argued to a jury that he wanted to rehabilitate her and bring her home, and he collected big -- $1.3 million. About $750,000 of that went into a trust fund, the remainder of which he will inherit if she dies. Just months after the dough hit the bank, he claimed that she had told him she would not want to live by artificial means. He is the only witness to this statement. Meanwhile, he has ordered nurses not to provide stimulation, has not kept his promise to the jury to provide rehabilitative care, and has gotten the courts to order the family not to provide such care either. He has been heard repeatedly wondering aloud when she will die. A nurse has executed an affidavit quoting him as saying, "When is she going to die," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch going to die?"

The courts have ruled for Schiavo. True enough. The courts also gave O.J. custody of his children. The courts sometimes screw up. The courts say she is in a "persistent vegetative state." Watch the videos.

Court-appointed doctors say she isn't responsive. Watch the videos.

If she were on Death Row, Governor Jeb Bush could issue a reprieve. But she's not being killed for having murdered someone, so the governor is powerless to help her.

My invitation to present the other side remains. Meanwhile, Terri Schindler-Schiavo has begun the agonizing process of starving to death, starting at 2 p.m. EDT today.

Posted 10/15/2003 07:20:00 PM by Patrick
DOG TRAINER UNDER SIEGE: I find I am currently interested in nothing other than the ongoing saga of how the Los Angeles Dog Trainer came to publish (and defend its decision to publish) the Arnold hit piece.

Hugh Hewitt is promising a Weekly Standard column on the topic tomorrow. We have the results of Mickey Kaus's investigation to look forward to. As I have said, the story isn't going away. I'll keep you up to date.

Sometimes I think I should change the slogan of this blog from "Harangues that just make sense" to something like "Refuting Los Angeles Times propaganda in my spare time."

Posted 10/15/2003 06:23:00 AM by Patrick
KAUS ON THE JILL STEWART PIECE: Mickey Kaus is deferring comment on Jill Stewart's explosive piece that I discussed last night, saying: "In a sudden flare-up of journalistic responsibility, I'm staying out of this one until I try some reporting of my own."

Kaus doesn't need exclamation points to convey irony! In any event, the potential for some independent reporting on Stewart's story is an interesting development. I predicted last night that this story is not going away; that prediction is already sounding prescient.

Posted 10/14/2003 06:29:00 PM by Patrick
MUST-READ OF THE DAY: Jill Stewart's response to John Carroll (and lots more) is here. Unfortunately, it's my wife and son's birthday (both!) and I don't have time to pick out quotes, offer my own observations, etc. All I can do is say: read the whole thing, now.

My only comment is this: if a lot of what Stewart says sounds familiar, it's because I already said it here.

UPDATE: Festivities are over, and I am free to expound on Stewart's piece a bit.

Stewart's piece consists of three parts, but only two are interesting: her response to John Carroll, and an interview with a Times reporter. (A final section, setting forth the opinion of an alleged expert, is superfluous and uninteresting.)

Stewart's response to Carroll is well-stated, but obvious. As I said, I have already made most of the same points. I can't be the only one to have done so.

To summarize: Carroll is either guilty of not reading the relevant criticism of his paper (much as he accuses the Dog Trainer's critics of not reading the Arnold hit piece), or he is deliberately misstating the criticisms, because he can't respond to the actual criticisms. Either option is inexcusable, because this man has defended the Arnold story in a very visible and very personal way. For those who are paying attention, the name "John S. Carroll" is synonymous with a defense of the Arnold hit piece -- a defense that, it is becoming increasingly obvious, just doesn't add up.

The real potential revelation is Stewart's interview of a long-time Times reporter. If the interview is accurate, and the allegations made in it are true, then it is explosive.

Why do I say this? Not just because the reporter quoted in the interview says that Carroll took a number of steps that he had to know would delay the story. That would be bad enough, if true. But what would be worse is that Carroll would be publicly revealed to be a dissembler we haven't seen since the likes of Bill Clinton. The main point of Carroll's defense is that the Arnold hit piece was not timed to run at the last second. Stewart's interviewee says that it was -- and that the principal culprit was John Carroll.

If Stewart's interviewee is telling the truth, Carroll's defense is substantially false. I have already suggested that some of Carroll's phraseology appears Clintonian in its potential for hairsplitting. Stewart's interview suggests that this may not be an accident.

Now, I have no idea whether Stewart's allegations are true. For one thing, Stewart's interviewee has not put his or her name on the record. If what the interviewee is saying is true, the interviewee's motive for staying anonymous is obvious. Nevertheless, the anonymity of the source raises troubling questions regarding the reliability of Stewart's piece -- questions similar to the same questions that many critics raised about the Arnold story.

Also, even if Stewart is accurately reporting what her interviewee said, that person could be spinning a tall tale. I have heard enough credible praise of Carroll that I want to believe he is not that dishonest.

But at the same time, what I hear about Carroll is at odds with a very strong, reasoned opinion I have formed about the bias of the L.A. Times over the course of a decade. I have collected examples of this bias on this site for the better part of a year. This bias didn't start with John Carroll, and it sounds like he has tried to get it under control. Even Stewart's interviewee says so. Nevertheless, Carroll has been the editor of the Times since I started documenting the paper's bias on this blog. He bears the ultimate responsibility for what any reasonable observer must conclude is a clear history of skewing the news to conform to the views of a small cabal of editors.

Some may say that I am being extreme when I point out that Howell Raines was brought down by allegations that were arguably less serious than this. But I don't think this is an extreme observation at all. It is not outlandish to suggest that -- if Stewart's allegations pan out -- this incident could end up leading to Carroll's resignation. As I say, this reporter is all but accusing Carroll of having out-and-out lied to his readers, in the most public way possible. If this were proven, how could Carroll survive?

What is missing now is some clear corroboration of what the interviewee said -- like the clandestine taping of Raines's admissions of favoritism toward Jayson Blair. We don't know if such proof exists; as a result, we don't know what the ultimate effect of Stewart's piece will be.

But I will make one prediction: this story is not going away. The L.A. Times should not continue to sit still, remain mute, and hope it all blows over.

Posted 10/14/2003 06:45:00 AM by Patrick
OUR COURT SYSTEM, HARD AT WORK: Xrlq reports that a cognitively disabled woman is about to be legally starved and dehydrated to death in Florida, by court order.

As described in this article about her case, her death is expected to be agonizing, and will take 10-14 days. She's not terminally ill, or posing a danger to anyone -- but it's what her husband says she wants. A court is deferring to the husband's wishes, even though a nurse has overheard her husband asking "When is that bitch going to die?"

Why is he so eager for his wife to pass on? Well, he collected over a million bucks in a malpractice suit, refused to pay for her medical care, and is now engaged to be married again. But he can't get remarried and start living the good life until his wife finishes getting starved to death. Who can blame him?

In unrelated news, reported here, the Supreme Court has blocked the execution by lethal injection of a convicted murderer, to review his claim that lethal injection would be unconstitutionally cruel because he has collapsed veins.

Apparently, in this country it's okay for you to die a slow, agonizing death -- but only if you haven't murdered anybody.

UPDATE: A reader complains that I am not reporting all the facts, and that I should tell you (at a minimum) that the woman has been bedridden for 13 years. Fair enough. My opinion remains the same. I have no personal knowledge of this situation. There could be another side. If anyone has a link to evidence from the other side, send it to me and I will post it. However, from the evidence I have seen, I think the other side is exactly what I have said. In any event, I can confidently say three things:

1) She should not be starved to death, no matter what. If the law says this is the only option, the law has to change.

2) Based on available information, I do not feel comfortable having her husband making these decisions.

3) For anyone who knows only the husband's side of the story, please watch the videos at this link, showing her supposedly "persistent vegetative state."

From the available facts, this case seems to be a perfect example of why many of us are suspicious of the "Right to Die" movement. Under some circumstances, it becomes closer to a "Right to Murder."

Posted 10/14/2003 06:44:00 AM by Patrick
I GUESS THAT'S HOW HE ADDRESSED IT: I dislike Patt Morrison, if for no other reason than the unnecessary second "t" in her name. [What about the second "t" in Patterico? -- Ed. Necessary!] But she makes a good observation in this column: that before the election, when asked by Tom Brokaw when he would address the groping allegations, Arnold said: "soon as the campaign is over, I will." Arnold's comment after the election? "Old news."

(Offered with the usual caveat: you saw it in the Dog Trainer, so don't assume it's necessarily true.)

Posted 10/14/2003 06:43:00 AM by Patrick
GOOD QUESTION, MICKSTER: Mickey Kaus pulls apart the bogus Dog Trainer poll that showed the recall close, and asks: "How badly do you have to embarrass the paper (when the whole world is watching) to get fired at the LAT?"

Posted 10/14/2003 06:41:00 AM by Patrick
THE RELIABLE TEAMSTERS: I am not taking sides in the grocery workers' strike, but I was amused to read here about the support the grocery workers are getting from the Teamsters:

Meanwhile, the Teamsters union is throwing its support behind the UFCW. Its drivers have vowed not to cross the picket lines, and on Sunday many drivers parked their trucks outside stores or just down the street.

. . . .

Other Teamsters gathered outside the stores, keeping checkers and clerks company. "I'm just here lending a little support," said Ralph Ochoa, a driver sitting outside a Pasadena Ralphs.

Good ol' reliable Teamsters. Whenever they see other people not working, you can always count on them to pitch in and start not working themselves.

Posted 10/14/2003 06:36:00 AM by Patrick
ONE LESS FREEBIE FOR THE ILLEGALS: Gray Davis has vetoed the bill to give free community college tuition to illegals. In his veto statement, the Governor said: "Ah, what the hell. I'm outta here."

Posted 10/13/2003 07:59:00 AM by Patrick
DOG TRAINER PORNOGRAPHY AND KEN STARR: In a post below, I offer a complete fisking of John Carroll's failed defense of the Arnold hit piece. In this post, I want to focus on a particular comment Carroll made that really astounded me. After unsuccessfully responding to various strawman arguments against the Arnold hit piece, Carroll compared the coverage of this story by the internet and other electronic media to "pornography":

The electronic revolution has brought us many blessings, but it has also blindsided us with a tidal wave of pornography. In similar fashion, we are now getting a faceful of rotten journalism — journalistic pornography, actually — in which ratings are everything and truth is nothing.

It is richly ironic that Carroll used the word "pornography" to describe the coverage of the Arnold groping story by other news outlets. You might remember that the Arnold hit piece published by Carroll's own Los Angeles Dog Trainer felt it necessary to include the following alleged quote from Arnold:

"Have you ever had a man slide his tongue in your [anus]?"

If you have read the stories, you know that this is just one of many explicit descriptions of Arnold's alleged groping and off-color comments. Just who is the "pornographer" here, Mr. Carroll?

Naturally, Carroll defends this level of detail, saying that the story is "certain to strike you as vulgar, perhaps even obscene. My wife informed me that I'd strayed far over the line in publishing one of the anecdotes. But such is the behavior at the heart of the issue." In other words, according to Carroll, the Dog Trainer had to print the sexually explicit details because they were critical to the story.

Does this defense sound familiar? It should, because it's similar to the explanation Ken Starr gave for including sexually explicit details about President Clinton in the Starr Report:

Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential. The President's defense to many of the allegations is based on a close parsing of the definitions that were used to describe his conduct. We have, after careful review, identified no manner of providing the information that reveals the falsity of the President's statements other than to describe his conduct with precision.

And what did the Dog Trainer think of Starr's defense then? As quoted here, the Dog Trainer said of the Starr Report:

Its goal is almost too transparent: not only to lay out the relevant facts in a legal dispute but to present reams of unsavory detail that will embarrass Clinton and undermine his public support . . . .

Of course, unlike the Dog Trainer, Starr's stated purpose for disclosing sexually explicit detail was not to publicly disclose alleged sexual misconduct by a politician. The sexually explicit detail was necessary to corroborate allegations of criminal activity by the President of the United States. As the above quotation shows, presenting this detail to the House was the only way to get job done.

Moreover, although Starr was constantly accused of publicizing unnecessary details, people forget that Starr urged the House to keep the details confidential. In a letter to Reps. Gingrich and Gephardt accompanying the report, quoted here, Starr said:

The contents of the referral may not be publicly disclosed unless and until authorized by the House of Representatives. Many of the supporting materials contain information of a personal nature that I respectfully urge the House to treat as confidential.

Even if you believe that Starr knew the House would disregard his request to keep the material confidential, Starr did everything he could to keep the material confidential, short of failing to include it at all. But, as John Carroll said about the details in the Arnold story, "such is the behavior at the heart of the issue."

Dog Trainer editors have finally seen the light: if sexually explicit details are critical to an understanding of sexual harassment by a politician, those details must be included -- even if people may be offended. It looks like the Dog Trainer owes Ken Starr an apology. I didn't see the apology in this morning's editorials, but I'm sure it's coming soon.

Posted 10/12/2003 08:01:00 AM by Patrick
JOHN CARROLL BLUDGEONS THE STRAWMEN: In this morning's Dog Trainer, John Carroll offers this paltry defense of the Arnold hit piece. Carroll is an expert at the technique of defeating the strawman argument. Meanwhile, several legitimate criticisms of the story remain unanswered.

Carroll's technique is to say: "It was written that [insert strawman argument here]. Fact: [Carroll destroys strawman]." In each case, the strawman argument is an argument that I have not heard credibly stated anywhere -- but that bears some similarity to a less extreme, more credible allegation that Carroll fails to address.

For example, Carroll writes:

It was also written, for example, that Davis was the puppeteer behind the Times stories. Fact: None of the information in the Times stories came from the Davis camp, as we said in the articles when we published them.

I never heard anyone credibly allege that "Davis was the puppeteer behind the Times stories." But I sure did see a credible allegation that one of the women came forward at the behest of a long-time Democrat operative, Davis colleague, and friend of Bob "100 Days" Mulholland. What's more, according to Bill Bradley, who broke this story, a columnist for the Dog Trainer (George Skelton) acknowledged the ties between the operative and Davis -- and said that the Times reporters and editors must not have known about it.

To my knowledge, this information has not been reported in the Dog Trainer. In this context, it is Clintonesque hairsplitting (at a minimum) to continue to assert that the allegations didn't come from the Davis camp, without telling readers where some of them did come from.

Carroll continues:

It was written that high Democratic officials were kept apprised of the newspaper's probe, step by step. Fact: No Democratic officials were apprised. Because the paper was interviewing many sources, the existence of the investigation was widely known, but the details were not. The Davis people may have learned that the investigation was underway from Web sites, which mentioned rumors about it repeatedly.

Who said that "high Democratic officials were kept apprised of the newspaper's probe, step by step"? I never saw that reported anywhere. What I did read was that the Davis campaign was told about the story before it broke, perhaps no more than a day early (according to Mickey Kaus).

Now, I have no idea whether this very serious accusation is true or not. But Carroll does not clearly deny it. Carroll's statement that "[n]o Democratic officials were apprised" refers to his characterization of the strawman claim that Davis officials were "kept apprised of the newspaper's probe, step by step." By exaggerating the claim that was actually made and then denying it, Carroll appears to be leaving himself some wiggle room -- again, in a style reminiscent of our friend Bill Clinton.

Carroll takes a sledgehammer to a final strawman with this quote:

It was written that the paper failed to follow up on reports that Davis had mistreated women in his office. Fact: Virginia Ellis, a recent Pulitzer Prize finalist, and other Times reporters investigated this twice. Their finding both times: The discernible facts didn't support a story.

I never heard anyone say that the paper "failed to follow up" on these reports. Rather, Jill Stewart has said that the paper did follow up on the story. Stewart has detailed very clearly the allegations that the Dog Trainer had uncovered, as well as the various sources of corroboration for those allegations. Stewart says that the story was spiked it because it was based on anonymous sources. If true, this allegation shows a clear double-standard, since the Arnold piece was also largely based on anonymous sources.

As regular readers know, I have implored Carroll to address this issue head-on -- to specifically state what the sourcing standards are, and how they were met by the Arnold hit piece and not the Davis story. I have asked him to say whether Stewart is lying about why the Dog Trainer never ran the Davis story. I have been assured that my request was passed on to John Carroll personally.

Carroll has failed to address the specifics of Stewart's allegations. His defense echoes the defense by the "Readers Representative," which I mentioned the other day. In essence, the defense is simply this: "Trust us. We looked into it. There was nothing there." Carroll offers no specific denials of Stewart's allegations regarding the allegations that the Dog Trainer had uncovered regarding Davis, or the reasons that the story was spiked.

The obvious question is: why? After all, Carroll does not shy away from calling Stewart a liar with respect to her report that the Dog Trainer sat on the story for two weeks. Why can't he address the allegations regarding the Davis story -- directly, with specifics??

The answer is so obvious it insults your intelligence to say it out loud: Carroll offers no defense because there is none. The Dog Trainer has employed a clear, undeniable double standard here. Carroll's piece puts to rest any doubts a reasonable critic could have on this point.

By the time Carroll gets to the end of his piece, he has demolished enough strawmen to make several bales of hay. But he completely fails to address the legitimate questions raised by the Arnold hit piece. This is disappointing, to be sure -- but entirely predictable. The Dog Trainer's shameful handling of this episode is an indelible stain on the paper's reputation -- such as it was.

P.S. While I was re-reading Carroll's piece, I noticed that he made a comment about electronic journalism (in particular the internet) being the news equivalent of pornography. This comment brings to mind all sorts of thoughts that really deserve their own post -- and that's where I have put them. You can read that post (which is immediately above this one) here.

Posted 10/11/2003 05:07:00 PM by Patrick
E-MAIL ADDRESS ENCRYPTION: Today I changed my template to encrypt my e-mail address using the Dynamic Drive Email Riddler. As the inventors explain: "Email Riddler is an online tool that encrypts and transform your email address into a series of numbers when displaying it, making it virtually impossible for spam harvesters to crawl and add your email to their list." I recommend this tool to bloggers, to reduce spam.

Posted 10/11/2003 05:01:00 PM by Patrick
DO NOT CALL OR I DO NOT BE POLITE: I hung up on my first telemarketer this morning. I have always been polite and said, "no thank you" -- but I feel differently now that I have signed up for the Do Not Call list. I signed up for the list after 9/1, so legally telemarketers can still call me for a while. But they shouldn't. Responsible telemarketers should take steps to get the newest list possible, and should not call people on the list, even if they can do so legally. So this morning, as soon as I learned it was a telemarketer, I hung up without a word.

I don't know if I'll continue to do this or not; I understand the callers are working for a living, and I'm generally a polite person. But I feel entitled to now.

Posted 10/11/2003 11:20:00 AM by Patrick
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, BY WHICH I MEAN TO SAY, IT'LL JUST TAKE A SNAP OF THE FINGERS: fresh potatoes has the scoop on a fairly major contradiction in our local Dog Trainer, which two days before the election said the car tax could not be repealed by fiat, in an article titled Efforts to Roll Back Car Tax Likely to Stall, Experts Say:

A new California governor probably could not rescind a recent tripling of the car tax within hours of taking office, experts say, contrary to repeated claims by two leading candidates in the recall election.

The candidates making those claims were, of course, the Republicans. Stupid Republican candidates with their repeated incorrect claims! You know what to do to them come election time, readers!

Now that the election is over and the car tax will easily be repealed by fiat, the Dog Trainer sings an ever-so-slightly different tune with its article titled: Bringing Car Tax Down Is Easy; Keeping It Down May Be Hard.

Hmmmmmm. I'm rubbing my eyes here . . . Did I read that right? I thought the "bringing it down" part was the hard part?! Apparently not any more. The article opens by saying:

With a snap of his fingers, Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger can roll back state vehicle license fees the instant he takes office -- contrary to what the Los Angeles Times reported just days ago.

Well, okay, I made up that last part in bold. Actually, the story nowhere acknowledges that the Dog Trainer had reported the exact opposite story just days ago -- two days before the election.

PrestoPundit asks a good question: "Does John Carroll ever get embarrassed?" But I have a different question: is it just coincidence that the story changed now that the election is over?

Posted 10/11/2003 11:11:00 AM by Patrick
LOU GRANT ON ALL-TIME TOP MASS MURDERER JOSEPH STALIN: The Rantblogger reports that Ed Asner has said: "I think Joe Stalin was a guy that was hugely misunderstood."

What did we misunderstand, Ed? Did he kill more than 40 million people?

Ed Asner is, of course, one of the people on the long list of Hollywood liberals I compiled in response to Tim Rutten's statement that "liberal Hollywood" is just "mythology."

UPDATE: The guy who made the claim about Asner has retracted it. The retraction is bizarre, and worth reading. It makes you wonder how in the world the guy ever reported this to begin with. Anyway, I am leaving my original post up along with this update, as a lesson that you can't believe everything you read.

Posted 10/10/2003 10:39:00 PM by Patrick
YET ANOTHER STEVE LOPEZ ~~SCREED~~ COLUMN: Steve Lopez is the guy is so desperate to force his thoughts down readers' throats, he has said he is prepared to reach into his massive pile of jack and start buying papers for the people who have canceled their subscriptions. This morning, seeing his fourth column in as many days, I wondered whether he is now so anxious to share his insights with the world that he has decided to earn his $300,000 per year by writing a daily column. Could it be?

Then I saw that his regular days are switching from Tuesday/Thursday/Sunday to Wednesday/Friday/Sunday. I guess this is just transition week.

The content is typical Lopez: predictably narcisstic (the word "I" appears a couple dozen times) and glibly snide. Lopez recounts how he called Arnold spokesman Sean Walsh and said: "I want to be the first one to hear the fiscal relief and rescue plan." After quoting Walsh as saying that Arnold's plan will not be complete "[u]ntil he sees the books," Lopez tells his readers:

Wait a minute. I thought Arnold had been telling us for two months that he knew exactly what Sacramento needed. And by the way, the books are already open, and they always have been.

This is a great soundbite for the limousine liberals who devour Robert Scheer's columns. But accurate? Steve Lopez, meet Daniel Weintraub, who recently wrote:

But unlike skeptics who laugh off the audit as a meaningless delaying tactic, I think it would be useful to have in one place at one time a comprehensive analysis of all the shifts and diversions in the budget -- legal and illegal -- to give us a complete sense of the state’s fiscal condition. The Legislative Analyst has done some of this kind of work, but I have seen nothing yet that lays out the entire picture in context.

With every passing day, Lopez slides further and further towards an emulation of the lazy, corrupt journalism of Robert Scheer: sacrificing accuracy and fairness in favor of increasingly predictable and partisan one-liners.

Posted 10/10/2003 07:00:00 AM by Patrick
HARASSING THE SPAMBOTS: If you are a spambot, take that! and that! and that! and that!

If you are a human, you need not click on any of the links -- unless you are curious how they cause distress to spambots, in which case you should click on the first link to learn more.

Posted 10/10/2003 06:19:00 AM by Patrick
THE BEAR GUY: Three letters about the guy killed by bears in Alaska: two people who get it, and one clueless boob (second letter). As the former park ranger who wrote the first letter notes, the worst thing this guy did was to habituate a number of bears to humans, "possibly endangering other people and bears through his actions." The only thing I don't understand is why he hadn't been banned from the park for his repeated and deliberate violations of park rules.

Posted 10/10/2003 06:12:00 AM by Patrick
"SCHWARZENEGGER": Has anyone else noticed that the Dog Trainer has suddenly found room for Arnold's last name in the headlines, rather than using the term "actor"?

No, you say, we haven't. Because we canceled our subscription.

And I think that it's these cancellations that has caused the change in the headlines.

Posted 10/09/2003 10:22:00 PM by Patrick
CONTEST: Jill Stewart says that some politicos call the Thursday before an election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." Man, does she ever have the Dog Trainer over a barrel -- if she's right. After all, that's the exact day that the Dog Trainer ran the Arnold stinkbomb.

Problem: I ran a Google search with the term "Dirty Tricks Thursday" -- and struck out. Every marginally relevant result quoted Jill Stewart.

Bonus points to the first reader who can find evidence of the phrase "Dirty Tricks Thursday" being used before Stewart used the phrase the other day.

Posted 10/09/2003 10:09:00 PM by Patrick
HUMOR TIME: Reader Steve sends some things you shouldn't say to cops. My favorites include:

I can't reach my license unless you hold my beer. (OK in Texas)

Are you Andy or Barney?

I thought you had to be in relatively good physical condition to be a police officer.

You're not gonna check the trunk, are you?

When the Officer says "Gee, Son.... Your eyes look red, have you been drinking?" You probably shouldn't respond with,"Gee, Officer.... Your eyes look glazed, have you been eating doughnuts?"

Also, Xrlq has a good one.

Posted 10/09/2003 08:31:00 PM by Patrick
THE CLINTON KISS OF DEATH: Michael Williams wonders why people are so eager to have Bill Clinton campaign for them. Michael makes a pretty good case (complete with pictures) that you don't want this guy coming anywhere near you.

Posted 10/09/2003 08:11:00 PM by Patrick
THE DOG TRAINER RESPONDS, SORT OF -- REDUX: Apropos my post recounting my inquiry to the Los Angeles Dog Trainer regarding the Davis/Arnold double standard: I have received another (I assume final) response. Reader Representative Jamie Gold says:

I'll put it this way, no one involved with the then-investigations has given the reason Stewart gave for why the investigation didn't end up in the paper. People here now who investigated it then said just what I told you. Standards on that front haven't changed -- if it's rumor and nothing that is substantiated enough to run, then it doesn't run.

I'll forward your point to John Carroll that you think the paper should address her allegations head-on.

For completeness' sake, I'll add that I have received information regarding people who worked on the story, who are now with another publication. I e-mailed both of these fellows on Sunday (October 5) with the same question. No response.

I am guessing this is the end of the line. If anyone thinks John Carroll is going to address this issue, raise your hand.

I see no hands.

Posted 10/09/2003 06:58:00 PM by Patrick
HUGH HEWITT CONFUSES ME AGAIN: I don't understand how Hugh Hewitt can campaign for Weintraub's independence, and still say: "I find it both amazing and repugnant that Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll permitted his columnist Steve Lopez to describe Arnold as 'Der Gropenfuhrer.'"

Either you're for independence or you're not. It shouldn't matter whether the particular manifestation of the independence agrees with your politics.

UPDATE: A reader tells me I'm wrong, arguing that the term Gropenfuhrer "seems way over the top, near that area of the law we call slander."

I agree that it's way over the top. I emphatically disagree that it is anywhere near slander.

Let's say that a regular columnist for a newspaper is reacting to the proposal by Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante to put price controls on the price of gasoline. The columnist makes reference to "Commissar Cruz" and his "Five-Year Plan" to lower energy prices. You're the editor. Liberals might scream that the comparison to Stalin, who murdered more people than Hitler, is "way over the top." But it's clearly not slanderous, and this is your regular columnist. Do you prevent him from printing this??

Of course not. If you did, there would be a justifiable outcry.

That's my point.

Posted 10/09/2003 06:29:00 PM by Patrick
WILLIE BROWN??????: According to Weintraub, Arnold has named Willie Brown as part of his transition team. (Learned via The Angry Clam.)

Okay, Arnold Supporters. You have shown a remarkable ability to defend this guy on every issue. Defend that.

UPDATE: Sure enough, they're trying. A reader who voted for Arnold says that naming Brown is "a brilliant move. Do you think it will make the head of the Retaliacrats more or less likely to try to recall Arnold? It's all about respect, man."

I think three things. One: in two years, Brown's criticism of Arnold will be just as wild and unchecked as Ted Kennedy's rhetoric about Bush. Two: I want the Retaliacrats to try to recall Arnold, because it will kill their party in this state (though I understand why Arnold wouldn't want that.) Three: to paraphrase my friend The Angry Clam: Willie freakin' Brown??

But thank you for the use of the term Retaliacrats.

UPDATE x2: By contrast, Bryon Scott is speechless.

UPDATE x3: BoiFromTroy offers a defense here.

Posted 10/09/2003 05:57:00 PM by Patrick
ARNOLD AMENDMENT: Orrin Hatch is already proposing the Arnold Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I knew this was coming, but I didn't know it would be this soon.

Posted 10/09/2003 05:44:00 PM by Patrick
YOUR MERETRICIOUSNESS IS SURPASSED ONLY BY YOUR FATUITY: George Will whacks the Arnold supporters and uses a lot of big words in the process. Another fine example of why I really don't like George Will.

Posted 10/09/2003 05:43:00 PM by Patrick
THIS TIME, DEFINITELY: The Dog Trainer says that Arnold's first day was An Encouraging Start because he called the notorious State Sen. John Burton, and intends to get along with him.

Heh. I said the other day that this is all reminding me of when George Bush took office and pledged to "change the tone in Washington." He spent a lot of time trying to make nice with Senator Ted "Killer" Kennedy. That worked out real well. Just the other day, Kennedy showed how much the tone had changed with his comment that the justification for the Iraq war "was made up in Texas . . . This whole thing was a fraud."

Yeah, but it'll be different with Arnold.

Posted 10/09/2003 06:19:00 AM by Patrick
STEVE LOPEZ: YOU REALLY NEED TO READ STEVE LOPEZ: Apparently trying to earn his $300,000 a year, Dog Trainer ~~blatherer~~ columnist Steve Lopez is writing four columns this week, instead of his usual three. Clearly, this man feels it's very important that you know what he has to say.

How important? So important that you're going to hear his opinion whether you want to or not.

Today, Lopez says he may win $100 in some kind of election pool. (By the way, it's "quite a spectacle" to see Lopez "so delirious" over the possibility of winning $100, given that his annual salary is 3000 times that amount.) If Lopez wins the pool, he says he's buying copies of the Dog Trainer for the people who canceled their subscriptions because of the Arnold stinkbomb. Lopez recounts his daydream of his unwanted columns forced onto the front porches of the unwilling:

Every day, another one lands on their doorstep.

Day after day after day.

They voted, at least. Don't they deserve the best coverage available?

They sure do, Steve. They sure do.

That's why they canceled.

But why stop with free papers? With the kind of jack Lopez is pulling in, he could afford to hire some guys with bullhorns and place them on a dozen major intersections in the city, shouting Lopez's wisdom at confused passersby. Or Lopez could hire teams of skywriters to belch his thoughts across the firmament (somewhere behind the smog) -- every Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday.

Steve Lopez has something to say. And you are going to listen.

Posted 10/08/2003 10:47:00 PM by Patrick
A CARTOON IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS: See if you can guess why I find this cartoon so amusing.

Posted 10/08/2003 10:37:00 PM by Patrick
FUNNY STUFF: Howard Dean said the recall wasn't a statement against Democrats, but against an incumbent paying the price for George Bush's policies. Xrlq has uncovered proof that Dean wasn't just spinning.

Posted 10/08/2003 08:27:00 PM by Patrick
THE DOG TRAINER RESPONDS, SORT OF: As I mentioned the other day, I wrote the Los Angeles Dog Trainer's "Reader Representative" (Jamie Gold) to ask why the paper apparently found anonymous sources to be a sufficient basis for the Arnold stinkbomb, but not for the story that Gray Davis has physically abused government workers, including women.

In my e-mail, I had specifically noted:

Jill Stewart has said that the reason the Times never ran the story about Gray Davis throwing ashtrays, shaking workers, and screaming the f-word is because the paper didn't want to run a story against a major political figure based on anonymous sources. That rationale would appear to have applied to the Arnold hit piece on Thursday as well.

I asked whether the standards had changed, and why they hadn't run the Davis piece if it was indeed based on similar sourcing as the allegations against Arnold.

I heard back from Ms. Gold today. She politely apologized for taking so long to respond, explaining that she has been very busy. She then gave this "answer" to my question:

The Times did have reporters more than once look into these allegations. However, articles are published only when editors and reporters find the facts verifiable and the story credible. In this case, they didn't.

That's it! That's the entire justification!

Here is my response:

Thank you for getting back to me. I understand that you are probably swamped nowadays with inquiries and complaints from people furious about the Arnold hit piece.

However, the "answer" you gave me was a non-answer. Jill Stewart has said that she was told that the Davis story was spiked because the paper would not print a piece with negative information against a major political figure using anonymous sources. I pointed out that, if she's right, the paper seems to have changed its standards. If you have actually read her story, you know that the allegations, while made by anonymous sources, were corroborated in many respects by numerous witnesses.

Is Jill Stewart wrong? Have the specific standards changed since 1997? If not, what specific standards apply, and how were they met by the Arnold story but not the Davis story?

Your paper would benefit by getting this all out in the open. People across the country have raised questions about the apparent double standard. While John Carroll has defended the timing and the content, nobody has explained with any specificity why these particular serious allegations -- which would no doubt shock many voters -- were not reported, while the ones against Arnold were.

It does not address readers' suspicions simply to assert that the Arnold allegations were verifiable and credible, and the Davis ones were not -- without explaining what the specific standards were, and how they were met by the one situation and not the other.

The election is over, but unless this issue is addressed head-on, it will never be entirely forgotten by those who suspect the L.A. Times of a double standard. I think it would serve not only your readers, but also your newspaper, for Mr. Carroll to publicly address the specifics of why the Times has never printed the Davis abuse allegations.

As always, I'll let you know if I hear anything.

Posted 10/08/2003 06:48:00 AM by Patrick
RECALLING ARNOLD: I have heard a lot of talk from the Retaliacrats™ about how they are going to recall Arnold. I certainly hope such talk continues.

Try something that stupid and Bush just might win California.

UPDATE: The Interocitor says he's so excited about the idea, he'll sign the petition!

Posted 10/08/2003 06:47:00 AM by Patrick
A SILVER LINING, AND THERE ISN'T EVEN A DARK CLOUD: I was heartened to see this line at the end of Peter King's column today: This is Peter H. King's final column on the recall election.

Posted 10/08/2003 06:37:00 AM by Patrick
ARNOLD'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH: Interesting. He praised his wife first -- for all the votes she got him.

His line about ending politics as usual in Sacramento reminded one of Bush's pledge to change the tone in Washington. In both cases, if you listened closely, you could hear the faint but distinct sound of knives being sharpened.

Posted 10/08/2003 06:16:00 AM by Patrick
PATTERICO VINDICATED ON DO NOT CALL DECISION (warning: non-recall related post follows): Vindication is sweet when it comes, but it comes all too seldom. So perhaps Patterico can be excused for taking some satisfaction in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals's order issued yesterday, allowing (for now) the Do Not Call list to be implemented.

When I critiqued the District Court's decision in this post on October 1, I argued that the District Court should have given more weight to three factors which distinguish this case from the principal case upon which the court relied. Yesterday, the Tenth Circuit has cited each of these three factors in its decision to reverse the injunction. (All emphasis mine.)

First, I argued that telephone calls "invade people's homes." The Tenth Circuit said: "The prevention of intrusions upon privacy in the home is another paradigmatic governmental interest," and noted that this interest applies with special force when determining whether government regulation of solicitation is appropriate.

Second, I noted that "the Do Not Call list is an opt-in provision." The Tenth Circuit said: "We find it relevant that the national do-not-call list is of an opt-in nature, which provides an element of private choice and thus weighs in favor of a reasonable fit." (Order at p. 22.)

Third, I argued that "the Do Not Call list goes a long way towards accomplishing the government's objective." The Tenth Circuit said: "Finally, this is not a regulatory scheme that will affect only a 'minute' portion of the problematic speech because the great majority of all telemarketing calls -- and therefore the preponderant source of the problem of invasion of privacy and abusive calls -- are commercial calls which are covered by the FTC's rule. See Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 418."

The Court also emphasized another factor that had troubled me, but that the opinion really gave me no substantial basis to question. The FTC had advanced arguments as to why commercial telemarketing calls were more intrusive than non-commercial ones. I was bothered by the District Court's rather glib rejection of these arguments, but ultimately felt that I had to accept the court's representation that there was no evidence supporting the arguments. The Tenth Circuit (which had access to portions of the record which I had not seen) unearthed evidence that did, in fact, support the FTC's position. Without access to that evidence, I cannot blame myself for missing the issue, and I am still declaring this a rare across-the-board vindication. Sweet.

Posted 10/07/2003 10:19:00 PM by Patrick
CALBLOG "BEAR FLAG" GROUP BLOG: It's not too late to get a nice cross-section of Bear Flagger opinion on the recall over at Calblog, which has been hosting a Bear Flag group blog all day.

Posted 10/07/2003 10:08:00 PM by Patrick
ARNOLD'S MANDATE: As we wave bye-bye to the Closet Wacko, let us keep fully in mind his claim that this recall was "an insult to the 8 million people who went to the polls last November and decided I should be governor." As many have pointed out, the suggestion that 8 million people voted for Davis is not true; only about 3.5 million (47% of 7.5 million) did.

As the numbers come in, the interesting calculation will be how many Californians voted for Arnold. It looks like he got a much larger percentage -- a majority, in fact -- of a much larger turnout. We don't know the exact numbers yet. The only thing we know for sure now is that it was a lot more than Davis got in November.

P.S. In fact, there were also a lot more votes for Arnold than there were against the recall -- so Democrats can't even use the canard that Davis got more votes than the new Governor.

So much for the Terry McAuliffe "stealing elections" nonsense.

UPDATE: The morning after the election, the Secretary of State's election returns are showing a less decisive plurality for Arnold. He is still outpolling "no on recall" votes, and still looks on track to pull in more votes than Davis did in November.

Posted 10/07/2003 09:59:00 PM by Patrick
RETALIACRATS ON T.V. RIGHT NOW: Gray Davis is giving his victory speech, and the Retaliacrats in the audience are booing Arnold (interesting -- some boos you can actually hear, unlike these) and chanting for a recall.

This election result is feeling better and better with every passing minute.

More joy to come as the blatherers from the Dog Trainer start whining about the petulance of the electorate, Peter Jennings style.

The next few days are gonna be fun.

Posted 10/07/2003 09:52:00 PM by Patrick
GRAY FINALLY GETS SOME GOOD NEWS: If you click on just one link from this blog today, click on this one.

Posted 10/07/2003 09:42:00 PM by Patrick
KAUS: Voted for Arnold.

Posted 10/07/2003 09:40:00 PM by Patrick
SORRY: Sorry I wasted your time on how the ACLU might proceed on a request for an injunction against the election results. That issue is dead. ACLU lawyers can pack their bags and go home. They can never prove any alleged problems would make a difference.

To me, the only interesting issue left in this election is: who came in sixth?

UPDATE: The results are here. Peter Ueberroth was sixth. Mary Carey and Larry Flynt both outpolled Bill Simon.

Posted 10/07/2003 08:02:00 PM by Patrick
BREAKING OLDS: Well, it's hardly "news" (except perhaps to the Los Angeles Dog Trainer) when repeated and decisive poll results are validated. . . Anyway, Fox News has called the election for the recall and for Arnold.

Posted 10/07/2003 07:59:00 PM by Patrick
"DUF" DUFFS COMMENT ON WILLIE BROWN: I am tired of watching people who should know better, saying things that are just wrong. I just watched California GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim on Fox News, claiming that Willie Brown has said that a recall of Arnold would be "totally unjustified."

Totally wrong, Duf! As I pointed out in a post in which I renamed Democrats "Retaliacrats," Brown all but pledged to start a recall of any Republican elected to replace Davis. People need to know this, because it says so much about the Retaliacrat Party.

Posted 10/07/2003 07:49:00 PM by Patrick
LANDSLIDE: Drudge is predicting a landslide for recall and for the Gropinator. I am off to watch Fox News declare the election.

Posted 10/07/2003 07:07:00 AM by Patrick
WHO ARE THE REAL "SENIOR DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS"?: Bill Bradley of the L.A. Weekly has become a must-read on the recall, and his latest column is no exception. (Hat tip: fresh potatoes.) Bradley reports:

Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday’s L.A. Times exposé on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story’s publication, the Weekly has learned from well-informed sources. This knowledge came not only in advance of publication but also before anyone outside a close circle at the Times knew of the story’s timing and particulars.

While the Times insists that its reporting uncovered the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Schwarzenegger, there can be no doubt that advance knowledge of the story was very helpful to Governor Gray Davis' efforts to retain his office in the recall election.

Bradley says that "senior Democratic strategists" knew what only a close circle of Dog Trainer reporters and editors knew. Isn't this redundant? After all, the Dog Trainer reporters and editors have essentially been acting as "senior Democratic strategists" themselves.

For example, how would "senior Democratic strategists" cover an Arnold rally? They would ignore the rally, and emphasize the protesters, right? We all remember that, the other day, the Dog Trainer claimed that a woman making rape charges had "upstaged" Arnold at one of his rallies -- a claim debunked by nonpartisan reporter Dan Weintraub on Hugh Hewitt's show.

Well, Bradley says the Dog Trainer is at it again. Bradley notes that the Dog Trainer yesterday claimed (in a story filled with obvious Davis flacking, including untruths about the polls and misquotations of Arnold): "Protesters nearly drowned out the early part of Schwarzenegger's nine-minute speech with a steady chorus of boos." Bradley says: "Viewing from the press riser with most of the rest of the press corps, I didn't hear the protesters. They certainly didn't drown out Schwarzenegger."

Yup, it's becoming clearer every day that the real "senior Democratic strategists" in this state are the editors at the Los Angeles Dog Trainer.

Posted 10/07/2003 06:55:00 AM by Patrick
IN TODAY'S WSJ: Brendan Miniter tries to reassure me that my vote for McClintock was a good thing. He says that, if Arnold wins, people will still look to the McClintock percentages in determining where the electorate stands.

On Calblog, Xrlq echoes the sentiment: "As long as the recall passes and McClintock and Schwarzenegger's combined vote adds up to 50% or more, there will be a huge mandate for change, and the Legislature will know it."

Posted 10/07/2003 06:49:00 AM by Patrick
RECALL MADNESS: Today's Recall Madness column is called It's time to play the dating game:

Bachelor No. 2 is a pencil-necked New York transplant who has enough hairspray in his freakishly immovable hairdo to destroy the ozone layer. His hobbies include raising taxes, throwing ashtrays at subordinates and selling legislation to the highest bidder on Ebay. Meet Alleged Gov. Gray Davis.

Read it all.

An interesting postscript: our very own Bear Flagger PrestoPundit.com receives a mention in the column credits as a "senior adviser."

Posted 10/06/2003 06:15:00 PM by Patrick
STEVE LOPEZ LAUGHS AT YOUR $140 SAVINGS: I never thought I would have a better insight into poor people than does liberal recall-opposer and Arnold-basher Steve Lopez of the Dog Trainer. But Lopez has proved that he doesn't have a clue, in his column titled Arnold Flexes a Revolution Among the Suffering 'Haves'. After noting that the average Joe supports Arnold because he feels ripped off by state government, Lopez starts in with the nonsense:

But on the road with Arnold's California Comeback Express, I noticed something at the rallies in Costa Mesa, San Diego and Arcadia.

The revolutionaries don't seem to be suffering as much as you'd expect, given their zeal for storming the walls. They dress reasonably well (particularly in San Diego), they drive cars the size of PT boats, and they struggle when I ask what exactly is missing in their lives.

"I guess taxes are too high," a retiree told me in Costa Mesa.

Now, this all could be considered fair comment as applied to the people at the rallies. But Lopez acts as though the people at the rallies are representative of the plurality of Californians who still (to Lopez's chagrin) support Arnold, despite the best efforts of Lopez's paper to derail Arnold's campaign.

Memo to Lopez: the people who are really excited about keeping their car taxes low are working, and don't have time to attend political rallies -- much less cover them for a newspaper and make smart-ass comments.

Lopez continues:

The hike in the annual car tax puts it among the highest in the nation. But on the average car, we're talking about a jump from $70 to $210. Not exactly chump change, but it's quite a spectacle to see people delirious over a savings of $140, especially when it will mean $4 billion in cuts that Schwarzenegger has yet to explain.

Understand clearly: this is coming from a guy whom the L.A. Examiner has described as "a guy paid $300,000 a year to write three columns a week."

Yeah, I guess it is a little difficult to understand someone being happy about the prospect of saving a measly $140 -- especially when you pull in three hundred large a year. Jeez, $140 won't even get you a decent bottle of wine at Spago.

Of course, for many poor people it could mean the difference between having enough money to put down a security deposit on an apartment, and continuing to have to live in an overpriced motel room. It could mean the difference between a nutritious diet and an unhealthy one -- for weeks. It could mean a decent Christmas for the kids instead of the crap one you figured you'd have to settle for.

But don't try to explain that to $300,000 per year columnist Steve Lopez. He just thinks it's all a hoot.

Posted 10/06/2003 06:00:00 PM by Patrick
THE KAUSSTER GETS OFF A NICE LINE: Mickey Kaus notes here that there is no substance to the Dog Trainer's repeated assertions that there has been some major turning point in the polls on the recall. Kaus explains why the polls say nothing meaningful, and concludes with this zinger: "The Davis campaign has grasped at this thin lifeline and, gee, the L.A. Times has too!"

Posted 10/06/2003 05:54:00 PM by Patrick
UPDATE TO POST FROM SUNDAY: I have updated my post below on the Dog Trainer scandal, with information from the L.A. Weekly story about Davis connections to the Arnold groping stinkbomb. The story is from Saturday, but I didn't hear it until today. I have shown the update by including it in brackets. It fits right into the analysis, as you will see.

Posted 10/06/2003 05:33:00 PM by Patrick
GRAY DAVIS: IMMIGRANTS ARE IMPORTANT TO HAVE AROUND, TO CLEAN UP AFTER US WHITE GUYS: fresh potatoes has a nice point here about the recent Dog Trainer story titled Davis Is Battling Image of Aloofness. In that story, Gray Davis is quoted as saying that illegal immigrants are indispensable to California's economy. Davis then made the following observation:

We need immigrants to pick our food and put it on our tables. We need immigrants to clean our hotels and office buildings and take care of the elderly. That work is important. Whether people are janitors or maids or busboys or cooks, it's all part of the experience we enjoy when we're at a restaurant or a hotel.

When I looked at this story the other day, I was composing a post about how outrageous it was that the Dog Trainer was portraying Davis as calm and aloof, when it had evidence that he is a closet whacko. Focused on that issue, I skipped right over this arrogant quote -- perhaps because the Dog Trainer had not mentioned the arrogance of the statement in the headline, as it would with a Republican. So I completely missed this quote until I read fresh potatoes, who observes:

Heaven forbid that the Democrats offer Latinos a positive vision of hope, opportunity, and upward mobility. Heaven forbid that the Democrats recognize that not all Latinos are poor, undocumented illegal immigrants, and that many Latinos are third, fourth, or fifth generation Californians and are doctors, lawyers, and business owners. The Democrats, or at least this Governor, apparently only likes Latinos when they know their place.

Nicely put.

P.S.: I find it interesting that the Dog Trainer faults Davis for one thing and one thing only: saying this to the wrong audience. "The audience was Latino," and by making these comments, the story says, Davis "seemed to forget his audience." Dog Trainer reporters know: if you're going to say something indefensible, try to pick an audience that will agree with you.

Posted 10/06/2003 07:33:00 AM by Patrick
MEDIA ETHICS ON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: The following letter appears in this morning's Dog Trainer (scroll to the bottom letter at this link):

With all the money spent for this "waste of time" recall we could have put this state back in order. When the people get to the polls Tuesday, they will realize that the right man for the job has it already. This "circus parade" must come to an end, and California should get back on track.

Arturo Aguilar

Panorama City

I don't print this for the purpose of showing that people write dumb letters to the editor; you know that already. Rather, I want to bring up an issue that I have discussed before (see the end of this post, for example): newspapers should not print letters with factual assertions the paper knows to be untrue.

No matter whom you ask, this recall election will cost considerably less than $100 million. No matter whom you ask, the budget deficit in this state runs several billion dollars. I know the phrase "put this state back in order" is vague, but the clear implication is that we could take care of our fiscal problems if we just had the money we spent on the election. The Dog Trainer editors know this isn't true, but they print the letter anyway.

By the way, the paper is on record as opposing the recall. Coincidence? You make the call.

Posted 10/06/2003 06:49:00 AM by Patrick
KAUS CATCHES UP TO PATTERICO: Mickey Kaus observes today:

I was so wrong to suggest, below, that by dribbling out the stories of Schwarzengroping victims in twos and threes the Los Angeles Times would "lessen their impact." In fact, the daily announcement of new victims has kept the story alive, forced Schwarzenegger to keep responding (and tempted him to waver from his appealing apology strategy), given his opponents new excuses to ratchet up their criticisms, and given the press a convenient "mounting" body count to keep updating and new rounds of self-fulfillling "process" stories recounting how Arnold has lost another day of campaigning.

I agree, but I think Mickey is a little late to this observation. I told you Friday: "It's now clear that the only reason the editors didn't wait to publish this on Sunday is because they wanted several days of follow-up stories on the Arnold stinkbomb."

Posted 10/06/2003 06:45:00 AM by Patrick
THE GROPE COUNT: Stands at 15.

UPDATE: Make that 16.

UPDATE x2: Well, maybe 15. According to Xrlq, a hairdresser has come forth to say that he took the photos that #16 had claimed were taken by Arnold. Also, #16 apparently has a little rap sheet.

Go to Xrlq's site and look at the picture of the woman -- another thing that seems to make this case a fit subject for the song "One of These Things Is Not Like the Others."

UPDATE x3: Maybe she doesn't have a rap sheet, after all. Her lawyer says no. I have no idea any more and, further, I don't care.

Posted 10/06/2003 06:44:00 AM by Patrick
DAVIS PHYSICAL ABUSE OF EMPLOYEES STORY PICKS UP A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION: With a mention from Weintraub.

Posted 10/06/2003 06:41:00 AM by Patrick
HEWITT VS. DOG TRAINER: Hugh Hewitt calls the election a referendum on the Los Angeles Times. I would have preferred that he call it a "referendum on the Los Angeles Dog Trainer," but otherwise it's a pretty good piece.

(Hat tip: Calblog.)

Posted 10/06/2003 06:07:00 AM by Patrick
THE GRAY DAVIS ASHTRAY STORY IN THE DOG TRAINER?? SORT OF: The Dog Trainer has finally printed something about the "Gray Davis hurling an ashtray" story. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, see this post for all the details.) To my knowledge, this is the first time that this story has even been hinted at in the pages of the Dog Trainer. Wow -- a detailed expose of the allegations that Gray Davis physically abused women employees?? Nah, don't get too excited. As Kaus points out, it's in Roy Rivenburg's humor column:

Demonstrating a firm grasp of legal matters, the California Women's Law Center asks the L.A. County district attorney to conduct a criminal probe into the groping accusations against Schwarzenegger. The D.A. informs center officials that such investigations are handled by police and that misdemeanors are prosecuted by city attorneys. Moreover, the statute of limitations has run out in every instance cited in news reports. When center officials are asked if they also urged the D.A. to investigate a 1997 New Times report that Davis allegedly hurled an ashtray at a female staffer, they said, "Of course not. He's a Democrat."

It's funny 'cause it's true. Read the whole thing -- it's all pretty good.

It takes only a slight tweaking of Rivenburg's language to explain the Dog Trainer's history of refusing to cover this story. Here is Patterico's version:

When Dog Trainer editors were asked if they will run a news story relating to allegations in a 1997 New Times report that Davis hurled an ashtray at a female staffer, they said, "Of course not. He's a Democrat."

On a more serious note, I have asked this question. Last night I sent an e-mail to the folks at the Dog Trainer asking them why they have never run this story, and the other allegations of physical abuse by Davis. I'll let you know what they say.

Posted 10/05/2003 05:48:00 PM by Patrick
LOOKING AHEAD: If Gray barely pulls this out (a very unlikely scenario), raise your hand if you think the ACLU will file suit to contest the election.

Second question: if Arnold barely pulls it out (a more likely scenario), how long before the ACLU requests a stay of Arnold's taking office due to Voting Rights Act violations?

And when they do, will the request go to Judge Wilson? To the three-judge panel that issued the bogus decision delaying the election? I need an expert in federal appellate procedure to answer these questions. E-mail me at the link to the left.

UPDATE: I may have figured this out myself, with help from Larry Solum. This post of his says that "power over the case has been returned to the United States District Court" -- meaning Judge Wilson. Since I have never heard that the case filed by the ACLU was dismissed, presumably no new lawsuit would have to be filed. The ACLU would then follow the same procedure they following the first time: seek an injunction from Judge Wilson, and (if denied) go back to the Court of Appeals.

I still have a variant of the same question I had before: if it goes up on appeal, does it go to 1) the original three-judge panel, 2) the en banc court, or 3) a new, randomly selected three-judge panel? My guess is option #1 -- which could set us up for the Circus all over again. But if anyone disagrees and can explain why, I would appreciate an e-mail.

Posted 10/05/2003 05:44:00 PM by Patrick
LOVE CHILD SCANDAL: One more day, one more smear job. Now it's the National Enquirer with a love child scandal.

This reminds me of listening to this yahoo Ken Minyard on our local radio station KABC, talking about how there was a conspiracy among the tabloids to be nice to Arnold. This same guy Minyard also claimed that he had done the research and couldn't find any evidence that Cruz Bustamante was ever a member of MEChA. Wrong again, Ken!

Posted 10/05/2003 09:24:00 AM by Patrick
AN INADEQUATE RESPONSE BY THE DOG TRAINER: The Los Angeles Dog Trainer today purports to answer questions about the Arnold stinkbomb, in a story titled Readers Angry at The Times for Schwarzenegger Stories. Not surprisingly, the story doesn't really answer the relevant questions.

Most important, it doesn't answer the question about why the paper has (apparently) never gone forward with an investigation of allegations that Gray Davis hurled phones and ashtrays at quaking government employees, and personally shoved and shook workers "until their teeth rattled" -- all while screaming the f-word repeatedly. I have mentioned this story numerous times, first on August 11, then again here, in great detail here, and most recently here. Jill Stewart, who dug up the allegations, discusses them again today, and the San Francisco Chronicle has at least reported that the Arnold campaign has raised the issue. But as far as I know, no hint of this very serious controversy has ever made it onto the pages of the Dog Trainer.

Dog Trainer editor John Carroll says that the Dog Trainer has run several negative stories about Gray Davis, and he's right. But the topics covered by these stories don't surprise anyone. Is anyone surprised by Gray Davis's fund-raising peccadilloes? by his use of attack advertising? Of course not. But there are plenty of people who might be surprised by -- and have their vote swayed by -- evidence that our tightly wound and coiffed Governor is a raging lunatic behind closed doors.

But the folks at the Dog Trainer have not only refused (apparently) to take the first step towards investigating such allegations -- they have actively sought to portray the opposite image of Davis as a guy with a "calm demeanor." I complained bitterly about this on August 11. But it's still going on. Today, the Dog Trainer's front page has a story titled Davis Is Battling Image of Aloofness.

It sounds like we should instead be reading a story titled "Davis Is Battling Allegations of Physical Abuse of Workers." If I'm wrong about this, John Carroll should explain why.

Second, the story doesn't really address the issues of where this all came from. It purports to, with the following language (emphasis by Patterico):

Carroll said the reporters had, for the most part, made "cold calls" to people in the film industry after hearing that Schwarzenegger had a reputation for mistreating women. For instance, he said, they had called women listed in the credits of movies starring Schwarzenegger.

"None of these women came to us; none of these women was suggested to us by anyone connected to any of the campaigns as far as we know," he said.

As I have pointed out, that's the problem: you don't know for sure. If the story had been built entirely on cold calls, the situation would be different -- but Carroll says only that reporters did that "for the most part." It's the other part that many of us are worried about. [UPDATE ADDED IN CONTEXT: For example, L.A. Weekly reports that one of the women did in fact come forward at the behest of a woman with deep ties to Davis and the Democrats -- but who was described by the Dog Trainer simply as a peace activist and "co-founder of the women’s peace group Code Pink." When asked why the paper had not mentioned that she is also "a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland," Dog Trainer columnist George Skelton told the L.A. Weekly reporter: "Maybe the reporters and editors just didn't know." Are you starting to get it, John Carroll?]

Finally, the timing of this will never be above suspicion. I have argued that the editors selected their own internal deadline, and therefore should have selected one that wasn't less than a week before the election. There is a pattern here, as I have mentioned before. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. It's not just Arnold -- it's Arnold, and Bush, and Michael Huffington, and Issa, and Herschensohn.

In light of this history, the timing was sickeningly predictable. Mickey Kaus called it to the day. And Jill Stewart, noting that the hit piece was dumped on readers the Thursday before the election, says:

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

The intent to influence the election seems clear. What will be ironic is if this election ends up tightening to the point where the race is decided in favor of recall and Arnold, by absentee ballots -- ballots cast before Thursday's hit job, by voters unaware of the allegations.

I am sure that the folks at the Dog Trainer feel beleaguered. The public is killing the messenger, they no doubt think. To the extent that the public is complaining about the content of the story, the paper's complaints are justified. The Arnold hit piece addressed a legitimate topic. The paper did a thorough job. The allegations are credible.

But the serious questions I discuss above remain unanswered. And, most important, this is not an isolated incident. I have documented the biases of the Dog Trainer on these pages for the better part of a year. I have been noting them to friends for a decade. This history is coming home to roost. And I don't feel sorry for the people there -- not one bit.

Posted 10/05/2003 08:33:00 AM by Patrick
THE GROPE COUNT: Is now at 15, with 10 of the women revealing their names.

Posted 10/05/2003 12:07:00 AM by Patrick
TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY THINK DEPT.: Ben at Infinite Monkeys, a McClintock supporter (like me), sounds a little resentful over the recent Arnold revelations. He issues the following challenge to Arnold supporters:

Will Schwarzenegger betray Republicans if, in fact, the recall prevails and he wins a plurality of the vote this Tuesday? Sure he will. . . . When the betrayal comes, and it will, some of us aren't going to let you miserable SOBs forget it. You put your faith in this man. You made the case, which came down to nothing more than "he can win." Fine. You knew the risks. You're going to suck it up. All of it. And you don't get to leave the table until you finish every last morsel of crow.

As some (idiots) said of the Rodney King rioters: I don't condone this, but I understand the rage.

Posted 10/04/2003 11:58:00 PM by Patrick
MY BUTTON SAYS "ME NEITHER": Weintraub reports the Schwarzenegger campaign's complaint that the Dog Trainer "gave the campaign only minutes to respond to the specific charges Friday night, and thus didn't carry any reaction from the candidate in the first edition."

Nice. Weintraub also says he owns a

large white political button with black writing that reads: "I don't believe the Los Angeles Times."

Note to Weintraub: I will pay big bucks for that button!

Posted 10/04/2003 11:14:00 PM by Patrick
JILL STEWART ON GRAY DAVIS: Jill Stewart is going on record again with her story about Gray Davis's (alleged) physical abuse of women employees. I have mentioned this before several times (first on August 11, then again here, and in great detail here.) As I told you before, Stewart has said that the Dog Trainer would not run the story because the sources would not identify themselves. Here is Stewart:

When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of the gross bias within the paper. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis.

These are serious accusations. What does Times editor John Carroll have to say about this?? Is he hoping it will just blow over??

(Via PrestoPundit.)

UPDATE: The San Francisco Chronicle has gone public with the story:

Schwarzenegger supporters also raised issues about Davis' volatile temper, including an incident in which he allegedly threw an ashtray at a staff worker who later had to take a stress leave. Davis called the longtime employee and apologized on her answering machine, according to news reports of the incident.

Peter Ragone, spokesman for the governor, said comparing an incident in which Davis "may have thrown an ashtray to conduct Arnold Schwarzenegger already has admitted to shows their campaign is in a free fall."

Doesn't sound like much of a denial to me. Mr. Carroll??

UPDATE x2: Mickey Kaus helps pile on Carroll.

Posted 10/04/2003 10:29:00 PM by Patrick
DOWDIFICATION REARS ITS UGLY HEAD: As we all know by now, The New York Times recently took this quotation from Arnold Schwarzenegger about Hitler:

I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it.

and (by simply eliminating a few words) turned it into this:

I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it.

As I mentioned earlier today, this reminds one of Maureen Dowd and her invention of "Dowdification" -- the process of mangling quotations until they mean something entirely different than the original. The Times's Hitler story simply appropriated this invention from Dowd's columns on the op-ed page of the New York Times, and applied it to its news pages.

In honor of this event, I thought it might be appropriate to Dowdify the latest Dowd column. The Dowdified version has several startling revelations about the California recall election, including one that seems destined to sink the candidacy of Governor Gray Davis:

Gray . . . grabbed several . . . breasts . . . over the decades.

It sounds like our good Governor is no better than Arnold, according to a pundit no less respected than Maureen Dowd. No sooner had I gotten over the shock of that, than I read about Hillary Clinton apparently reaching reconciliation with Bill at a Davis rally, of all places:

At the Davis rally, Senator Clinton chose . . . the groper who was . . . her husband.

But the biggest revelation in Dowd's column was obviously this one -- a verdict by the respected Simon Wiesenthal Center against Arnold. I think this will clearly hurt Arnold's standing with Jewish voters:

It was no surprise . . . that [according to] the Simon Wiesenthal Center, "Schwarzenegger is obviously . . . Hitler.["]

The great Maureen Dowd, ladies and gentlemen!

Posted 10/04/2003 10:00:00 PM by Patrick
WHOOPS: Via Dave Barry comes this very comprehensive correction from the Washington Post:

A Sept. 21 item in the Metro in Brief column about a woman fatally shot in Prince George's County and a child who was wounded incorrectly reported the woman's age, the child's sex, the child's location at the time of the shooting, and the street on which the shooting occurred.

Dang. Sounds like the writer's byline is about the only thing the Post got right. That story sounds almost as bad as the New York Times's Arnold/Hitler story.

Posted 10/04/2003 08:29:00 PM by Patrick
FROM THE "OH, PLEASE" FILE: The California president of the NAACP, Alice Huffman, recently criticized Arnold in part for having a last name that sounds, in part, like a racial slur. (Via The Angry Clam.)

As reported here in the San Francisco Chronicle, Huffman accused Arnold of "having racist views that were shaped by his father's membership in the Nazi party." Huffman "told a group of attorneys Tuesday that Schwarzenegger's TV ads attacking campaign donations by Indian tribes are an example of racism." She added (in an apparent "joke") that the "last part of his name doesn't register well with me."

Huffman apparently didn't comment on how Cruz Bustamante's use of the n-word in front of 400 black people sat with her.

Incidentally, Huffman "was recently named by Gov. Gray Davis to the California State University Board of Trustees."

Posted 10/04/2003 08:14:00 PM by Patrick
PROFANITY ALERT: If you are offended by profanity, read no further.

I am honored to be third in a Google Search for "Gray Davis fuck-+the-fucking." (The person who found this blog using this search was interested in the Jill Stewart report I discussed here.)

I have never had so much profanity on my web site as when I started blogging on the unreported stories of Gray Davis and his (alleged) psychotic personality. In fact, the only time I have ever used the f-word on this site is when I have quoted (alleged comments made by) Gray Davis.

I guess I could bleep out these words, but why? My web site has already been filtered out at the school that my mom works at, ever since I started talking about Rick Santorum and his comments about bestiality and the like.

Posted 10/04/2003 07:54:00 PM by Patrick
YIKES: Dan Weintraub reports from a Schwarzenegger rally:

the emcee revving up the crowd for Schwarzenegger asked the audience to welcome the media to town. With one exception:

"Who’s the guy with the LA Times?" the host asked. "Find him and beat him up, will you?"

Wow. You know, even if I had never heard anything about an Arnold-Hitler connection, that kind of comment would get me thinking about the mob mentality and Nazi rallies. As much contempt as I have for the Dog Trainer, I am disturbed to hear this account.

Posted 10/04/2003 06:11:00 PM by Patrick
SAVE OUR LICENSE PETITION: The petition to overturn the ridiculous law allowing driver's licenses for illegal has arrived in the mail. I have signed it, and have also pledged to collect signatures.

Have you signed the petition yet? Click on the link above to get involved.

Posted 10/04/2003 03:56:00 PM by Patrick
CELEBRITIES GET AWAY WITH IT: Today's Dog Trainer reports that 11 women have now come forward to say that Arnold groped them. Perhaps more interesting is that 7 of them are no longer anonymous. Their allegations are corroborated by numerous people who say that the women have been saying this for years.

Reasonable people can debate whether this has anything to do with whether Arnold would be a good Governor. Under the circumstances of this election, reasonable people can vote for him, even knowing everything that has emerged regarding his groping tendencies. But reasonable people who have been following this would have to agree that the guy appears to have acted like a complete jerk for much of his life. The early indications of this (I linked to a couple of examples in this post) were right. It can't be fun to be his wife right now.

Many people who did what he did would have faced criminal charges. He has gotten away with it, no doubt, because he is wealthy and a big celebrity. Celebrities get away with things that other people don't. To take a trivial example, my wife and I got a phone message on our answering machine today from some woman opposing the recall. She sounded angry. I asked my wife why Democrats thought it was a good idea to have some woman haranguing people in an angry voice. My wife told me it was Barbra Streisand. All of a sudden it made sense. It's okay because she's famous.

I suspect that, in the end, Arnold will ride out this storm because he's famous. It's the same reason O.J. beat the rap. We are a celebrity-crazed society. I think it will be close, but I think the recall will happen and Arnold will win. Next stop: a constitutional amendment and the White House.

Meanwhile, my wife and I filled out our absentee ballots today. We followed our arrangement and voted our principles. I was tempted to vote for Arnold because I know the Dog Trainer doesn't want me to. But in the end, I think what they're reporting is largely true, and it wouldn't change my vote anyway. I have, as they say, drunk the Kool-Aid. I voted for Tom.

Posted 10/04/2003 12:48:00 PM by Patrick
ONE WORD: WHOOPS!: It turns out that the Arnold-Hitler story is bogus. The critical part of the story -- that Arnold supposedly said he admired what Hitler did with his power -- is flatly wrong.

The story was based on quotations from a book proposal by George Butler, the producer of "Pumping Iron." The most troubling and explosive part of the proposal quoted Arnold as praising Hitler's speaking ability in the following way: "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

The New York Times, which was the first print media outlet to report this bogus story, now reports that a transcript (released by the Schwarzenegger campaign) shows that the relevant passage says the exact opposite:

I admired Hitler for instance because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it.

Whoops! That's a little different, isn't it?? The NYT reports:

Mr. Butler said he could not explain the inaccuracy. "I am amazed that something like that escaped me."

Whoops! I think I can explain the inaccuracy. My guess: someone gave the story to Maureen Dowd to check the quotations for accuracy.

Anyway, Schwarzenegger goes on in the transcript to say repeatedly that the Nazis misused their power. It's perfectly clear that he was never praising the evil of the Nazi regime.

To its credit, our local Dog Trainer adds an interesting detail that the NYT doesn't bother to pass along:

Butler's statement said his book proposal, which he eventually withdrew, "contained a prominent disclaimer" warning that the statements it quoted "should not be taken as fact until verified."

Whoops!

(There remains one detail that I find a little odd. According to the New York Times, the book proposal accurately described Arnold's imitating Hitler, as well as "clicking his heels and pretending to be an SS officer or playing Nazi marching songs at home." Now, I've imitated Hitler for laughs. So did Charlie Chaplin, John Cleese, and half the people you know. But I can't find a single Nazi marching song among my hundreds of CDs. I think that's a little strange. But not particularly significant, without more.)

LESSONS: The interesting question is: what does all of this tell us about how the media has handled this story?

It tells us that stories do need to be checked out carefully. The critics of the timing of the Arnold groping stinkbomb (including myself) should acknowledge that the Hitler story would have benefited from the sort of verification process that the Dog Trainer went through with the groping story.

It also tells us something that we should already know: we need to be very skeptical of these last-minute smear jobs. This particular one was reported by the New York Times, a paper that (at least before Jayson Blair) was considered by many to be a fairly reliable news source. But they got fooled on this one, big time.

And I think it tells us that it would be instructive to know who the political operatives are who are tipping people off to these stories (and here I include the Arnold groping story). Because with the Hitler, it's obvious that some political operative had the story and sat on it. Some might have initially thought that this was unimportant because the story relied on documentary proof (the book proposal) -- but that documentary proof turns out to have been seriously misleading. Does anyone think this was an accident?

If the papers won't identify the tipsters, because of the general journalistic practice of protecting sources, then they shouldn't tell us (as the Dog Trainer did with the groping story) that the story didn't originate with the rival candidates. This is especially true if the story may have originated with someone connected with the candidates. (And if even if the folks reporting the story believe that there is no connection to the candidates -- how do they know? Have they spent seven weeks researching that?) And when tipsters aren't identified, newspapers -- and the public -- should be especially skeptical. Because otherwise, as the Hitler story illustrates, the tipsters may be pulling the wool over our eyes.

UPDATE: Mickey Kaus notes that, since the transcript emanates from Butler (just like the book proposal did), even the correction is not necessarily true. Given that Butler's credibility is shot, perhaps we should wait for the actual tapes before making up our minds.

UPDATE TWO: The Boy from Troy says that he knows someone who has seen internal polling from the Davis camp from three weeks ago which contained this question: "If you knew that a gubernatorial candidate admired Hitler would that make you more or less likely to support him?" The Boy from Troy says: "Mr. Kaus, Miss Stewart, anyone at the LA Times...you have your marching orders: find and report on this poll by Monday."

I take it that the inclusion of the Dog Trainer in that list is tongue-in-cheek.

Posted 10/03/2003 10:14:00 PM by Patrick
THE DOG TRAINER DEFENDS ITSELF: John Carroll, the editor of the Dog Trainer, has defended the timing of the Arnold stinkbomb.

A few points seem in order. First, you may recall that John Carroll is the editor who issued an internal memo criticizing liberal bias that he had noticed in a front-page story about a Texas abortion law. In that memo, Carroll said: "we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times." I mentioned the memo in this post from May 29. I said at the time that he deserves some respect for saying this, and I still think so.

However, Carroll is not convincing here. He can advance allegedly legitimate reasons for delaying the story -- and he may even believe them -- but whatever the reasons were, they were not going to result in the story being published on October 8. This simple fact illustrates that the Dog Trainer editors had some control over the timing of the story. It appears that they had plenty of the evidence for weeks, but they set their own deadline -- and that self-imposed deadline was within a week of the election. That stinks.

What stinks worse than the timing is the fact that the sources are mostly anonymous. It's hard to disagree with Susan Estrogen (name slightly altered for comedic purposes), who says (to the Dog Trainer's credit, on the pages of the Dog Trainer):

What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.

What stinks even worse than the anonymous sources is the anonymous tipsters. Nobody, but nobody believes that the Dog Trainer reporters found these women entirely on their own -- nor does the story make that claim. The conclusion is irresistable that Democrat operatives (the name Bob Mulholland of the "real bullets" comment comes to mind) were behind this.

Sure, a newspaper often has anonymous sources -- but if Democrat operatives were behind any of this, then it was pretty misleading for the story to say: "The Times did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race." I have never read a more Clintonesque sentence. I am glad to know that Gray Davis did not personally call the Dog Trainer with this information, but I'd like to know who did, and what connection they have to Davis. (We do know that Davis operatives are at work prolonging the story -- but we have to read the L.A. Weekly to learn that.)

And what stinks worst of all is the fact that, as I have mentioned here before, Dog Trainer editors have long known of similarly sourced accusations against Gray Davis that were far worse, and ignored them. Where was the seven-week investigation of Gray Davis's personal life -- in this campaign or the last? Or the one before that?

So, as much respect as I may have for John Carroll, he's still got a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Posted 10/03/2003 09:34:00 PM by Patrick
GEE, I JUST CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT: Daniel Weintraub is so naive in this post, it almost seems like a parody of a ridiculously gullible individual. Discussing an Indian-sponsored ad for Prop. 53, Weintraub says:

The 30-second ad includes a 3-second segment picturing Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and noting that he is among those who endorsed the measure, after chairing a state infrastructure commission. Bizarre. The ad appears to be a genuine effort to help the initiative, which polls say is dead in the water, rather than just a sneaky maneuver to help Cruz's run for governor. Besides, if the intent was to help Cruz, the Indians needn't be stealth about it, since they already have kicked in a couple of mil on his behalf. But why spend that kind of money on a ballot measure that's so far behind in the polls? Do they know something we don't about the late turnout in this race, and how it might be influenced on an issue that so far has been lost in the shuffle?

What are you smoking, Dan? Of course this is a veiled attempt to help Cruz!

Let's review: the proposition is in no danger of passing. The ad has a gratuitous shot of someone who was "among the sponsors" of the proposition -- and just happens to be a gubernatorial candidate whom the Indians support. But they can't openly finance his campaign now, because a judge has ruled their contributions illegal. So why would they run the commercials??

Nope, I can't figure it out either.

What is "bizarre" is that Weintraub sets forth virtually all of the reasoning underlying the obvious conclusion that this is an illegal ad meant to benefit Cruz -- and then credulously and inexplicably asserts that the ad is a "genuine effort to help the initiative" rather than a "sneaky maneuver."

Now that's something I really can't figure out.

Posted 10/03/2003 06:42:00 AM by Patrick
EXCLUSIVE: L.A. TIMES STAFFER CRITICIZES ONE-SIDED NATURE OF COLUMNISTS' VIEWS: Roy Rivenburg, who writes the "Recall Madness" column for the Los Angeles Dog Trainer (known by some as the Los Angeles Times), passed along this observation in an e-mail to me:

I wish my paper had a pro-recall columnist or two to balance out the predictable Lopez/King/Morrison/Skelton blather. This is a point that laobserved.com made more cogently, but I absolutely agree with him. I think the best coverage of the recall has come from Dan Weintraub's blog at sacbee.com. . . . I wish he were helping to direct our coverage.

(Emphasis mine.) One wonders how many other good people working for this paper feel similarly, but don't have Rivenburg's courage to say so publicly. (I asked Rivenburg if I could quote him, and he said yes.)

The L.A. Observed comment to which Rivenburg refers is this comment from September 9:

The L.A. Times' columnist lineup on the recall, meanwhile, looks more like a glaring mistake every day. They each got the gig because of their style or expertise and not their views, but the more they write the clearer it is they inhabit a fairly narrow range of the political spectrum. King, Lopez, Morrison, Skelton and Hiltzik are all recall disbelievers with only nuances of difference in the details. It already feels way old. Wouldn't one or two of those voices suffice, especially if complemented with a newly vigorous exchange of ideas on the op-ed page? Unfortunately that's not happening either, yet.

(Emphasis mine.)

The unilateral opposition of Dog Trainer columnists to the recall contributes to the impression held by many: that the paper is a partisan organ that is simply shilling for Davis. Even for those who don't reach that cynical conclusion, it's still fair to ask: where's the balance?

P.S. It's only fair to note that Rivenburg (whose "Recall Madness" column runs here) has hinted at this criticism in his columns before. In his September 9 column, quoted in L.A. Observed, he noted the following summary of major themes propounded by the Dog Trainer political columnists:

Attack Schwarzenegger for not taking a position on the issues or, when he does take a position, attack that.

Tweak the Terminator for agreeing to just one candidate debate while conveniently not mentioning that Davis did the same thing when running against Bill Simon last November.

Criticize Schwarzenegger for having no political experience. Or, for a change of pace, criticize him for being just like every other politician.

If any reader of this newspaper spots an opinion column that breaks the pattern (i.e., the writer praises Schwarzenegger), be the first to e-mail us and you can choose a gift from our box of prizes.

Not bad. This paper needs more folks like Rivenburg.

Posted 10/03/2003 06:11:00 AM by Patrick
GREAT MINDS THINK (SOMEWHAT) ALIKE: Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA and First Amendment expert, has this analysis of the Do Not Call list decision. I am pleased to say that it agrees (at least in part) with my own analysis from the other day.

Volokh agrees that the key to the decision is the case of City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993). He agrees that, unlike Cincinnati's ban on newsracks, banning telemarketing phone calls takes care of a substantial fraction of the problem. He notes that this point, which the Discovery Network court repeatedly emphasized, doesn't completely square with the rest of the Discovery Network opinion (which I take as an implicit acknowledgement that it's a badly written opinion). I made all of these points in my own analysis.

If you are interested in this issue, read his post; it's short, clear, and interesting.

Meanwhile, the ever-unreliable Dahlia Lithwick gets it partially right (Discovery Network doesn't govern because of the factual distinctions) and partially really wrong (the case has something to do with the constitutional right to privacy -- SORRY! WRONG! Thanks for playing!)

Posted 10/03/2003 06:04:00 AM by Patrick
THE WAR IS OVER, WE LOST: The Bush Administration has refused to take a position on illegal aliens' obtaining U.S. driver's licenses. Outrageous -- but it just proves that the country as a whole has already lost the illegal immigration battle. We're just starting to learn it now.

Posted 10/03/2003 12:07:00 AM by Patrick
BREAKING NEWS: The chairwoman of Paramount Pictures has gone on record as saying that her company's movie sets are not breeding grounds for sexual harassment. This is according to a Dog Trainer story with the Fair and Balanced™ headline: Film Sets Loose, but Barbarian Behavior Rare, Insiders Say. According to this groundbreaking piece of journalism:

"Grabbing someone's boobs or pinching their ass is absolutely not the way people behave on a movie set," said Sherry Lansing, chairwoman of Paramount Pictures. "Women work alongside men and are treated with the utmost respect. Moviemaking is a very gender-blind business. No one tolerates that kind of behavior. And I'm not just saying that so I won't get sued."

Okay, so I made up the last sentence of that quote. I think the point is clear: this is what the Dog Trainer considers news?? It's now clear that the only reason the editors didn't wait to publish this on Sunday is because they wanted several days of follow-up stories on the Arnold stinkbomb.

Meanwhile, the Jill Stewart piece on Gray Davis's abuse of women, which I have been talking about all day, is still not news at the Dog Trainer. Mickey Kaus has issued the challenge:

I would think the Times now has a heavy obligation to check out Stewart's reports using the same sourcing standards it applied to Schwarzenegger. Plenty of time left!

Amen, brother. But, don't hold your breath.

Posted 10/02/2003 11:26:00 PM by Patrick
"RECALL MADNESS" WRITER RESPONDS: At the end of a very long post below is something I don't want you to miss: feedback from the writer who does the "Recall Madness" features for the Dog Trainer. He makes a couple of points -- one that is minor but fair, and another that misses the point a bit. In any event, I didn't want his feedback and my response to get lost in the shuffle, so I thought I'd mention it all in a new post.

Posted 10/02/2003 06:10:00 PM by Patrick
THE FULL POOP ON DAVIS'S (ALLEGED) ABUSE OF WOMEN: Longtime Patterico readers know that Patterico brings you the scoop. I have discussed the allegations of Gray Davis's abuse of women (as documented by Jill Stewart in New Times L.A.) on this site before, as recently as this morning and as far back as August 11. Because New Times was bought by an opposition newspaper, the article had unfortunately disappeared from the internet by the time I composed my posts. So, I had been able to provide only an unsatisfying link to a column that quotes only part of Stewart's article (an article that I personally read when it first appeared). Until now.

Mickey Kaus, no doubt starting from my blog (which reminded you of the Stewart article first thing this morning), found the same link I had found -- and then (while I was at work) found the whole article, which had been posted just today on some guy's blog site. I present the link here for your edification. Here are some interesting quotes (warning for the squeamish -- this excerpt contains profanity):

Davis's hurling of phones and ashtrays at quaking government employees and his numerous incidents of personally shoving and shaking horrified workers--usually while screaming the f-word "with more venom than Nixon" as one former staffer recently reminded me--bespeak a man who cannot be trusted with power.

. . . .

"I guess Gray's biggest lie," says his former staffer who notes he often flies into a rage, "is pretending that he operates within the bounds of normalcy, which is not true. This is not a normal person. I will never forget the day he physically attacked me, because even though I knew he had done it before to many others, you always want to assume that Gray would never do it to you or that he has finally gotten help."

On the day in question, in the mid-1990s, the staffer was explaining to Davis that his perpetual quest for an ever-larger campaign chest (an obsession she says led Davis to routinely break fundraising laws by using his government office resources and non-political employees to arrange fundraisers and identify new sources of money) had run into a snafu. A major funding source had dried up. Recalls the former staffer: "He just went into one of his rants of, 'Fuck the fucking fuck, fuck, fuck!'" I can still hear his screams ringing in my ears. When I stood up to insist that he not talk to me that way, he grabbed me by the shoulders and shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing! Think what you are doing to me!' And he just could not stop."

But by far the most interesting part of the article is Stewart's assertion that the Dog Trainer has long been aware of this evidence, but refused to print it. Read the following excerpts (with my favorite parts in bold) from Stewart's article, published in November 1997:

Long protected by editors at the Los Angeles Times--who have nixed every story Times reporters have ever tried to develop about Davis's storied history of physical violence, unhinged hysteria and gross profanity--the baby-faced, dual personality Davis has been allowed to hold high public office with impunity.

. . . .

Perhaps the worst incident--long known to Davis-adoring editors of the Los Angeles Times but never published by them--was Davis's attack four years ago on a loyal aide in Los Angeles who for years acted as chief apologist for his "incidents."

The woman refuses to discuss the assault on her with the media, but has relayed much of the story to me through a close friend. On the day in question, State Controller Davis was raging over an employee's rearranging of framed artwork on his Los Angeles office walls. He stormed, red-faced, out of his office and violently shoved the woman, who we shall call K., out of his way. According to employees who were present, K. ran out clutching her purse, suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized at Cedars Sinai for a severe nervous dermatological reaction, and never returned to work again.

According to one close friend, K. refused to sue Davis, despite the advice of several friends, after a prominent Los Angeles attorney told her that Davis would ruin her. According to one state official. K. was allowed to continue her work under Davis from her home "because she refused to work in Davis's presence."

(Checchi's campaign should get a copy of the tape recording Davis left on K.'s home telephone, in which he offers no apology to K. but simply requests that she return to work, saying, "You know how I am.")

This is why I was so outraged on August 11 when I noted that the Dog Trainer had discussed Davis's supposed "calm demeanor" -- without noting its possession of evidence that Davis's publicly calm persona is a front for a deeply disturbed, almost psychotic personality.

Posted 10/02/2003 06:09:00 PM by Patrick
C'MON . . . EVERYONE CALL IT THE DOG TRAINER: Use of Harry Shearer's term "Dog Trainer" for the L.A. Times appears to be catching on. Let's see if we can make this reference commonplace.

UPDATE: Another blogger, the irish lass, signs on. (See her comment here.) This movement is unstoppable.

Posted 10/02/2003 06:06:00 PM by Patrick
THE OTHER SHOE: Even before it was published, Mickey Kaus was describing the Dog Trainer smear job as "the shoe" that was about to drop. Well, Dan Weintraub, in a post cleared by his editors, reports that the other shoe is about to drop: outtakes from Pumping Iron where Arnold discusses his admiration for Hitler.

Posted 10/02/2003 06:53:00 AM by Patrick
INTERESTING TIMING: It was August 10 when Bob Mulholland -- California Democratic Party spokesman and the guy responsible for the last-minute hit piece on Bruce Herschensohn -- warned of "real bullets" soon to come Arnold's way. That was about seven weeks ago.

The Arnold hit piece in today's Dog Trainer (aka L.A. Times) has been in the works about seven weeks.

The Times says it "did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race." So who did tip them off?

HMMM: On second thought, Arnold had announced just 4 days before Mulholland made the statement. Maybe the timing isn't as significant as I had first thought. I still want to know who is behind the story.

UPDATE: So does Weintraub.

Posted 10/02/2003 06:24:00 AM by Patrick
WEASEL WATCH: The Dog Trainer's slime job on Arnold may create some interesting opportunities to see hypocrisy on display. I am particularly interested to see if Bill Clinton fans will turn purple with outrage over a guy who engaged in some groping.

While we're talking hypocrisy, somebody ask the folks at the Dog Trainer why it's fair game to run stories about Arnold's treatment of unidentified women -- but not similarly sourced stories about Gray Davis's physical abuse of his employees, including "hurling of phones and ashtrays at quaking government employees and his incidents of personally shoving and shaking horrified workers." Jill Stewart, a former Dog Trainer reporter, has not only written about this, but has said that the Times was aware of the stories and didn't run them because the sources would not identify themselves. Double standard? You make the call.

Posted 10/01/2003 10:35:00 PM by Patrick
BREAKING B.S. -- I MEAN NEWS: Nothing will get me on the pro-Arnold bandwagon faster than the Los Angeles Dog Trainer (aka Los Angeles Times) coming out with its incredibly predictable hit piece on Arnold. (A tip of the hat tip to fresh potatoes for breaking the news of this smear job.)

This pathetic rag of a newspaper does this every election. As a regular reader of this site informed me just today, they slammed Bruce Herschensohn with a last-minute hit piece having to do with his visit to a strip club. They hit Michael Huffington with a late-breaking story about his illegal nanny. They were quick to trumpet the last-minute Bush DUI story. George Will (predicting a last-minute smear job on Arnold) reminds us that Darrell Issa took a "late hit" regarding his military record. And now this -- a story the paper has been developing for seven weeks, and releases now.

How predictable is this? Well, Mickey Kaus predicted it, right down to predicting the exact day they'd release the story for maximum effect:

Tomorrow would be about the logical last day for the Los Angeles Times to drop its bomb on Arnold Schwarzenegger. If editor John Carroll waits any longer it will look like a late hit designed to stampede the electorate.

That was posted today; the story will appear in the print editions tomorrow.

P.S.: When I call this story a "smear job" or "hit piece" or "B.S." I am not saying that the allegations of the women in the piece aren't true. How could I possibly know? In fact, the allegations sound fairly credible, and this behavior is pretty consistent with what we have all heard about this guy.

What I am saying is that I think it's absolutely indefensible for the folks at the Dog Trainer to sit on this story as long as they did. The timing is especially suspect because the allegations are not really new, but rather a repetition and elaboration of a March 2001 article from Premiere Magazine called "Arnold the Barbarian."

The motives of the Dog Trainer editors are crystal clear -- after all, they have consistently editorialized against the recall, and the news side has a regular piece called Recall Madness. The paper's recent decision to portray the election as a two-man race between Davis and Arnold can be fully understood only once you also understand that the editors have been sitting on this stink bomb for weeks, waiting for just the right time to release it.

UPDATE: The Times staff writer who pens the "Recall Madness" pieces, Roy Rivenburg, writes to correct me on a couple of points. He says that he writes for the features side of the paper, not the news side. Fair enough. I meant to distinguish between the paper's editorials, which are supposed to represent opinion, and the rest of the paper.

He also says that he believes that his column is not an example of pro-Davis or anti-recall bias. I actually think this is a fair statement -- but I don't think it addresses my point. I did not mean to argue that the content of his column is the problem. Rather, my point is that the very act of running a light features column with this title seems to indicate an editorial decision to trivialize the recall effort. (This is a quibble with the editors, not with Mr. Rivenburg.)

Even this, standing alone, would not be so objectionable -- there is an undeniable circus aspect to this process. My comments above address the Dog Trainer's actions in their totality. It's the editorials; the last-minute Arnold smear job; the refusal to run a comparable story about Davis's abuse of women; the insistence that the sources for the Arnold hit piece were unconnected with the Davis campaign, but the inevitable refusal to tell us who they are; the ridiculous references to Davis's "calm demeanor" when they know better -- and so on, and so on, and so on. Very telling, in my opinion, is the Dog Trainer editors' recent decision to emphasize the view of the recall election as a two-man race between Arnold and Gray -- all the while knowing that they were sitting on a big Arnold stinkbomb. That undeniably has the feel of a "set 'em up and knock 'em down" strategy.

I would be thrilled to hear from Mr. Rivenburg or any other Times writers as to how they feel about the paper's timing on this story, in light of the above factors I have mentioned. I would especially love to hear from anyone with any insight on the paper's refusal to run the Gray Davis story that Jill Stewart has been pushing since 1997. Anonymity will be guaranteed if requested -- if unidentified sources don't bother the Times, why should they bother me? If anyone from the paper has anything to offer on this issue, you know what to do -- click on the "E-mail me" link to the left.

Posted 10/01/2003 09:09:00 PM by Patrick
SEARCH YOUR SOUL WITH THIS INTRIGUING QUESTION: RobbL at Infinite Monkeys has this thought-provoking post which asks a good question:

If everything about this campaign were the same - Arnold's positions, his associations, etc. - but he were running as a Democrat or an Independent, would you even CONSIDER voting for him? If the answer is 'no', then why vote for him now? He's not a conservative, so this isn't about conservatives winning - it's about REPUBLICANS winning, and when you start voting for a party regardless of what the party stands for, you've stopped thinking.

I know that, for many of you, the answer is "yes" -- because Arnold is at least portraying himself as a fiscal conservative. But so does Howard Dean. Another similarity: Howard Dean and Arnold are both embarrassed by the Clinton impeachment. I think RobbL may be on to something here. It's worth thinking about.

I'd love to hear from the Arnold supporters. If you would like to let me know your thoughts, you can e-mail me at the link to the left.

FIRST FEEDBACK: The Irish Lass wins the "First Feedback" award, writing to say: "If Arnold were running as a dem or indy I would not vote for him. If McC were running as a reform or american independent, I would hope that you would not vote for him. I believe identifying yourself as a member of our party is extremely important."

Thanks for the feedback! Unfortunately, I must disagree. Tom could be running under the banner of any party on Earth, and my assessment of him and his positions would be the same. Of course, it is impossible to imagine him running as a Democrat, while it is possible to imagine Arnold running as a fiscally conservative Democrat.

In any event, I appreciate the comment. If you don't know about the Irish Lass, she is a new Bear Flag member (as am I) and an official and active Arnold Supporter (which I am not). Everyone, and especially Arnold Supporters, should check out her blog -- and then send me your own feedback! (Warn me if you don't want it published!)

MORE FEEDBACK: From a regular reader who (I suspect) does not wish to be identified, but does not ask not to be quoted. So here is his e-mail in its entirety, lightly edited for clarity and anonymity:

Patterico, has Arianna Huffington gotten to you? You make about as much sense as she does. The point about the Clinton embarrassment is silly. Who cares? Arnold Schwarzenegger's disgust or lack thereof about Clinton really has very little to do with his ability to govern this state. Once again, you are guilty of the cardinal failing of California Republicans: you're trying to subject Arnold to a series of purity tests, somehow arguing that only a pure Republican--by your standards, no less--is one worth voting for. I consider that a bad approach.

More pernicious is that hideous "if Arnold were running as a Democrat, none of us would be voting for him" canard. That may be true or untrue. We have no way of knowing. Much would depend on his competition. As it stands, it's another inapposite hypothetical, since he is running as a Republican. The point you and that lackey you cite are making is that Arnold is not a "real" Republican. And there I have got to vehemently disagree. There are many ways to be a Republican, not just the morally uptight, anti-choice way that people like you favor.

The larger point is: why you are devoting so much space and time to attacking Arnold -- and worse, his supporters -- in the first place? You're continually posting bromides as if we are somehow stupid, foolish and worse, "stopped thinking." That's just plain stupid. Many of us are Republicans, and not Patterico-conservatives. I don't agree with you on many social issues. Maybe that's why I like Arnold, not just because I want to win. But speaking of winning, it would be good for the state, the party, and the country if the Democrats did not have a Soviet-style hold on this state. To me putting a Republican in the state house will lead to some limits over the free-spending, special-interest dependent, trial-lawyer-loving and business-hating Democrats. And I'll take that.

You seem obsessed with Arnold. How about moving on to some more fruitful topics?

Wow. A lot there to address.

Well, first, don't get me wrong. I have said again and again that I do not hold the Arnold Supporters in contempt, just as I would hope that the reverse is true.

The reference to Clinton was mainly a response to Hewitt's (in my opinion) ridiculous comment. I will admit, however, that I become rather irrational whenever I hear someone pontificating about how awful it supposedly was to impeach Clinton. Sure, it has little to do with being Governor of California. But I find it a little embarrassing and annoying. Nothing more. I don't say only a pure Republican is worth voting for -- I would vote for Arnold if necessary, as I have said.

I am not saying that Arnold Supporters have stopped thinking, and neither did the guy I quote. He said that "when you start voting for a party regardless of what the party stands for, you've stopped thinking." Stated in the abstract, that statement is impossible to disagree with. As to whether that is the case here, I make no such accusations -- I merely ask the question. And, Gentle Anonymous Reader, you didn't answer it! And I really would be interested in your answer.

One last question: "Anti-choice"?? Please tell me this is not an official Arnold phrase.

THE LACKEY RESPONDS: The "lackey" is RobbL at Infinite Monkeys, who thanks me for my defense of him. I appreciate the link. Check out his site.

Posted 10/01/2003 08:43:00 PM by Patrick
HUGH HEWITT GOES OFF THE DEEP END: I like Hugh Hewitt. But I was annoyed at him on Tuesday after he cited the USA Today poll as support for the assertion that, by staying in the race, McClintock will have "denied Arnold a pure majority which would be extremely useful in demanding change from the legislature." Hewitt went on to say that McClintock's campaign was "always hopeless and now revealed as such."

I wrote Hewitt an e-mail and told him that he "should take a closer look at the actual poll results, rather than the spin that the media is putting on them." After all, I had already pointed out on Monday that McClintock was doing as well as Arnold in a 2-way race against Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante. Still, I figured Hewitt wasn't saying anything too different from what others were saying.

But now Hewitt has gone off the deep end. He has an article here, the thesis of which is that a vote for Tom is a vote for any number of liberal people and organizations. Hewitt leads this analysis with the following absurd statement: "A vote for Tom is a vote for Bill Clinton." (Emphasis mine.)

Joe Armendariz has done a nice job of explaining the absurdity of this statement at the website CaliforniaRepublic.org, in a post filed this morning at 10:15 a.m. (I give the time because there are no permalinks to individual posts.) The following is my favorite part of Armendariz's critique (again, the emphasis is mine):

Need I remind Hewitt of Arnold's embarrassment at being a Republican during the Clinton impeachment? In fact, a few days ago, Sean Hannity asked Arnold to clarify those feelings and once again Arnold gave Clinton a pass by refusing to say what the former President did was wrong, let alone illegal.

I have never heard Tom McClintock say one word about President Clinton's lying under oath or obstruction of justice, but I have a pretty dang good idea where he stands. Say what you like about voting for Tom McClintock, but to call it voting for Bill Clinton is beyond the pale.

I agree with one of Armendariz's final comments: "I will continue admiring Hugh Hewitt, because he is a fine man and has a keen intellect. But, I must confess that I am offended by his characterization of what a vote for Tom McClintock represents."

P.S.: You folks out there who are so ga-ga over Arnold, can you at least admit that you are embarrassed by his position on Clinton?

Posted 10/01/2003 08:01:00 PM by Patrick
MR. N-WORD FEELING THE PRESSURE: The Interocitor reports here and here regarding the pressure that Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante is under to drop out.

I predict he won't, but you never know.

Posted 10/01/2003 07:40:00 AM by Patrick
UH-OH: Arianna has dropped out. As a result, her almost .5% may swing to Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante. Arnold must be quaking in his proverbial boots.

Posted 10/01/2003 06:46:00 AM by Patrick
LET ME EXPLAIN IT TO YOU VER-Y SLOW-LY . . . IT'S A LITTLE THING CALLED KEEPING YOUR PROMISES: Carol Platt Liebau at CaliforniaRepublic.org passes along a very revealing tidbit from a friend of hers who was at the California Republican Party's Board of Directors meeting. Liebau says: "Apparently, the consensus of the directors is that not only can Senator McClintock not win -- he KNOWS he can't win and is staying in the race for reasons no one can fully understand."

McClintock could not be clearer as to why he's staying in: he promised to. It's a matter of principle. Apparently that is something California Republicans cannot fully understand.

Posted 10/01/2003 06:43:00 AM by Patrick
CRITIQUE OF "DO NOT CALL" DECISION: As promised, here is my critique of the decision of the U.S. District Court in the Do Not Call list case. As I suspected before I read it, I do not agree with it. Why do I say this? There is a short answer and a long answer. The next three paragraphs are the short answer.

THE SHORT ANSWER: There are several reasons to distinguish the facts in the Do Not Call decision from the authority it cites: 1) telephone calls invade people's homes, 2) the Do Not Call list is an opt-in provision; and 3) the Do Not Call list goes a long way towards accomplishing the government's objective. The Do Not Call decision, in my opinion, gives too little emphasis to these factors.

However, the decision is not as outrageous as it has been portrayed. As with the Pledge of Allegiance decision, people unfamiliar with the relevant precedents (and unwilling to educate themselves) are promoting a cartoonish view of a lower court decision, when in fact the fault lies largely in the governing Supreme Court precedent, rather than the lower court's application of that precedent.

Most people are frustrated because they think: surely the government must be able to do something. And I think it can. If the lower court's view of precedent is upheld (and it could be), the government need only give us the option to ban noncommercial calls too (a suggestion I first saw here).

THE LONG ANSWER: What follows is a more detailed analysis of the meat of the decision. It's not a law review article, but it's pretty detailed for a blog post. If you don't care about the details, you can skip the rest of the post. (Warning: law-intensive post follows. Legal jargon may ensue. I will do my best to put things in plain language, but keep in mind that I am explicating court decisions that are themselves less than clear.)

In essence, the Do Not Call decision says that the FTC cannot prohibit calls from commercial solicitors, while allowing calls from non-commercial solicitors, such as charitable organizations and political candidates and parties. The decision relies heavily on a U.S. Supreme Court decision called City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (91-1200), 507 U.S. 410 (1993).

However, the court missed some basic distinctions between the Do Not Call list and the facts in Discovery Network. If you want to understand the distinctions, you have to understand what happened in Discovery Network.

In that case, the City of Cincinnati outlawed purely commercial newsracks, in order to beautify the city. The Supreme Court held that it was impermissible for the city to target only commercial newsracks. The city was required to show that there existed

a "reasonable fit" between the city's legitimate interests in safety and esthetics, and its choice of a limited and selective prohibition of newsracks as the means chosen to serve those interests.

The High Court found that the city had failed to show this reasonable fit, noting that the ordinance outlawed only about 62 newsracks, while 1500-2000 were allowed to remain. Cincinnati's ordinance thus removed only about 3% of the offending newsracks -- a percentage the court called "paltry."

The decision in Discovery Network was (badly) written by Justice Stevens. Language in Discovery Network could be read to suggest that, if the interests asserted by the government are unrelated to the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech, that fact alone is enough to strike down the law in question. In other words, you can't pick on commercial speech just because it's an easier target.

However, I don't think it's that simple. The Court emphasized again and again that Cincinnati was banning only a paltry number of newsracks. For example, in one statement of its holding, the Court stated that the city had presented an "insufficient justification for the discrimination against respondents' use of newsracks that are no more harmful than the permitted newsracks, and have only a minimal impact on the overall number of newsracks on the city's sidewalks." Basically, the Court was saying: you say you want to beautify the city, but come on! You're hardly doing anything!

Perhaps because the ruling was rather opaque, and its underlying principles so unclear, the Supreme Court limited the holding to its facts, saying:

Our holding, however, is narrow. As should be clear from the above discussion, we do not reach the question whether, given certain facts and under certain circumstances, a community might be able to justify differential treatment of commercial and noncommercial newsracks. We simply hold that on this record Cincinnati has failed to make such a showing.

(Side note: if the last sentence sounds eerily familiar, it is because it anticipates similar and oft-criticized language in Bush v. Gore. Limiting a case's holding to the facts at hand did not originate with Bush v. Gore, regardless of what Democrat partisans tell you.)

Discovery Network practically invites lower courts to distinguish it. As I state early in this post, the judge in the Do Not Call case could easily have distinguished the Supreme Court case in several meaningful ways, but does not.

For example, telephone calls are invasive of people's privacy in the home. This fact is acknowledged early in the opinion. But it is never offered as a possible basis for distinguishing Discovery Network. The same goes for the fact that people choose whether to sign up for the list. The government's involvement is nothing more than the enforcement of the will of 50 million people who don't want these calls invading their privacy. The District Court notes this fact, but does not use it to distinguish Discovery Network. Finally -- and I think this is important -- the regulation against commercial telephone solicitation would prevent 40-60 percent of unwanted calls -- far more than the 3% reduction in newsracks in Discovery Network.

These are not meaningless distinctions, unless you read Discovery Network as saying that government can never favor noncommmercial speech over commercial speech for purposes of passing constitutional muster. I don't read the case that broadly. I think such distinctions can be made if doing so would allow government to significantly advance its interest in protecting privacy interests in the home, and only in situations where this protection has been requested by the homeowner.

In essence, the Do Not Call trial judge paid too much deference to a decision that issued a very limited holding. I believe that the list will ultimately be upheld, because it is different in the ways I have described. The 10th Circuit's reversal of the stay is evidence that the Court of Appeals agrees with the position I have articulated: that the Do Not Call list is constitutional. But if the list is overrruled, we can still get there (as I mention above), by banning noncommercial calls, too.

One day, Judge Nottingham, who apparently wants his calls blocked too, will get his wish along with the rest of us.