The LA Times

Written August 31, 2009

I have not been a regular reader of the LA Times, of late. It's just a "tad" too liberal for my liking. I had some comments to make on Sunday's edition, but today's was too good to pass up. Yes, I bought it two days in a row - my limit for a week.

1. They have a columnist by the name of Michael Hiltzik. In the 8/31 paper he discusses proposed boycotts of Glenn Beck and Whole Foods. It seems that Mr. Beck's offense is that he called our President a racist. John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Foods, had the temerity to disagree with our President's health care plan. As kids might say: OMG!

Mr. Hiltzik accuses Beck of being "egregious," "destroying civil discourse," and having a "noxious character" in his commentary. Now, I do not watch Beck's show that often. But one might think Hiltzik would explain the content of Beck's allegations about Obama being a racist, and what factual support Beck might have offered to support his position. But why do that when you can engage in your own demagoguery and simply demonize Beck? Is it inconceivable that a president can be a racist? Jimmy Carter is an anti-semite as far as I am concerned.

But apparently far worse is Mr. Mackey who is accused of being "insensitive and even reactionary"! Insensitive! Another OMG! You see, Mr. Mackey wrote an opinion piece in which he said neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution "reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter." I do, however, recall something about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration. But what did our Founders know anyway?

2. Not to be outdone, is a Mr. Gregory Rodriguez. His entire column (also in the 8/31 edition) is an attack on the republican party, describing it as the party of "grievance and resentment." He compares the current party to William Buckley, described as a classic conservative who understood the importance of stability. The irony, is that his entire attack on the repubs applies in totality to the democrats. Talk about "grievance and resentment." Don't they still whine about the 2000 election even though every recount by even their mainstream media showed that Bush was the winner. Were they more interested in "stability" and bringing the election to a close so that the country could have a president? No. Surprise, surprise, they cared more about WINNING! Or is that WHINING?

And the repubs are responsible for the current low level of political discourse? Really? Did Nancy Pelosi call the CIA a bunch of liars? How many different names did the democratic leadership use to describe the people at the town hall meetings and the tea parties? The LA Times itself referred to anyone disagreeing with their position on gay marriage as a "bigot." So, if you disagree with the dems they get to call you names. You see how that works?

The so-called party of "tolerance," as we on the right know, is the MOST INTOLERANT of parties. Any disagreement with the party line will result in ostracism if you are a member (think Joe Lieberman), and name calling if you are outside the party. Because, really, no one can legitimately be against gay marriage, even on religious grounds. Well, except for those hate-filled right wingers who "cling to their guns and religion." And could somebody please tell all these columnists to stop LYING by saying Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. What he said was: I hope Obama fails if he plans on bringing socialism to this country. But why would the party of "tolerance" insist on TRUTH when they are doing the talking?

3. And, finally, in yesterday's edition, the gay marriage obsessed LA Times had yet another editorial on the issue. Now, I know this is an issue that even divides those on the right, with those of a more libertarian bent not being opposed. But in discussing a pending January hearing in federal court, the editorial says it could get "ugly" with more "willful, hateful distortions." Ugly? Who was calling those who disagreed "bigots?" HELLO!!!!

And by "hateful distortions" they mean arguments about the impact on society. One cannot legitimately ask if it is a good idea to change the definition of marriage. One cannot legitimately ask if lawsuits would be brought seeking to force religious groups to conduct same sex marriages. (I think that one's a no-brainer - if a lawsuit can be brought someone will certainly do it!) One cannot legitimately ask what changes might have to made in our public schools any time the subject of marriage comes up. We know the party of "tolerance" will want any teacher fired if they even hint that hetereosexual marriage is preferable.

So, regardless of where you may stand on the issue, the LA Times cannot be relied upon for a fair analysis and discussion. But no real surprise there.