LITTLE SKIM MILK BUT LOTS OF SHOPLIFTERS: A Dog Trainer editorial complains that there are no quality grocery stores in South L.A. The editorial begins: “Rent-by-the-hour motel rooms are easier to find in South Los Angeles than a quart of skim milk.” It goes on to compare the variety of foods sold in South L.A. groceries unfavorably with the variety sold in West L.A.

Fair enough. But the editorial praises a South Los Angeles activist who is “working to block the construction of new motels and to bring in grocery stores, or at least get the ones already there to carry healthier food.” And I just can’t help but think that this same activist is probably dead set against any significant punishment for criminals such as repeat shoplifters, burglars, and robbers — who, you have to believe, are a principal reason you don’t see entrepreneurs rushing to establish businesses in South L.A.

BLOGGING LIGHT: Blogging will probably be light during this Labor Day weekend.

HILLARY NOT RUNNING: “I am absolutely ruling it out,” Hillary says.

So did Mr. N-Word.

HOWARD DEAN, CANDIDATE OF GRAFFITI: While the rest of the world works to get rid of graffiti, the Howard Dean campaign commissions it.

OVERSEER FAULTS LAPD ON CITIZEN COMPLAINTS: The Dog Trainer reports: “Undercover LAPD officers posing as citizens trying to report police misconduct were routinely dismissed or stonewalled by fellow officers in a series of stings, according to the federal monitor overseeing reforms after the Rampart corruption scandal.”

Once I called LAPD’s Southeast Division and asked the guy at the front desk for the number for Internal Affairs. I wrote down the number he gave me, but it didn’t work. When I later learned the correct number, I looked again at the number the desk officer had given me. He had transposed two of the digits.

Whoops!

CRUZ OR JOE?: It has already been noted that Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante looks just like character actor Jon Polito. But has anyone else noticed that he sounds like Joe Mantegna?

JUSTICE VS. WINNING: The New York Times runs a story titled Prosecutors Fight DNA Use for Exoneration. How embarrassing. It is true, as the prosecutors point out, that there may be cases where a defendant can obtain DNA results favorable to him, and still not be “exonerated” due to independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt. But to oppose the testing just doesn’t sit well. Prosecutors should allow any statutorily authorized testing to go forward without challenge. Fighting it just looks bad.

MAYBE “UN” STOOD FOR THE “UNITED NATIONS”: The Washington Post has today a requiem for the “road map” titled All Sides Failed to Follow ‘Road Map’. The story contains this quote:

A mutual cease-fire was one of the first steps called for in the road map, and persuading the militants to unilaterally declare a truce was considered by the Abbas government to be a major achievement and goodwill gesture toward Israel. But Israel rejected the cease-fire as a ruse and never matched it.

The Post does not say whether Israel was right to see the so-called cease-fire as a ruse. Even assuming that the Post takes the position that it should not take sides, newspapers have a duty at least to report the relevant facts, so that readers can make up their own minds. Let’s look at some facts regarding whether the “acceptance” of the “cease-fire” was indeed a ruse — all facts that the Post does not bother to mention.

First, let’s look at what the “road map” requires. The text of the road map provides: “In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below.”

Now here is a link to the text of the “acceptance” of the cease fire by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The statement says, in relevant part, that these groups offer the “[s]uspension of the military operations against the Zionist enemy for three months, effective today, in return for the following conditions.”

“Conditions”?? Yes, “conditions.”

Several conditions are then set forth. One of the most obviously absurd and objectionable: “The release of all prisoners and detainees, Palestinian and Arab, from occupation prisons without condition or restriction. . . .” (Imagine if Al Queda offered us a three-month cease-fire, with numerous conditions that included releasing all incarcerated Al Queda terrorists.)

What part of “unconditional” does the Post not understand? I’ll tell you: the “un” part.

You should not be too surprised to learn that the rest of the article is little more than criticism of Israel and the United States, with only pro forma acknowledgments of Palestinian culpability.

NEW YORK TIMES TRUMPS DOG TRAINER FOR HONESTY IN EDITORIALS: It is nice to see the New York Times, discussing the Roy Moore flap in an editorial, acknowledge that “Alabama’s attorney general, William Pryor Jr., also argued for the monument’s removal.”

Of course, the Times is quick to ascribe a nasty motive:

Some of Chief Justice Moore’s supporters charge that Mr. Pryor, who had been a strong defender of the monument, switched sides to curry favor with Senate Democrats in Washington, who have filibustered his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, the same court that ordered that the monument be removed.

This is not completely honest. After all, the Times can point to no actual switching of sides, acknowledging that even today, “Mr. Pryor says that he believes the monument is legal, but that the 11th Circuit’s order must be obeyed.” But at least the editorial tells you that Pryor favors obeying the court’s order.

That’s more than you can say for the perennially dishonest people on the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, who (as I mentioned the other day) stated in their editorial that “Alabama Atty. Gen. William H. Pryor, nominated to the circuit court that ordered the monument removed, opposes the order” — without ever once noting Pryor’s consistent position that court orders must be obeyed.

ARNOLD ON THE ISSUES: Arnold went on the radio yesterday and gave his opinion on the issues. The linked story describes an interview done by Sean Hannity; I heard a similar one done by Larry Elder, described briefly here.

In the interview with Hannity, Arnold dodged a question about Prop. 187, saying: “That is an issue with the federal government because the governor has nothing, [not] really much power over those things.” He said much the same thing on the Larry Elder show.

I was disappointed to see this dodge, though I understand why he’s doing it (to avoid pissing off the Latinos). You never know how the issue might pop up. The driver’s license bill is just one example — and I was glad to hear him opposing that. But I mentioned the other day a bill — passed in California and signed by Gray Davis — to give in-state tuition at California universities to illegal immigrants (while out-of-state residents who are U.S. citizens must on average pay $11,000 extra annually). The bill clearly defies federal law, but the feds are doing nothing about it (just like they are essentially doing nothing to deport the illegals). What about that, Arnold?

You can’t just say “Prop. 187 was declared unconstitutional” and leave it at that. The pro-illegal immigrant lobby is constantly coming up with new ways to treat illegals as if they were really just regular citizens. Californians are entitled to know whether Arnold will be on board when the next such travesty arises.