another stunning example of narrative-based propaganda dressed up as news.

Tabloid magazines get sued all the time- mostly by celebrities, and usually over things that they perceive will sully their good name. What about major "news" organizations? How often are they sued and under what circumstances? It seems that this piece was published to serve no other purpose than to demean the subject, given it's backtracking from the headline and complete lack of substance. How is that different from, say, the National Enquiror reporting that John Edwards had an illegitimate love child? 

Oh, I know- the National Enquiror was accurate, that's how... 

I still vividly recall the Sunday morning in the early '90s when I threw down my issue of LAT in disgust, because I literally felt like the writing derived from their “new and improved” dumbed-down 6th-grade level style sheet was killing off my brain cells.

A decade later after finally being exposed as the official spokespaper of the Democratic Party in their slamming of the governator-to-be, their subscription base dropped off to near terminal levels.

I get the impression today that the only people left who subscribeto the LAT are the right-wing media, looking to see what stupid thing they are defending today.

Here's a very scary line:

"One federal law enforcement source said prosecutors are seeking to use a federal statute that makes it illegal to "scheme . . . to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

By exploiting the phrase "intangible right of honest services," these lawyers are going to define what "services" the Cardinal owes his flock. In other words, these lawyers are taking it upon themselves to create a job description for a religious official. Even worse, what kind of precedent would it establish if a judge established religion as a "service" (presumably paid for in the collection plate), and that a judge could declare what services are expected under that contract?

A quick possibility comes to mind: Suppose a woman confesses to abortion, and seeks absolution, but the bishop refuses. Can the woman demand absolution as a "service?" Can she claim discrimination?

If prosecutors can creatively twist this statute in this case to pursue Mahony, the legal groundwork will have been laid for all kinds of mischief.

It isn't far-fetched. Remember, the legal momentum for gay marriage was started because the language in Lawrence v. Texas was open-ended. Although Anthony Kennedy claimed that his decision in Lawrence couldn't be used to create a gay-marriage right, within six months Massachusetts used it to create one.

This is what happens when lawyers smell any open-ended legal language. They exploit the sloppiness of the language to impose their prejudices and politics wherever they felt like it.

You got to hand to LAT, they really know how to put themselves out of business - one article at a time. 

Fortunately, for America, they are part of the Tribune newspapers and it is in bankruptcy.  The best part of the liberal fog horn going out of business is the employees are part owners in the company through their ESOP or Employee Stock Option Plan, according to a online Time Magazine article.   

It seems that their liberal ideology comes at the expense of their very livelihood.  They are screwing themselves - literally!