Sac Bee Watch

BLOG HAS MOVED

2005-04-20T14:59:00.000-07:00

Sac Bee Watch has moved and changed its name. Please direct your attention and tithing to Beekeeper.mu.nu

NEW SITE

2005-04-18T08:57:00.001-07:00

I have a new site and will post it shortly. Please take a look below for recent posts.

NEW SITE

2005-04-18T08:57:00.000-07:00

I have a new site and will post it shortly. Please take a look below for recent posts.

ATTENTION

2005-04-04T09:45:00.000-07:00

Due to ongoing computer problems with my host, I have not been able to post much in the last week. I will be surprised if this can get through the problems and be posted. I will continue as soon as Blogspot figures it all out. I believe I will be changing hosts shortly. . . . . .

ATTENTION

2005-04-04T09:16:00.000-07:00

I have been on hiatus for about a week due to ongoing technical problems with my host as well as me being neck deep in a project that will make it possible to retire by the time I'm 40 . . . . or 65 . . . maybe somewhere in between. I should be done within the week, so sparse posting will continue for the next week or so.

Also, I'm moving to a new host very shortly.

OWNER OF FINGER FOUND

2005-03-29T09:54:00.000-08:00

Remember the finger found by the woman at the Wendy's restaurant recently (she has a lawyer already)? Well, the owner of the finger has been found.

OH BOY

2005-03-25T13:02:00.000-08:00

Funny. Really funny.

FUN ADDICTION

2005-03-22T16:41:00.000-08:00

You must play this game.

CalPERS INDIRECTLY SUPPORTS TERRORISM

2005-03-22T11:33:00.000-08:00

The Center for Security Policy released a study that states CalPERS has over $17 billion dollars invested in 201 companies active in terrorist-sponsored states. Good article here mentioning this fact. A company's alliance with a government sponsoring terrorism may not get it labeled as socially irresponsible, but woe be to the company that does something perceived as anti-union or anti-environment.

BEE VILIFIES THOSE WHO WISH TO SEE TERRI SCHIAVO LIVE

2005-03-22T07:52:00.000-08:00

The Bee weighs in on the Terri Schiavo debate in an editorial today and their conclusion is this: Republicans bad, Matsui good.

The Bee criticizes Bush and Republicans for "political grandstanding" and ignoring the urgency of, ironically, Medicare costs and instead choosing to "meddle" in the affairs of a "divided family." The Bee finds it "stunning" that Republicans have compromised their supposed devotion to "states' rights and judicial independence."

The Senate voted for the bill by a voice vote. This means not a single member of the Senate objected. The House passed the Bill by a vote of 203-58. There are 435 members in the House, so over 150 members did not vote. According to one article, the nay votes only accouted for about half of the Democrats who did vote. The Bee saves its wrath for Republicans. Big surprise.

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted:

It is not simply about "states' rights." Conservatives support states' rights in areas that are not delegated to the federal government but they also support federal power in areas that are delegated.

Ann Althouse had this to say about the federalism issue:

Surely, many of those who oppose what Congress did in the Schiavo case do generally approve of intruding on the state to impose a higher standard of individual rights – including the rights for the disabled. They would not normally stand back and allow the states to innovate and experiment with the narrowing of individual rights. Certain matters have traditionally belonged to the states, but there is a long modern trend of re-visualizing these matters in terms of the rights of the individual. Whether one agrees with the conception of rights reflected in Congress's Schiavo law, one should not deny that Congress has an important, well-established role enforcing the rights of the individual and displacing choices made at the state level. And who does deny this role? The disagreement is about what rights are, not what federalism is.

Another good discussion on the federalism issue by a law professor can be found here. The U.S. Supreme Court case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health involved similar facts and the court held that the federal courts can intervene in such matters. (Abstract here)

It is amusing that the Bee was "stunned" by the Republicans' supposedly hypocrisy on federalism. This implies that the issue is so very simple for the Bee. Well, the issue of federalism is far from simple. I have discussed the Bee's analysis on legal issues before here and here. The Bee is far from having, well, a competent understanding of legal issues. But hey, if it gives you a chance to chide Republicans why not come out in favor of federalism.

HOGZILLA

2005-03-21T15:26:00.000-08:00

Speaking of sausage, HOLY CHRIST!

TRIAL BAR IS PISSED I'M SURE

2005-03-21T14:49:00.000-08:00

The members of the trial bar salivate for cases such as this. Unfortunately for them it happened in Norway. There is something about an injury or death caused by a sausage grinder that makes a lawsuit instantaneously settleable (neologism alert).

FROM THE "MARKETS ARE EVIL" FOLDER

2005-03-21T12:52:00.000-08:00

Marginal Revolution notes the resulting German furor (pun intended) that erupted when a website posted jobs on which freelance workers could bid. German leftists equated a freelancer's voluntary choice to bid on work to slavery. You are seriously out of touch if you find it strange that people underbid competitors to be awarded a contract? It only happens in business . . . .EVERY FRIGGIN DAY!!

WHO IS ACTUALLY NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE EGGS?

2005-03-19T20:47:00.000-08:00

I thought that California was reigning champ of maintaining useless government programs by having, among many others, a Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. Turns out that Kentucky is giving us a run for the money.

NEOLOGISM ALERT

2005-03-19T18:06:00.000-08:00

New York Times starts using euphemism for a soldier deserting, and it's not even a word.

IF ONLY IT WOULD HAPPEN

2005-03-19T15:39:00.000-08:00

Iowahawk made another funny.

GYNECOLOGY ON ICE

2005-03-19T15:35:00.000-08:00

Is he lucky or unlucky?

BUSH / KERRY PHOTO ESSAY

2005-03-19T15:13:00.000-08:00

This is damn amusing, if I may say so my damn self.

OMISSION OF FACTS

2005-03-19T13:44:00.000-08:00

There isn't enough time in the day to keep up with the misleading 'facts' that sprinkled the articles in the Bee. In an article by the Bee News Service on March 18 titled "Senate panel sets up a battle," the author makes it a point of mentioning twice that the Republicans are trying to "end the tradition of unlimited debate on presidential appointees" and may engage in a "sharp departure from the unlimited debate traditions."

First, there has never been an "unlimited debate tradition." Never. Debate ends if there are enough votes to invoke 'cloture.' Senate rules establish that in order to vote on any measure under consideration by the Senate, the debate process must be stopped by a vote of at least 60 Senators. The vote is otherwise known as 'cloture.'

Second, according to Senator Orrin Hatch, the percentage of cloture votes used for judicial nominations jumped 900 percent during President Bush's first term compared to the previous 25 years. While the article in the Bee noted the "tradition" of "unlimited debate," it failed to tell the reader that the Senate rules regarding cloture votes has been changed multiple times.

The initial rules of the Senate provided that there would have to be unanimous agreement before debate would end. Specifically because the minority used this rule to prevent vote from occurring, the rule was changed in 1917 to require a 2/3 majority to end debate. The tactic to prevent votes from occurring continued and the Senate changed the rule again in 1975 to require at least 60 votes to end debate.

And if tradition is important to the article's authors, why did the article not mention the "sharp departure" from the past in using the filibuster to block judicial appointments. A 900 percent increase is a friggin' "sharp departure."

The article ends with this selected factoid:

Since his election in 2000, Bush has had 204 of his 214 judicial nominee confirmed by the Senate, a confirmation rate of 95 percent, roughly the same as during the Clinton presidency.

This fact is inserted to make the point that nothing unusual is going on. This is so misleading. The problem is that the Democrats are using the filibuster to block the vote on nominees that everyone knows has the support of the majority of the Senate. Got it. The Democrats are using a procedural rule (note: not a constitutional requirement) to create a supermajority voting requirement for judicial confirmations. While the Bee makes it seem like everything is proceeding normally, what the authors don't say is that the filibuster is fast becoming an everyday tactic to use in the confirmation hearings.

AP TO START OFFERING 'OPTIONAL' NEWS

2005-03-16T12:33:00.000-08:00

As discussed at Captain's Quarters, the AP will offer 'optional' news that is nothing more than creative writing, which of course means the injection of opinion. I am sure this is a direct result of the explosion of the blogosphere and the blogosphere's many personalities that are reflected in the writing found throughout.

"CHUTCH" - EPISODE 2

2005-03-16T10:25:00.000-08:00

Iowahawk has episode 2 of Chutch: "Curse of the Puu Puu."

For those who missed episode 1, it is here.

Both are damn funny.

DAMN AMUSING

2005-03-15T22:36:00.000-08:00

For those following the Ward Churchill story.

MEDIA GUIDE

2005-03-15T22:33:00.000-08:00

Oxblog provides a guide to understanding the national media.

BLEAK NEWS FOR NEWSPAPERS

2005-03-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

A report by Prudential Equity Group states that circulation numbers are down. For some newspapers, the numbers are down big time.

BLEAK NEWS FOR NEWSPAPERS

2005-03-11T08:54:00.000-08:00

A report by Prudential Equity Group states that circulation numbers are down. For some newspapers, the numbers are down big time.

THE BBC GOLIATH

2005-03-10T13:53:00.000-08:00

Oxblog comments on the gargantuan budget of the BBC. With a budget like that, you can imagine the number of employees/dependents it has. A welfare agency with another name.

ANOTHER FICTION WRITER AT THE N.Y. TIMES?

2005-03-08T17:15:00.000-08:00

There are allegations that journalist Chris Hedges of the New York Times made up his reports about a battle in Iraq in 2002.

COMEDY RELIEF - "TRUNK MONKEY"

2005-03-07T15:50:00.000-08:00

Ran into these funny commercials on the Internet. The clips are on the right-hand side of the web page. When the ad starts playing (upon entering the site), rightclick on the ad and toggle off the "Play" command.

BEE IGNORES SENATOR BYRD'S REMARK ABOUT NAZIS

2005-03-06T21:03:00.000-08:00

On March 1, Senator Byrd of West Virginia compared Republican moves to modify Senate rules of procedure to those tactics employed by Adolph Hitler. Senator Byrd made these comments on the floor of the Senate. To date, the Sacramento Bee has not mentioned this fact in its newspaper. The Bee has also not bothered to mention that multiple Jewish groups (including the Anti-Defamation League) blasted Byrd for making this comparison. I'm guess the Bee believes the conduct of the Republicans and those of Adolph Hitler are morally equivalent.

BEE MISREPRESENTS FACTS ABOUT UNINSURED

2005-03-06T21:00:00.000-08:00

An article in the March 4 edition of the Bee shows how the Bee slips in a misleading statistic about uninsured persons in America. Absent an explanation, the statistic implies a much starker problem than what actually exists.

In an article entitled "Promised discounts may not materialize," Bee Staff Writer Lisa Rapaport explains how some people are being swindled by companies selling "health discount cards." These cards supposedly entitle the holder to discount health care coverage, but many times the cards do not entitle the holder to any discount.

Although it ads nothing to the thrust of the story, Rapaport interjects the following misinformation:

There are more than 44 million uninsured people nationwide, including more than 6 million in California.

Rapaport does not cite any source for the "44 million" figure she asserts (which you think should be there), but it highly likely that it comes from often-cited Current Population Survey (as summarized here). Here is what the survey asked: "did you have health insurance at any time in the 12 months ending two months ago?"

The problem is that the "44 million" figure is incredibly misleading unless further explanation is given. Without an explanation, the statistic paints a fairly stark picture. But, that may be Rapaport and/or her editor's purpose. As explained here, the "44 million" uninsured "include diverse groups of individuals, each of which is uninsured for different reasons."

As a reader, wouldn't it be important to know whether or not the "44 million" statistic meant that "44 million" people were without health insurance for most of or the entire year the survey was conducted? (It includes people who didn't have insurance for even one day) Would you want to know if the "44 million" includes people who have voluntarily chosen not to have health insurance? (It does.) This begs the question why didn't Rapaport or the Bee clarify the statement. Did they even think to investigate the number?

The fact is that the "44 million" statistic includes people who lose their insurance for only a brief time, such as a recent college graduate or a person between jobs. Some studies suggest that about 25% of the number (about 10 million) refuse insurance from their employer. (Source) The Census Bureau apparently admits that the "44 million" number is too high. (Source)

WHO NEEDS EVIDENCE

2005-03-06T20:53:00.000-08:00

HonestReporting has an interesting piece on a journalist who wrote in his newspaper that although he has no evidence, he believes Israel killed Yassir Arafat.

FUNNY

2005-03-06T08:06:00.000-08:00

Iowahawk exclusive describes MoveOn.org blowing the winds of freedom.

MARXISM = "LEFT-LEANING"

2005-03-06T07:40:00.000-08:00

This CNN article about the Italian journalist who was recently free as a hostage in Iraq describes the journalist's newspaper Il Manifesto as "left-leaning." There is no dispute that Il Manifesto is a newspaper run by Italian communists. Describing the newspaper as "left-leaning" is simply an attempt to give credibility where none is warranted.

PUFF PIECE

2005-03-05T07:35:00.000-08:00

The Sacramento Bee ran a cover page story written by Bee writer Sam Stanton on March 4 about arson suspect Ryan Lewis. Ryan is accused of taking part in the fire bomb attacks on various building developments in Placer County. The piece drips with sympathy for Ryan while describing his background. The agenda of this story, I believe, is revealed in the closing lines of the story: "Our biggest concern is that this not be spun out of control. That would be a travesty of justice."

Curious. The story described a kid who went from model citizen to firebombing in a very short period of time. Should people be concerned if firebombing buildings is the pinnacle of his criminal life or the very beginning. I think so. Journalist Stanton should have provided much more perspective in this story rather than specifically trying to cultivate sympathy for Ryan.

SUPREME COURT

2005-03-04T16:39:00.000-08:00

An undereported U.S. Supreme Court decision here: "US marriage dowries 'must include three non-diseased oxen.'"

Other ruminations on possible Supreme Court rulings found here: "May have to conduct court from 'Moses-Free' trailer."

FUNNY

2005-03-04T16:35:00.000-08:00

Wuzzadem had some problems with some MSN searches.

WASHINGTON ELECTION STOLEN?

2005-03-04T15:31:00.000-08:00

The best evidence released to the public thus far indicates that the govenor's race was won through fraud. Very interesting assessment here.

ANY BOURBON DRINKERS OUT THERE?

2005-03-04T15:19:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine, and his brothers, recently re-opened their ancestor's bourbon distillery (Old Pogue Bourbon) after it was shut down during Prohibition. They are using their ancestors old recipes. They made the first batch last Spring.

PROSPER MAGAZINE

2005-03-04T14:59:00.000-08:00

A relatively new business magazine (Prosper) primarily focused on Sacramento region business and stories can be found here. Sign up online for complimentary copies of the magazine.

CARTOON

2005-03-04T14:56:00.000-08:00

A fairly accurate assessment of today's GOP over at the Sacramento Union can be found here.

WHAT'S THE LAW GOT TO DO WITH IT

2005-03-04T10:30:00.000-08:00

The lead editorial in today's Bee states that "wisely and compassionately ruled that the execution of defendants who were 17 and younger when they committed capital crimes is a violation of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." If the editorial writers at the Bee had a modicum of understanding of constitutional law, they would understand that the March 1 decision in Roper v. Simmons is probably one of the worst legal reasoned decision in a long time. I believe the death penalty should be applied to juveniles (ages 16 to 18) should be applied more sparingly than adults, but the Court's decision is based on utter nonsense.

The Bee tries to draw a stark contrast between the rights of juveniles and the death penalty in the initial sentences by stating that juveniles can't vote or drink, cannot sit on juries, are too immature to see certain movies, and cannot even smoke in some states. Why then, the Bee impliedly asks, should juveniles be put to death. There is absolutely no relevance and analogical significance of the issue in the Roper case with whether a person is mature enough to handle voting, drinking, attending certain movies, or any other right.

As explained by Justice Scalia in the case of Stanford v. Kentucky:

[Those rules] do not represent a social judgment that all persons under the designated ages are not responsible enough to drive, to drink, or to vote, but at most a judgment that the vast majority are not. These laws set the appropriate ages for the operation of a system that makes its determinations in gross, and that does not conduct individualized maturity tests for each driver, drinker, or voter. The criminal justice system, however, does provide individualized testing. In the realm of capital punishment in particular, individualized consideration [is] a constitutional requirement. . . ."

Scalia stated in the Roper case that "it is absurd to think that one must be mature enough to drive carefully, to drink responsibly, or to vote intelligently, in order to be mature enough to understand that murdering another human being is profoundly wrong, and to conform ones conduct to that most minimal of all civilized standards."

The Bee shows that it does not understand the court's ruling when it states the court concluded "that those under 18 lacked the maturity to be held fully culpable for their crimes, the court said they should not be subject to the death penalty." This is not what the court stated. The majority recognized that individuals under 18 could be just as mature as adults who warrant the death penalty. The Court stated "The qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18. By the same token, some under 18 have already attained a level of maturity some adults will never reach. . . . however, a line must be drawn."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor countered this by stating in her dissent the following:

Adolescents as a class are undoubtedly less mature, and therefore less culpable for their misconduct, than adults. But the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case. . . . Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development.

The Bee misstates the facts when it asserts in its editorial that "Thirty states have outlawed the death penalty for juveniles." In fact, 18 states have outlawed the death penalty for juveniles. The Bee adds to this 12 states that have outright banned the death penalty. The Bee just simply asserts a falsehood.

Considering the fact that the Bee editorial writers exhibited such a lame understanding of constitutional jurisprudence, it is very amusing that they opined that Justice Kennedy's ruling as "right" when he "acknowledge[d] the overwhelming weight of international opinion." There is a good discussion here about one of the problems with the court's reasoning at the New Republic online. Can read more about it here and here (see comments also).

PROSECUTE A CASE TO MAKE A POINT

2005-03-04T10:04:00.000-08:00

In a March 2 editorial, the Bee endorsed the prosecution of two Elk Grove city council members for violating state law, even though the District Attorney stated that the evidence does not rise to the level that could overcome the "beyond a reasonable doubt" legal standard.

The Bee's editorial stated "The grand jury and Scully could have sent a strong and important message that public misconduct at a certain point won't be tolerated in Sacramento County and will be prosecuted, win or lose, with all the legal tools available."

Prosecute people to make a point. I can't think of a standard more susceptible to political influence.

BEE ENDORSING FREE MARKETS? NOPE

2005-03-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

Remember the Klamath River Basin problems in Oregon that happened several years ago? The federal government restricted the amount of water that could be diverted to irrigation because drought conditions reduced the amount of water flowing in the rivers. This reduced water level purportedly threatened endangered species living in the rivers. Now, the farmers are in jeopardy of losing their subsidized electricity when an agreement with the local utility expires in 2006. If the farmers were charged the market rate, the rate they pay would over 10 times the amount they currently pay.

In a March 1 editorial, the Bee stated that the electricity problem is simply solved by forcing the farmers to pay 2005 prices for electricity instead of the low rate they have been granted under a long-term agreement. (Online version) The Bee's sole reason for justifying the end to the subsidy is to achieve efficient allocation of water between the farmers and the fish. Whoa. This sounds downright . . . laissez faire.

What is the Bee's devotion to the free market grounded in? Well, it isn't a love for the free market, as it routinely attacks free market principals and endorses regulation, various subsidies, and preferential treatment of citizens based on, well, how about skin color, income, age, etc. In a February 19, 2005 editorial, the Bee supported the concept of subsidizing farmers if it results in "contributing . . . to the state's environmental health." You see, market rates are good to enhance efficient allocation of resources even if it wrecks havoc on communities, but market rates are bad if it prevents the extra allocation of resources to projects that enhance the "environmental health." People bad, environment good.

No doubt the farmers should pay the market rate for electricity. The problem with the editorial is that the Bee is dishonest in its characterization of the problem faced by the the water users in the Klamath Basin. Charging the farmers the market rate for electricity to many of the may not be easy.

According to the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), "the farmers of the Klamath Basin have certain legal rights that are reflected in the conditions on the current FERC license, and any entity that acquires a new license will be required to offer low cost power to the farmers, or equivalent consideration." (Cite) The KWUA summarizes, "In essence, the water users have a right to power benefits. . . .[because the] Reclamation Act was enacted in 1902 to encourage irrigation and homesteading in arid western states. It was anticipated that the irrigation would require two interrelated resources: water and power." Needless to say, all sides are represented by lawyers and are negotiating the matter.

Also, the reason charging the market rate is not so simple is because the government explicitly created the various dams, canals and water delivery system to arid regions of the Klamath Basin in order to attract farmers to the area. ("185 miles of canals, 516 miles of lateral ditches, 45 pumping stations, and 7 dams"; this fact from here) That is a lot of investment that may become useless if high electricity prices drives out many of the farmers. The agricultural communities supported by cheap water and electricity would be significantly affected by the price hike currently contemplated.

So why endorse the market here? Because they know exactly what the outcome will be. Marginally profitable farmers will go bust, thereby freeing up water for use by the fish. Environment over people at just about any cost. After all, the solution for the is simple.

BEE ENDORSES MATSUI FOR REASONS UNKNOWN

2005-03-01T21:41:00.000-08:00

In an unintentionally amusing editorial by the Sacramento Bee on March 1, the Bee endorced Doris Matsui for Congress (didn't see that coming, did you?) The editorial is amusing because the endorcement was so half-hearted and littered with questions about possible ethical problems.

The Bee also stated that "if elected she could end up being both an effective advocate for Sacramento and a reasoned voice on issues such as Social Security and health care." What a low hurdle. She "could" be an effective advocate, but then again she "could" not be. The Bee fails to support its speculative assessment of her ability to be a "reasoned voice" on social security with any facts of any kind. You would think that the Bee would insert some positions set forth by Matsui that are instructive for the Bee's editorial writers for supporting Matsui. Nope.

JOURNALIST FIRED

2005-02-05T13:11:00.000-08:00

Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette fires sportswriter for plagiarism.

EASON JORDAN UPDATE

2005-02-04T13:57:00.000-08:00

Hugh Hewitt interview with blogger present at Davos conference where CNN executive blamed U.S. military with targeting journalists for murder.

A SAD DAY

2005-02-04T08:56:00.000-08:00

Everyone should go out and buy the DVD.

ETHICS AND COLUMNISTS

2005-02-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

Bill Hobbs comments on the pursuit of ethics by the National Conference of Editorial Writers. You listening Bee?

DOCTORS REFUSING TO KILL PEOPLE

2005-02-04T08:04:00.000-08:00

Dutch doctors are refusing to euthanasia.

CORRUPTION IN JOURNALISM

2005-02-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

Interesting article on corruption.

BEE IS DISHONEST ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

2005-02-03T20:54:00.000-08:00

The Bee's lead editorial on February 2 titled "A dead horse" is a firm stance against Bush's social security reform. This much was predictable. You would expect that an editorial that contains the subtitle "Bush plan would ruin Social Security" would contain some facts to prop up its conclusion. No so. In fact, the Bee flatly lies about Bush's reform plan and uses hyperbole in describing the effects of Bush's reform.

First, the Bee describes Bush's plan to put a very small percentage of taxes into personal investment accounts as "radical." Let's take a look at how "radical" this plan is.

Beginning in 2009, workers could invest up to 4 percent of their wages in individual investment accounts up to $1,000 annually. The maximum contribution would rise by $100 a year afterward. No withdrawals would be permitted before retirement. Wow! Radical. Except that it isn't. The federal government already does this with federal employees in what's called the Thrift Savings Plan. The National Center for Policy Analysis drafted a report on how the social security system can be changed to something similar to the Thrift Savings Plan.

The Bee accuses Bush of making "grossly exaggerated" claims about the financial stability of social security to justify his reforms. The Bee does not bother to explain to the reader the claims it believes Bush has exaggerated.

Although not intended, the Bee makes a humorous statement that "Social Security faces a long-term actuarial imbalance." Got that: an "actuarial imbalance."

This is the nature of the "actuarial imbalance": In 2018, there will no longer be enough money coming in from social security taxes from working people to pay the amount the government pays in social security benefits. In other words, in 2018 the government will have to find some other source of revenue to pay the benefits it has promised. It can do this by raising taxes or through cuts in government spending. The Bee glosses over this fact and simply states that in 2041 the income from taxes will only cover about 78% of the promised benefits. The Bee is being intellectually dishonest when it implies that the problem starts in 2041. The problem hits home in 2018 when the government will start to require sources of revenue other than social security taxes to pay benefits!

Hell bent on minimizing the problem (true to the Democrat playbook that there is no social security crisis), the Bee states that "Congress can easily make adjustments to fix that imbalance." What adjustments you ask. Well, the Bee does not suggest any. What it means is that Congress can cut benefits, raise taxes, or strip away funding from other government programs and shift the money to pay benefits. Which one does the Bee endorse? Well, who knows. But according to the Bee, the problem is "easily" solved. A solution does not lie in any of these choices because worker demographics dictate that the system of relying on a decreasing number of workers to support an increasing number of retired persons.

The Bee then goes on to state that during the 20th century "there were three 20-year periods of negative real returns on the stock market - 1901 to 1921, 1928 to 1948 and from 1962 to 1982." The Bee does not indicate the source of this "fact," but the chances are they are referring to a 1997 by economist John Mueller. The Bee should have done more research than reading the daily talking points faxed to it from the Dems. John Mueller's 1997 report has been dedunked by numerous economists and policy experts. See also here and here. I should add that Mueller's report was commissioned by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare . . . . oh, the Bee didn't mention that did they? Ethical lapse?

Let's get down to what the Bee is against: individual choice. Sounds good if it pertains to abortions, but people cannot be trusted to plan for their own future.

CARTOON ROUNDUP

2005-02-03T20:28:00.000-08:00

The following is a simple assessment of the Bee's cartoons for the month of January. The Bee's sympathies lie exactly where you expect.

I first compared the (i) cartoons commenting on President Bush and/or the policies Bush is promoting with the (ii) cartoons commenting on any democrat and/or distinctly liberal policies. Not included in these numbers are the cartoons that merely poke fun at Bush and/or liberals.

Anti-Bush and anti-Bush policy = 14
Anti-any liberal or liberal policy= 4

Of the three anti-liberal/Democrat finds, 2 were critical of Kevin Shelley, California's Secretary of State. These are not unexpected since Shelley's conduct has been overtly smarmy.

I next compared the cartoons that were (i) distinctly anti-conservative (Bush, policies promoted by conservatives, Schwarzenegger, etc.) and compared them to cartoons that were (ii) distinctly anti-liberal policies. Here is what I found:

Anti-conservative: 22
Anti-liberal: 4

This topic overlaps with the first comparison except that it is much broader. Note the large increase in anti-conservative cartoons and no increase of anti-liberal cartoons.

President Bush's social security reforms received nothing but negative coverage in the Bee's cartoons. There were 4 cartoons that were overtly critical of Bush's social security policy and no favorable coverage.

I thought a trend may be hard to detect since I was told late last year by flunkies pushing Bee subscriptions that the Bee was trying to balance coverage. Hardly.

MEDIA DOES NOT QUESTION CNN EXECUTIVE FOR OUTRAGEOUS COMMENTS

2005-02-03T10:01:00.000-08:00

MSM doesn't make a peep at CNN executive Eason Jordon's comments that the American military targets journalists for murder (I'm not making this up).

MORE ON BIAS

2005-02-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

Hugh Hewitt has a column on media bias over at the Weekly Standard.

HUMOR

2005-02-01T10:34:00.000-08:00

A humourous look at the bias of Al-Jazeera over at Wandering Jew.

COMING SOON

2005-02-01T10:24:00.000-08:00

The January cartoon roundup is coming later today, wherein you will be able to see the political leanings of the Bee.

DON'T GET TOO HAPPY ABOUT THE IRAQI ELECTION

2005-02-01T10:05:00.000-08:00

A February 1 editorial in the Bee titled "Hopes and fears" finally exudes what can be considered something less than utter gloom regarding Iraq. The editorial predictably crowds out the good news regarding the significance of the Iraqi election with its somber reflections of the war. "Don't get too happy about the election," the Bee appears to be saying.

THE BILE OF BILL MOYERS

2005-01-31T22:59:00.000-08:00

A Bill Moyers column for the Minneapolis Star Tribune is pure acid and is a "departure from elementary standards of opinion journalism," according to this dissection over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

UPDATE: This response by James Lileks.

RATHERGATE UPDATE

2005-01-31T16:43:00.000-08:00

The media bias incident involving CBS's overt effort to sway the election in Kerry's favor gets more airing from insiders in this New York magazine piece.

BEE GETS SUCKERED IN WITH THE REST OF MSM

2005-01-31T15:07:00.000-08:00

The January 30 print edition of the Bee contains a cartoon attacking James Dobson's much reported remarks on Spongebob Squarepants being gay. Except that, Dobson never called Spongebob gay. But why check the facts on an issue if you can nail a right-winger to the wall with a cartoon. Dobson responds to the media attacks here.

NEW YORK TIMES LOVES GLOOM

2005-01-31T14:51:00.000-08:00

New York Times gets caught omitting positive headline on article about Iraqi election. Apparently, NYT omitted a positive paragraph as well.

OUR SAUDI FRIENDS

2005-01-31T14:44:00.000-08:00

Saudi government is the source of many publications touting anti-democratic, pro-totalitarian bile.

UPDATE: More comments on this matter over at Little Green Footballs.

THE BEE MUST BE DEPRESSED

2005-01-30T13:44:00.000-08:00

The Bee continues to exude cynicism at George Bush's inaugural speech that emphasized freedom for people living under the boot of oppression.

In a January 28 editorial titled "Bush's opaque agenda," did the Bee spend a single sentence even suggesting that this administration's promotion of freedom is a worthwhile component of our foreign policy. Nope. Instead the Bee admits that it is "not sure" what Bush's declarations for "spreading freedom and ending tyranny" mean. This does not stop the Bee from assuming the worst. The Bee cannot seem to crawl out from under the dark cloud they see as George Bush.

The Bee declares that "those around" Bush have a "triumphalist mind-set . . . who seem still to believe that the United States can go it alone in pursuing the utopian goals the president has embraced." The fact that the Bee would describe "spreading freedom and ending tyranny" a "utopian" goal is indicative of how cynical the Bee editorial writers have become. And to make the assertion that people in the Bush administration believe the United States can "go it alone" is simply, well, creative interpretation.

The editorial ends with an absolutely nonsensical rhetorical question that is seemingly written with the hopes of being quoted by someone. The Bee asks whether Bush's "fervor for global freedom. . . will be channeled in directions that help restore America's status as a promoter of freedom achieved through peaceful, not warlike means." Let me get this straight. The U.S., with the aid of many countries (but since France and Germany didn't help, the countries that did help don't count), liberated Iraq. Because of this, somehow the U.S. can no longer be considered a promoter of freedom via peaceful means? Is the Bee kidding? Somehow the U.S.'s constant effort to promote freedom in a great many countries around the world don't count. The liberation of Iraq negates all of the other U.S. efforts around the globe? Clearly those efforts don't count for the Bee because, as the Bee states, our status must be "restore[d]." I could go on, but you get the point.

The day the Bee editorial writers become less interested in sounding like righteous, deep thinkers to the Bee's readers, then perhaps these editorials might exude some sort of pleasure in this administration (hell, any administration) shouting about the merits of a free society.

BIAS DISCUSSION MERITLESS?

2005-01-29T08:21:00.001-08:00

Here is an interesting (albeit dated) article on media bias.

2005-01-29T08:21:00.000-08:00

Although dated, here is is an interesting article (and links) on media bias.

MORE BIAS AT THE GUARDIAN

2005-01-28T07:23:00.000-08:00

You are shocked, I can tell. Apparently suicide bombers are massacring people because they are the victims of injustice. The Guardian article doesn't bother to condemn the massacres.

LOOKING DOWN THEIR NOSES

2005-01-27T19:07:00.000-08:00

The editorial titled "Biowasteful spending?" in the January 27 edition of the Bee contained a rather snobbish insinuation. (Online version) In describing California's bad ranking in a report by the "nonpartisan" Trust for America's Health, the Bee tried to emphasize the bad rank by stating "Mississippi and Louisiana scored better.

The implication being that if the backward hayseeds in those ghetto states (Red States no less) can score better than California, then progressive Blue State sophisticates like us are in trouble.

CANADA IS USELESS

2005-01-27T16:21:00.000-08:00

"A major study of politicians, diplomats and thinkers from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America has concluded that Canada has become an irrelevant force on the international stage," reports the Edmonton Journal.

INTERNATIONAL TAX PROPOSED

2005-01-27T10:51:00.000-08:00

France's Jacques Chirac proposes an international tax to fight AIDS. (hat tip: Wizbang) This is obscene on many levels, not the least of which is that deaths from cancer far exceed that of AIDS. However, cancer is not the chic, sexy disease with which one wants to make a pet cause.

BIAS AT WASHINGTON POST

2005-01-27T10:29:00.000-08:00

This evidence of media bias at the Washington Post will obviously get overlooked by the MSM. Good analysis at That Liberal Media (their January 26 posting).

BEE AGAINST ALBERTO GONZALES

2005-01-27T09:05:00.000-08:00

The lead editorial in the January 26 edition, titled "Tainted justice" (Online version), of the Sacramento Bee opines that Alberto Gonzales should not be Attorney General (you're surprised, I know). It isn't for lack of experience says the Bee, it is because of "his inability or unwillingness to confront head-on questions about the administration's policy on the treatment of prisoners designated as 'unlawful combatants.'" The example the Bee gives clearly contradicts the Bee's own position that Gonzales was evasive.

The Bee states that when asked whether U.S. soldiers or intelligence agents could "legally engage in torture under any circumstances," Gonzales stated: "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that and make sure I don't provide a misleading answer." The Bee stated that this "statement itself is as misleading as it gets." Huh? How? The Bee never explains why. Can't blame the Bee, their editorials are not known for heady analysis.

The Bee admits that after the hearing, Gonzales wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that although non-military personnel were not bound by a 2002 presidential directive that promised the humane treatment of prisoners, the President had also banned the use of torture by all non-military personnel. The Bee calls this "sidestepping." Huh? What exactly was sidestepped? Remember, the Bee opposes Gonzales because he was unwilling to confront issues on the treatment of prisoners. Gonzales said that the administration banned all forms of torture by military and non-military personnel. What more does the Bee want?

The Bee goes on to state that the "accumulating evidence of abuses" goes "far beyond" a few "bad apples." What evidence in particular suggests this? The Bee doesn't say. True to the Bee's pattern of editorial writing, it writes in broad, abstract language without providing much factual foundation for its position.

The Bee goes on to state that even if Gonzales' involvement was limited to his "legal advice" to the president, this was sufficient for the Bee to take the position that this was an "appalling lapse in judicial prudence." Oh my, this is just sophomoric. First, was Gonzales' role limited to "legal advice" to the president?

Second, what "legal advice" is the Bee talking about? Is the Bee saying that Gonzales advised the president that torture was ok? I thought the Bee just informed its readers that the president banned torture.

Third, how is the "legal advice" an "appalling lack of jurisprudence"? Was he wrong on his interpretation of domestic and/or international law? How? The Bee doesn't explain, but hey, if you want opinions grounded in abstract nothingness, this paper is for you.

But wait! Near the end of the editorial the Bee posits that Gonzales failed to "give straight answers about what constitutes torture" and "how the administration plans to end to end it once and for all." The Bee doesn't give the reader any insight on how exactly Gonzales failed to live up to the Bee's standard on the "what constitutes torture" issue. And what on earth is the Bee talking about regarding ending torture once and for all? I thought the Bee already said that Gonzales explicitly told the Committee that the president banned torture! What more do they want, a presidential directive stating "therefore, it is our stated policy that we really, really, really prohibit the use of torture."

The Bee portrays the administrations policy as somewhat of a mystery. In fact, the administration has stated that torture is "abhorrent" and "unlawful" even when premised upon protecting national security. Woops. This doesn't exactly figure into the Bee's analysis here, so why bother mentioning it to the readers.

Note to the Bee editorial board: time to take the happy pills.

ALMOST . . .

2005-01-26T16:46:00.000-08:00

Only days away from my monthly review of the Sacramento Bee cartoons, letters to the editor, columnists and editorials. . . . . like you've got better things to do.

AP GETS CAUGHT

2005-01-25T08:56:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press ran a story titled "al-Qaida Official Admits to U.N. Assault." Get it, they have political legitimacy now. But the AP changed the title of the article this morning. A Google search for "al Qaida official" turns up a pathetically large number of hits.

SHAME

2005-01-25T08:52:00.000-08:00

Wow. Truly scary when it gets to the point when a country's legislature debates this type of anti-Semitic BS.

WASHINGTON POST vs. WASHINGTON POST

2005-01-23T09:03:00.000-08:00

What happens when newspapers just print their opinions instead of facts? You get this inconsistency.

BIAS

2005-01-21T08:38:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting report on general media bias that cites to this March 21, 1997 Pew Research Center study.

JOURNALIST ETHICS

2005-01-21T08:22:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting story implicating journalistic ethics of AP reporters who happen to be taking money from the Palestinian Authority.

CAN'T SEEM TO SPREAD THE BLAME

2005-01-20T20:11:00.000-08:00

Today's lead editorial titled "A billion, borrowed" in the Bee doesn't seem to spread the blame for the pension mess this state is in. The Bee seems to put a half-hearted blame in the government leaders for ramping up pension benefits when the governments can't afford it. Let's put the blame on everyone responsible, including the unions that have a vice-grip on the Democratic legislators. When there was a budget surplus several years ago, every interest group came running with their hands out and decried the heartlessness of those who suggested that the surplus should be spent on anything other than funding their particular cause. The Bee just can't bring itself to call the union leadership selfish.

NORTH KOREA WANTS TO BE FRIENDS

2005-01-18T20:12:00.000-08:00

Let's start with an easy premise: North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il is a total loon. He kidnapped South Korea's most famous actress and her husband years ago and forced his goons to chant that he is a "genius from heaven." It has a history of outright lying to the US and failing to live up to promises.

So with this in mind, why does the Bee say that the most recent talks with the US and a number of other nations (Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, and Russia) have stalled in part because of, you guessed it, George Bush's preoccupation with Iraq. Excuse me. Of course North Korea blames the U.S. in part for the stalled talks. North Korea has also blamed the talks on South Korea. North Korea recently said that it would go to war with Japan if Japan levied sanctions against it. And it was North Korea that did not show up for the last round of talks in September 2004 because it wanted to wait to see if the U.S. elections would change administrations. Perhaps the Bee blames Bush because, well, it puts great weight in the words of Chinese government flunkies who blame Bush.

PLEBEIANS CAN SEE YOSEMITE IN PICTURES

2005-01-18T08:14:00.000-08:00

An editorial in the January 16 print edition of the Bee reminds me of the elitism that is environmentalism. (Online version) I have been hearing for as long as I can remember that the environment must be saved for everyone to appreciate, especially inner city folks who just don't have the opportunity to see it that often.

The Bee's editorial exudes a giant sigh of relief that the recent hike in the entrance fee has cut down on "drive-by visitors" (read: daytrippers). Who does this fee affect? Not those staying at the expensive hotels or investing several days worth of lodging, travel, and food to visit. Its affecting those who can't afford to do that, and most likely those who least afford it. So much for the concern that everyone should be able to see the beauty of the park.

The editorial gives passing mention to the worry that this entrance fee hike has on low income individuals, but then rationalizes that the fee is less than it would cost to take the family to the movies. Yes, so what. These are two entirely different experiences. But, if it means keeping the roads in Yosemite less clogged for the elite then the rabble can see Yosemite at the movies.

BEE MISREPRESENTS COURT DECISION

2005-01-16T20:25:00.000-08:00

On January 4, the Bee contained an editorial on a recent federal appellate court decision from the Ninth Circuit regarding sex discrimination. (Online version) The case was Jespersen v. Harrah's and the Bee's obtuse editorial seemed like such a kneejerk reaction that I thought I would read the decision.

If the Bee read the case then they either outright lied or didn't understand a single word of the decision. If they didn't read the case, then the Bee simply based its editorial on the talking points memo it got from Mother Jones Magazine.

The editorial states that Harrah's instituted a workplace appearance policy that stated women must "wear stockings, lipstick, foundation, blush, mascara and nail polish . . . [and] fix their hair 'teased, curled, or styled,'" while men must "merely have to be clean and neat in appearance." This is a lie. The policy is set forth in the court's decision and it requires men to have their hair, hands, and shoes to appear in a specific manner.

The Bee's editorial states that the "two judges [in the majority opinion] do not think that Harrah's policy imposes any extra cost or time on women beyond 'ordinary good-grooming standards.'" Not only is this a lie, but the two judges the Bee references expressly state that they had to rule against Jespersen on this issue because she presented no evidence that extra cost or time was imposed on women than men by the policy:

Even if we were to take judicial notice of the fact that the application
of makeup requires some expenditure of time and money, Jespersen would still
have the burden of producing some evidence that the burdens associated with the
makeup requirement are greater than the burdens . . . [Harrah's] policy
imposes on male bartenders, and exceed whatever "burden" is associated with
ordinary good-grooming standards. Because there is no evidence in the
record from which we can assess the burdens that . . . [Harrah's] policy imposes
on male bartenders either, Jespersen's claim fails for that reason
alone.

There you have it. The court could not rule in favor of Jespersen's claim because she did not bother to present any evidence in support of it. . . more precisely, her lawyers failed to do so.

The Bee tries to bolster its indignation by citing a U.S. Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins which stated that it is unlawful to discriminate against employees on the basis that the employee's failure to dress and behave according to the stereotype corresponding with her gender. As the two-judge opinion pointed out, the Price Waterhouse case did not address the issue of whether an employer can impose sex-differentiated appearance and grooming standards on its male and female employees. Attention Bee editorial staff: Do you see the distinction? The court specifically said that it was bound by the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision ("en banc" means every appellate judge in the Ninth Circuit weighed in on the written opinion) of Frank v. United Airlines, Inc. which reiterated the legal standard that the Jespersen court used.

The Bee's editorial is so slapdash and an embarrassing misrepresentation of the case.

IRONY ALERT

2005-01-16T13:50:00.000-08:00

It is ironic that in the other editorial of January 14, the Bee scolds a politician for offering "no explanation" as to why the politician was advocating a position. (Online version) The pot calling the kettle black.

BEE ENDORSES POSTPONEMENT OF EXECUTION

2005-01-16T13:16:00.000-08:00

The January 14 lead editorial in the Sacramento Bee contains a particular inane argument endorsing a reprieve of his impending execution of convicted murderer Donald Jay Beardslee. (Online version) Beardslee's attorneys claim that there is "new evidence of severe brain damage" that "impaired Beardslee's functioning since birth."

The Bee editorial states that "Traditionally, California governors have granted reprieves to conduct further investigation and medical tests to determine whether it would be appropriate to grant clemency." Really. Well, no. The Bee editorial states that the last time a California governor did this was in 1967, which was 37 years ago. Where's the "tradition."

One would think that in an editorial endorsing the reprieve and the commutation of Beardslee's sentence to life without parole there would be facts and argument addressing why a severely brain damaged person should not be executed. The Bee's argument is limited to a single sentence. That sentence was the above-noted sentence about how governors in California have done so. Well, the Bee editorial refutes that "tradition."

There is not a single sentence regarding what the significance of this purported brain damage has on the legal standard which determines whether or not someone should die. The editorial is a rambling mess avoiding this tough argument. If Beardslee had the ability to comprehend and appreciate the acts for which he was convicted and knew the acts were wrong, then what on earth is the basis for granting clemency. Of course clemency is the real agenda behind this editorial. The editorial spends more time advocating clemency without even knowing if he is brain damaged than than providing a factual or legal basis for granting a reprieve. The editorial's title is a classic bait and switch.

What are the Bee's bases for endorsing a clemency: (1) the prison warden supports clemency for Beardslee, (2) "correctional officers" support clemency (How many? Two? Ten? All of them?), and (3) if Beardslee is found to be severely brain damaged, then because California does not execute mentally retarded people we should also not execute those who are severely brain damaged. The Bee also interjects that the "correctional officers" note how Beardslee has been a model prisoner. This is truly distasteful and repugnant to suggest that good behavior in prison should be a consideration of whether to change his judgment.

THE IRRESISTIBLE TAG

2005-01-14T10:25:00.000-08:00

Today's article by Tony Bizjak titled "Fewer limits on housing sought" is, in its totality, a fair article regarding Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to modify the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Online article) The title is misleading because the article does not state that regulations would be reduced, instead the article states how the Governor, legislators, and the private sector wish to streamline CEQA and the time it takes to approve urban projects. In fact, the article states that the Governor's representatives indicate that the Governor does not want to weaken the law.

Although the article is balanced, reporters just can't resist the ominous, negative "tag" at the end of an article which is nothing more than a skeptical view of the Governor's "real" agenda. In this article, the reporter ends the article with a quote from a Sierra Club representative (a very partisan group). The Sierra Club representative states that the Governor's recent comments on the "need to eliminate regulatory hurdles that delay construction" was ominous of things to come: "That is a warning flag to me."

The Bee can't just report the facts. It must inject speculation to induce worry.

KUDOS TO THE BEE

2005-01-12T21:40:00.000-08:00

The Bee gets kudos for its editorial regarding who will run to fill the seat of late U.S. Representative Robert Matsui. The Bee lightly scolded those who suggested that it would be "unseemly" for someone to run against Doris Matsui, wife of the late Mr. Matsui. The Bee said that competition for the seat would benefit democracy. Indeed.

ANOTHER ROUNDUP

2005-01-11T09:17:00.000-08:00

I intend to post weekly Opinion page roundup summarizing the nature and opinions of the columnists published by the Bee. This will be revealing, oh my.

CARTOON ROUNDUP

2005-01-11T08:42:00.000-08:00

A while back I recall the Bee printing a cartoon from a South African paper that depicted American soldiers raising a flag on a pile of dead, nude Iraqi civilians. The cartoon was a takeoff of the World War II image of marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima's Mount Sunbachi. Sacramento Bee publisher Janis Heafy said in response to the protest that "publishing cartoons such as this one is part of the newspaper's responsibility, because they give our readers a sense of how the United States is viewed in other parts of the world." (Source)

I thought that was a squishy answer, especially the referral to the abstract notion of the paper's "responsibility." Where exactly does this responsibility come from? Anyway, I also thought it silly because the Bee's cartoons are an excellent view into the mindset and bias of the Bee. Therefore, a regular feature of this blog will be a weekly cartoon roundup characterizing the cartoons that appeared in the previous week.

January 1: 1 anti-American consumerism; 1 anti-Bush/military
January 2: 1 anti-"West"; 2 anti-Bush; 1 anti-military; 3 neutral
January 3: 1 critical of pharmaceutical industry; 1 poking fun at Bush
January 4: 1 neutral (memorial of Matsui, by Rex Babin); 1 critical of Social Security
January 5: 1 neutral (Rex Babin); 1 depicting social security exploding
January 6: 1 anti-fire department transgressions/Mayor Fargo; 1 anti-Alberto Gonzales
January 7: 1 anti-Bush/Administration/social security policy

There you have it. Not fancy. The characterizations are as accurate and short as possible. Over time the trends will be obvious. Rex Babin is the Bee's in-house cartoonist who has a history of being extremely caustic at anything not liberal.

WHO NEEDS FACTS

2005-01-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

On of the Sacramento Bee's editorials in the June 6 edition exemplifies why perhaps anyone can be an editorial writer at the Bee. Just under the lead editorial that criticizes Governor Schwarzenegger for leaving out the details for his budget and political agenda, the Bee has an editorial titled "Bush's dubious choice." It is of course an editorial criticizing Alberto Gonzales.

The thing is, this editorial is absolutely packed with vague references about the nefarious conduct of Gonzales that it makes the editorial absolutely useless as a meaningful source of news.

For example, it accuses Gonzales of either authoring or passing on to the president "several memoranda that defined torture so narrowly as to suggest the president has the right" to "bypass international treaties and U.S. law banning torture of combatants." You will have to look elsewhere to figure out to which memoranda the Bee is referring. And damn, you mean Gonzales can just, like, define torture anyway he wants and it gives the president the right to proceed? Or was it that Gonzales took the present factual scenario, applied the facts to domestic and international laws that pertain to torture, and then made a conclusion as to what behavior/conduct is or is not "torture" in regard to the detainees.

Seriously, the Bee's use of the word "bypass" implies that the term is synonymous with "violate." I'm sure that's how the Bee feels, but can you please make a coherent argument for the reader.

The Bee goes on to state "a key memo has been modified." Which memo? Modified by Gonzales?

The Bee states that senators "must press him" to explain "why he took such an extraordinary position on the treatment of prisoners." Am I missing something? Has the Bee described any treatment Gonzales advocated? No. It stated that Gonzales "authored or passed on" some memos on the definition of torture and that the White House has not assured everyone that it "feels" bound by "Geneva Conventions' guarantees of humane treatment of prisoners." You'll have to go elsewhere to discern what "extraordinary position" the Bee is specifically referring. As for the assurances the Bee desperately needs but says it does not have, it appears this is incorrect. According to this lefty outfit's website, certain assurances were given in 2002.

This next quote is so vacuous and so precious: "The job of attorney general is far too important to remain a tool of the White House political agenda." This line is so sophomoric I'll keep my comments short. The justice department is part of the executive branch and part of its job is to . . . implement the policies of its boss . . . .the White House. Is it suppose to create its own agenda. Or maybe it can just ask direction from, I don't know. . . . how about the North-Polk Sewer & Water District in Latah County, Idaho. In addition, perhaps the Bee can elaborate on what appointed positions are not too important to be tools of the White House political agenda.

With editorials so full of assumptions and so few details, perhaps the editors should, as they recommended to the governor, "sleep on it a bit longer."

UPDATE: Powerline reports that the extent of his involvement was as follows:

1) he received a memo written by the Justice Department on the question of what conduct would violate a statute that prohibits torture and other cruel and inhumane activity. The Justice Department's analysis of that statute appears to me to be sound, but, in any event, it was their analysis, not the nominee's. 2) He received from the Justice Department, and passed on to the President, a memo from the Justice Department on whether the Geneva convention applies to al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

GONZALES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

2005-01-05T21:35:00.000-08:00

The Bee printed an article by journalist James Rosen on page A12 of its January 5 print edition titled "Ex-officers air doubts on Gonzales." The entire article details how approximately 12 ex-Pentagon types "challenged" the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the top spot of U.S. Attorney General. There is not a single word in the article regarding whether Gonzales has the support of any ex-Pentagon personnel. Considering the harsh words some of these "ex- officers" have for Gonzales' interpretation of the "Geneva Conventions and other international legal protections for war prisoners," some clue as to the ex-officers' understandings of international law would be helpful for the reader to gauge the merit of their arguments. A clear failure of balanced reporting Mr. Rosen.

RADICAL CHANGES

2005-01-05T20:53:00.000-08:00

A January 5th article by Lawrence O'Rourke, Kevin Diaz, and Rob Hotakainen titled "Congress off to fiery start" is a fairly balanced report on the big issues that the Republicans and Democrats will be fighting about. Near the end of piece, the authors charcterize the Republican's suggested change to the filibuster rule. The procedural rule (note: not a constitutionary right; not a statutory right) allows unlimted debate unless 60 of the 100 Senate members vote to stop debate. Republican's floated the idea that they may change the rule to lower the votes needed from 60 to 51, or a simple majority. The Bee characterizes such a move as a "radical change in Senate tradition."

Tradition in this context is good, even if it gives disproportionate power to the minority. Let's see . . . let me think . . . when did the Bee rail against the disproportionate allocation of power held in the hands of the minority. Oh yeah, when it involved Red States.

INCREASE IN AID ASSOCIATED WITH AMERICAN STINGINESS

2005-01-04T17:29:00.000-08:00

The January 2 print edition of the Bee runs an Associated Press story by journalist Chris Brummitt in which the increase in disaster aid to Asia is associated with the criticism the Bush administration gave too little. I'll have more later on the "donations per capita" silliness. (online version)

UPDATE: Apparently, we are not as stingy as the MSM would have us believe.

UPDATE: Our giving is now impugned by the EU.

SACRAMENTO BEE's FIRST EDITORIAL OF THE NEW YEAR: "It's Time to Ditch The Electoral College"

2005-01-04T17:26:00.000-08:00

Although the editorial is couched within the safe, equivocal tone of "Gee, we're not sure what it should be changed to," their solution may have leaked out near the end of the piece: "The presidency is a national office and election of the president should reflect the directly expressed will of the American people." A direct expression of the American people is direct democracy. There you have it. Add the numbers up, winner take all.

There is one problem with this. America is quite large and different regions of the country call dear to different interests. That much is obvious. If coordinating campaign stops is governed solely by population, then regional interests are devalued more than they are now. Don't think so? Try this. George W. Bush won the 2004 election with a total vote of approximately 60,600,000 votes, to John Kerry's approximately 57,280,000 votes. (Source) In order for any president to get just enough to win, he/she need only do simple math. The population of the five largest states in the United States is approximately 106,000,000 people. (Source) OK, not all of these people vote. So take the population of the largest ten states, which is about 157,000,000. All a contender needs to win is approximtely 60,000,000 votes. You get the picture. A direct democracy further marginalizes small states.

So what, the small states have it coming to them, the punks. Well, it is a problem if presidential candidates have zero incentive to campaign in the smaller states because there are not enough votes to make it worthwhile. The smallest 15 states each have less than 2,000,000 residents residing there, and seven states have less than 1,000,000 residents. I have been around long enough to have read and heard the same cynical refrain from people representing every political stripe: Politicians do what is in there interest to get reelected. If this is true, then under a direct democracy it is very likely that the smaller states will become virtually ignored. Sad.

And another thing: Whatever happened to the Bee's enthusiasm for government activism to uplifting the disenfranchised and underdogs. Oh, those less populous states are . . . Red States.

RATHERGATE UPDATE

2005-01-04T17:24:00.000-08:00

Folks over at Wizbang dissect Columbia Journalism Review article on the Rathergate saga. CJR gets it wrong. Badly.

UPDATE: A look at CJR's article here.

WHAT TO EXPECT

2005-01-04T17:21:00.000-08:00

Because this blog will be a part-time endeavor, I cannot yet fill it with the in-depth analysis that I would like. For this reason, and because the web is filled with what seems an endless number of perspectives, I would hope that the readers of this blog will contribute with comments to the posts. I am also willing to turn this into a community blog whereby multiple individuals make regular postings. Please contact me.

Although the primary purpose of this blog will be to tee off on the patent biases displayed by the Bee, I also intend to post other items of interest and link to my sister site if non-Bee related items start clogging up this blog.

Although I consider myself an opinionated person, I endeavor to make nothing but the most factually accurate posts I can. Does this mean I'll conduct endless research for every fact I posit here. No. I will be honest, but unfortunately I may not always be accurate. I invite anyone to make corrections and point out my boobery when it happens.

INAUGURAL POST

2005-01-04T17:14:00.000-08:00

Having long ago abandoned reading the Sacramento Bee, Sacramento's largest daily newspaper, I recently thought it would be appropriate to initiate a blog dedicated to putting the standards of journalism practiced at the Sacramento Bee under the spotlight. Why? First, the Bee professes its objective reporting standard while many people believe otherwise. I believe it should give up the charade and registered as a 527 . Second, my medication isn't working. Third, the Bee will not critically analyze themselves, and I have about 38 seconds of unallocated free time each week to do so. Fourth, I sure wish there was a local paper I could buy, read, then trust what I had just read. Avast, yee holed-up, wanna-be policy makers masquerading as journalists, here comes some needed critique . . . . and sometimes a little bourbon-induced crankiness.