Snapshots of Americana

A note from Jon Dougherty: In the tradition of Thomas Sowell’s “Random Thoughts on a Passing Scene,” I wanted to bring my readers “snapshots of Americana” from time to time – a column that will focus on a few key events taking shape or taking place in the present. I hope you enjoy this first installment.

What a difference an administration makes.

Throughout the 1990s, public interest law firm Judicial Watch filed numerous suits against the Clinton regime for a number of alleged improprieties, illegalities and abuses of the law. For its dedication to the preservation of equality under the law, the group was routinely labeled a “conservative public-interest group” by most of the establishment media.

The label “conservative” was used as a four-letter-word, as it often is by the corporate media.

Now that Republicans are in office, however – and some of Judicial Watch’s lawsuits are gunning for Bush administration officials – the major press is dropping the four-letter-word mantra.

In a report detailing JW’s suit – filed Wednesday, in Dallas, against Vice President Dick Cheney and his former company, oilfield supplies firm Halliburton – the Associated Press dropped the labels and finally described JW properly: “a Washington-based watchdog group.”

The major media’s incessant hatred of all things conservative is so obvious these days, it’s getting ludicrous to argue the point.

Presumed innocent?

At one time in America, we had what courts and lawyers called “a presumption of innocence.” These days, however, that presumption is often null and void, especially if you’re a police officer or a political pimp and an opportunity presents itself.

Earlier this week, a white police officer in Inglewood, Calif., was caught on amateur video striking a handcuffed 16-year-old black teenager during an arrest. Naturally the press is playing this up – it legitimately is what we call in the business a “hard news story.”

But a number of other prominent people are using the incident as a way to score points, in that sort of cheap, dimestore manner that has permeated American politics for 20 years. They seem less interested in justice – far less interested than they should be.

“In my city, this type of conduct will not be tolerated,” gruffed Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt F. Dorn in front of a group of protesters, Tuesday. “It is my opinion that [the officer in question] should be fired.”

“I don’t see white police officers slamming the heads of little white boys into police cars,” huffed Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who represents Inglewood. “I haven’t seen them abusing white males. What I see is white police officers abusing black males, and young black males particularly. Yes, I believe it’s racially motivated.”

It must be a good feeling for Inglewood police officers whose job it is, among other things, to protect this idiot Dorn to know that he will turn on them like a coward the moment their conduct is questioned, especially if he thinks he can score those political points. The whole lot of them should quit and go to work for a mayor that will back them up – at least until they’re proven guilty.

As for Waters, she really needs to get out more. Lots of “white boys” get smacked around by cops – when they deserve it. And here’s another tip: Blacks are not “special” people deserving of “special” treatment, anymore than whites, reds, browns or yellows.

Bigger is smaller?

Earlier this week, President George W. Bush was again touting his plans to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, this time to a group that ought to welcome his idea with open arms – federal workers, the largest employment group in the nation.

“Despite everybody’s best intentions and hard work and sacrifices there is a dispersal of authority, a lack of accountability, and the truth of the matter is, a needless drain on critical resources,” Bush said.

The centerpiece of his criticism – as well as those who support his idea – is the fact that federal agencies charged with tracking domestic and foreign homeland security threats are too big. He’ll get no argument from most Americans.

But the solution seems to emulate the problem. Bush wants to pull a number of divisions from larger parent agencies, then combine them under one [huge] new roof.

Where’s the benefit? Not one federal worker will be laid off or eliminated under this plan, so how will playing an agency shell game increase efficiency, accountability and defense of the homeland?

So far the White House and GOP backers in Congress have “explained” this only in generalities, but in order for most Americans to take this plan seriously, somebody needs to provide details.

Judging by history, though, I don’t expect this huge new agency to behave much differently than the other huge agencies of the federal government.