Mickey Kaus has a post called Bonus Gratuitous LAT-Bashing. And below that post is still more Dog Trainer bashing. Click on the link, if you like that sort of thing. (And what are you doing reading Patterico if you don’t?)

Steve Lopez says Arnold should quadruple the car tax. I agree with one of his points: that if the car tax is reduced, some other way must be found to fund local police and fire departments, and other public safety agencies. But I have to admit I chuckled when I read Lopez’s line: “Excuse me, but I’m happy to pay my car tax.”

Of course he is. Why wouldn’t he be? Lopez gets paid $300,000 a year to write three columns a week — and thinks it’s hilarious that you, the average citizen, are excited about saving an average of $140 on your auto registration.

There sure are a lot of rich liberals who mouth off about how happy they are to pay their taxes, and how they wouldn’t mind paying even more. I wonder how many of these folks donate a few extra thousand to the IRS every year — just because they wouldn’t mind.

BEAR FLAG REVIEW: Click on the link and check out what some of the other Bear Flaggers have been saying.

Also, coming soon: Bear Flag League merchandise!

GO NAT! GO NAT!: The final chapter of Nat Hentoff’s three-part defense of Charles Pickering appeared today at this link. (Read about the first two installments here.) Hentoff begins:

I write this final column on Charles Pickering because, in some 50 years as a reporter, I have seldom seen such reckless, unfair, and repeated attacks on a person — not only by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee but also by organizations that gather financial contributions because of their proclaimed dedication to civil rights, civil liberties, and honest research. (People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, et al.)

This is stern stuff coming from Hentoff, a lifelong liberal. But the sternest stuff comes at the end of the column, as Hentoff says that certain liberals’ very reputations depend on the outcome of the vote on Pickering:

Not only Pickering’s nomination rides on this nomination. So do the reputations of those Pickering opponents who demonize him. And that includes The New York Times‘ editorial writers. Now, on the floor, how many Democrats will vote for Pickering?

Ironically enough, the answer came today, even before Hentoff’s column came online:

Senate Republicans on Thursday failed to break a Democratic filibuster of U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering’s promotion to the federal appeals court, continuing a two-year standoff tinged with accusations of racial, religious and regional politics.

So much for the reputations of Chuckie S. and his pals at the New York Times — in Hentoff’s eyes. In the eyes of many of us, their reputations were shot to hell years ago.

“HOW APPEALING” TO INTERVIEW STEPHEN REINHARDT: Howard Bashman reports that Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt will be the February 2004 participant in the “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature at the indispensable How Appealing web site.

Howard Bashman continues to land the big fish. One suggestion: when you’re done with the interview, Howard, throw this one back.

STILL MORE SLOPPINESS AND/OR DUPLICITY FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES: Re the Schiavo case, a reader alerts me to the similar case of a California man named Robert Wendland.

Wendland was not in a “persistent vegetative state” but rather a “minimally conscious state,” but the case was otherwise very similar to that of Ms. Schiavo. The spouse and other witnesses said that he had told them he didn’t want to “live like a vegetable.” His mother and sister argued to keep him alive.

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a conservator could not refuse life-sustaining treatment for Mr. Wendland. (Wendland had died of pneumonia by the time the decision was issued, but the court decided the case anyway, due to the importance of the issues involved.) The court reasoned that, since he had not specifically indicated a desire to refuse such treatment in a formal way while competent, there was no “clear and convincing evidence” of his wish to die. The court stated that this ruling might be different if a patient were in a persistent vegetative state. However, in my opinion, the California Supreme Court’s approach is well-suited to the Schiavo case.

While reading about Wendland, I learned a very interesting fact in an article about his death. The article says that his wife, who had argued that he should die,

praised Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist and bioethicist, for providing her with medical and moral advice during Robert’s final days. Cranford, a consultant in several high-profile right-to-die cases, did not personally treat Wendland but advised doctors on his care. His presence at the hospital enraged some pro-life activists, who fired off a statement Tuesday denouncing his involvement.

Does the name “Ron Cranford” sound familiar? Maybe you remember him from the New York Times article I discussed here titled In Feeding-Tube Case, Many Neurologists Back Courts. As I pointed out in my post, the article failed to live up to its headline, because only one neurologist who had viewed the tapes believed that Ms. Schiavo had no chance of recovering: Dr. Ron Cranford.

The Times article mentioned that he had testified for Mr. Schiavo, and I discounted his opinion accordingly. But the article didn’t mention that he also regularly takes a pro-death position in litigated, high-profile “right-to-die” cases.

In these cases, Cranford’s opinion carries about the same credibility as that of Jack Kevorkian. To be accurate, the Times’s headline should have read: “In Feeding-Tube Case, One Right-to-Die Activist Backs Courts.” Wow! Stop the presses!