I must have accidentally picked up the We Are Not Really Serious edition of the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.
The lead editorial, “L.A.’s domestic abuse problem,” looked muscular at a glance, and a glance always is the best strategy for digesting opinion pieces in the Times.
Only theoretically interested in resolutions, liberals’ first duty is to paint the surface gold, to make themselves feel good, a Times talent polished to a high gloss. Their second commandment is to throw an impressive amount of money at a difficulty rather than digging to the core, confronting, identifying the root cause.
After wasting five minutes swallowing the newspaper’s conviction (not a bad idea) that increased police vigilance will diminish domestic advice.
Instantly you know you have walked into the wrong room when, spoon in hand, you scoop out the dreadfully misguided opening salvo:
“Reports of domestic violence are on the rise in Los Angeles, yet L.A. spends a substantially smaller share of its budget than other big cities on services to victims, and it lacks a coordinated approach to ensure that that little funding it does commit is spent wisely.”
Police Chief Charlie Beck, no relation to the Einsteins, attributed part of the rise in violent crime, says the Times, “to a spike in domestic abuse cases.”
Instead of plumbing the reasons for this distressing matter, the Times wrings its sensitively manicured hands, clears its gleaming throat, and suspects, authoritatively, that if more cops arrest more domestic abusers, the thorny problem will dry up like a quick kiss after a so-so date.
The Times would have performed a genuine service for the community if they had sent out a fleet of reporters to fan out and learn professional reasons why incidents of abuse are climbing. Then figure out a panacea instead of hurling a wallet at a wall and asking, “Aren’t I a good boy?”
