"For my wife and I it would cost about $30,000 ... It's obvious Bush just wants to fund his Iraq war with our money."
The brief LA Times report had none of this. It says
Some marchers expressed frustration at the lack of progress in Washington but said it was important to make their voices heard.
A sentence that could not only have been written before this march took place but before virtually every march of the last 30 years for any cause. ...
P.S.: Remember, this is an event that took place in downtown Los Angeles a few blocks from the Times building. ...
P.P.S.: Here's an unprompted email I got from a friend who recently tried to rely on the LAT as his/her only newspaper--
There is nothing to love about it. There is nothing to look forward to. Nothing to anticipate. .... They do not know how to "build" and audience and part of it is creating tension in the very act of offering enticing things for readers to look forward to. Like Tuesdays Science section in NY, for example. Or Monday's publishing news. Even the fact that the crossword puzzle starts out easy and gets more difficult as the days soldier on. Nothing welcoming or challenging. It's messy and confusing. They don't even cover music until it's already OVER and you can't ck it out for yourself. Annoying! Who are the key players in local government? Who knows? You want to become attached - it's OUR city - but they can't manage to accomplish the most basic task of a newspaper: to answer the question What is Going On? Are they trying to compete with NY? Are they trying to be a local paper? They don't do either well. It feels like a jumble of people who can't make up their minds and have bad graphic taste to boot.
Keenly observed and deeply felt! ...
P.P.S.: I admit I am sort of enjoying this deluded, self-important institution's slow-motion agony. But it would be better if the Times went broke quickly. ... It isn't important to make their voices heard. [?-ed We've heard their voices for 50 years! Let's hear somebody else's voices.] ... 1:05 A.M. link
Tuesday, Ap ril 10, 2007
Why Republican businessmen hate an enforcement-first immigration approach (and Democrats should be for it):** Even the administration's Kabuki-like, for-show attempts at immigration enforcement may already be having enough of an effect to help the poorest American workers. From WaPo: