Not surprisingly, there was a good deal of pandering at Thursday’s Republican presidential debate. With the exception of Ron Paul,  the candidates took a hard line on easing relations with Cuba, a sop to Florida's die-hard anti-Castro Cubans.

But the worst panderer was Mitt Romney on the subject of the Middle East.

"I believe the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say we stand with our friend Israel,” he said. “We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel; we will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally Israel.”

“Not an inch of difference”?  Even if an ultra-right Israeli government abandons any effort to negotiate with the Palestinians?" Or annexes the West Bank? Or bombs Iran when the U.S. thought it was counterproductive?

Romney is essentially giving the Israeli government -– any Israeli government -– veto power over U.S. policy in the Middle East. Of course, a President Romney would never actually execute that policy. There is a long tradition of presidential candidates taking extreme pro-Israel positions on the campaign trail and, once in office, gravitating to the policy of past administrations, Republican and Democratic, of criticizing Israel  (albeit mildly) when appropriate.

Yet another reason for American voters, regardless of their view on Israel, to descend into cynicism.

--Michael McGough

You can say one thing about the Republican candidates for president: They’ve been debating each other for so long that they can now swap stinging personal attacks without getting visibly angry.

Mitt Romney was on the offensive in Jacksonville, Fla., Thursday evening. He needed only a little prompting to accuse Newt Gingrich of shilling for Freddie Mac, one of the government-backed mortgage firms that conservatives loathe, and of being soft on illegal immigration. “Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers,” Romney said, responding to Gingrich’s reluctance to deport foreign-born grandparents.

Gingrich seemed a little hesitant to climb into the ring. Asked about his statement earlier this week that Romney “lives in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island bank accounts,” the former House speaker said the charge didn’t merit repeating in the solemn dignity of a CNN debate.

That gave Romney an opening. “Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations someplace else that they weren’t willing to defend here?” he asked. OK, Gingrich replied, have it your way. “I don’t know of any American president who had a Swiss bank account,” he said.

The winner? There wasn’t one -- not onstage, at least. Rick Santorum turned in a good performance, criticizing both Romney and Gingrich for their past support of government-mandated health insurance, but he’s running a very distant third in Florida. Ron Paul slammed both front-runners, too, but he’s running fourth. The polls in Florida show Romney and Gingrich neck and neck. If anyone won Thursday evening, it may have been Barack Obama.

RELATED:

Gingrich: Fly me to the moon

Daum: Newt's debt to Clinton

Fireworks on agenda of tonight's GOP debate

--Doyle McManus

Photo: Newt Gingrich, left, and Mitt Romney participate in the Florida Republican Presidential debate Jan. 26 at the University of North Florida. Credit: Paul J. Richards / AFP/Getty Images

When actress Cynthia Nixon described herself as "gay by choice" in a New York Times magazine interview, she not only set off a storm of reexaminations of the evidence on whether homosexuality is a matter of nature or nurture, but threw a verbal monkey wrench into the legal question of gay rights.

As Times science writer Karen Kaplan summarized, "The scientific consensus seems to be that there is indeed a biological basis for homosexuality -- though it's not necessarily 100% determined by either genes or by environmental factors." Science is painting a complex portrait in which biology -- not always genetics but also prenatal exposure to hormones -- is certainly an important factor, though perhaps not the only one.

Nixon, though, is framing gay rights in a new way. It's strangely reminiscent of the "gay cures" some religious groups have promoted. They say it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is inborn. It's still wrong, in their eyes, and so people have to "learn" to change their behavior, even if they can never change their sexual preference. A desire to philander might be "inborn" or "natural," they argue, but it still has to be overcome. Nixon, of course, is on the opposite side of that same logical coin. Why, she asks, should homosexuality be any less valid if and when it is chosen?

Why, indeed? So much of the debate about discrimination against homosexuals gets bogged down in extraordinarily judgmental issues. They shouldn't marry, opponents have told the editorial board, because studies show that children are better off with a mother and father. Actually, some excellent studies don't bear that out at all -- but that's not the point. Of the many heterosexuals who make bad parents, why isn't society judging their fitness to wed? When adults engage in sexual behavior of whatever type, why does society set up discriminatory laws against them only when that "type" involves homosexuality?

But in the courts, as the lawsuit against Proposition 8 wends its way through the appellate process, this issue could have very high stakes. Under the 14th Amendment, the courts have historically said that discriminatory laws must pass a very high legal bar to remain law, if they affect a "discrete" and "insular" community that has traditionally been singled out for discrimination. Traditionally, this has included ethnic and racial minorities, and women. In his ruling on the Proposition 8 case, then-U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote that this surely applied to the gay and lesbian communities as well.

Historically, though, one of the criteria for such groups is that they must be a minority because of an unchangeable characteristic. If, as Nixon says, sexual preference can be a choice, then couldn't gays and lesbians simply "choose" otherwise?

Groups don't have to meet all of the criteria laid out, and other factors can be considered. But gay rights activists worry that if sexual preference is seen as mutable, they might lose points in their ongoing legal quest for legal rights.

Nixon, of course, speaks only for herself, and it's doubtful her comments would matter much, if at all, in the case. But in any case, I agree with her; it shouldn't matter. The complicated, perhaps never-knowable question of precisely how people come to be different from each other is a small one compared with the question of why there seems to be so much determination to deprive some of those people of basic rights that in no way harm other people.

ALSO:

Good news for gay marriage in Washington state

Santorum's defense of bigotry fails on all counts

Proposition 8: Watch the trial and judge for yourself

--Karin Klein 

Photo: Actress Cynthia Nixon is seen attending the "Lysistrata Jones" Broadway opening night at the Walter Kerr Theatre on Dec. 14, 2011 in New York City. Credit: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

Apple's profits may have soared last quarter, with revenue up 74% (to $46.3 billion), but I wonder how celebratory they feel in Cupertino as reports emerge about the company's business practices, specifically how it keeps production costs low so that it can "make a 60%, 70% margin per phone" sold?

In the last few days, the New York Times has published bombshell reports ("How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work," "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad") that expose the appalling working conditions at the Foxconn plant in Shenzhen, China, where Apple's products are made. Here's an excerpt describing the troubling environment:

[T]he workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious -- sometimes deadly -- safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple's products, and the company's suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers' disregard for workers' health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

It should be noted:

--Apple is not alone among electronic companies employing Foxconn and other such plants.

--Apple has responded to scrutiny over workplace conditions by disclosing names of suppliers and manufacturing partners.

--If the New York Times' anonymous sources are to be trusted, Apple execs don't seem to care how the work gets done so long as it's fast and cheap. Here are two unabashed (and nameless) quotes from the New York Times stories:

"The speed and flexibility is breathtaking," the executive said. "There's no American plant that can match that." […]

 "We shouldn't be criticized for using Chinese workers," a current Apple executive said. "The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need."

They should have just come out and said they'd rather not abide by U.S. regulations that protect worker rights -- regulations that would slow down productivity and increase costs. ("By some estimates, each iPhone includes $190 in hardware costs, $10 in Chinese labor," Scott Tong said on Wednesday's "Marketplace.")

Earlier this month "This American Life" dedicated an entire episode to the issue of human rights abuses taking place at Foxconn. On the program, Mike Daisey performed from his one-man show, "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," in which he shares his experience from Shenzhen, where he went with the intention of learning about the people who made his beloved Apple products. Here's an excerpt of his heartbreaking findings:

While I'm in-country, a worker at Foxconn dies after working a 34-hour shift. I wish I could say that's exceptional, but it's happened before. I only mention it because it actually happened while I was there.

And I go to the dormitories. I'm a valuable potential future customer. They will show me anything I ask to see. The dormitories are cement cubes, 12-foot by 12-foot. And in that space there are 13 beds, 14 beds. I count 15 beds. They're stacked up like Jenga puzzle pieces all the way up to the ceiling. The space between them is so narrow, none of us would actually fit in them. They have to slide into them like coffins.

There are cameras in the rooms. There are cameras in the hallways. There are cameras everywhere. And why wouldn't there be? You know, when we dream of a future where the regulations are washed away and the corporations are finally free to sail above us, you don't have to dream about some sci-fi dystopian Blade Runner/1984bull [BLEEP]. You can go to Shenzhen tomorrow. They're making your crap that way today.

When I leave the factory, as I can feel myself being rewritten from the inside out, the way I see everything is starting to change. I keep thinking, how often do we wish more things were handmade? Oh, we talk about that all the time, don't we? "I wish it was like the old days. I wish things had that human touch." But that's not true. There are more handmade things now than there have ever been in the history of the world.

Everything is handmade. I know. I have been there. I have seen the workers laying in parts thinner than human hair. One after another after another. Everything is handmade.

Beyond the working conditions, Daisey also sheds light on an environment in which people live in fear and are eventually disposable. "And so when you start working at 15 or 16, by the time you are 26, 27, your hands are ruined," he says. "And when they are truly ruined, once they will not do anything further, you know what we do with a defective part in a machine that makes machine. We throw it away." And there's no one to protect workers, he goes on, in this "fascist country run by thugs."

"It's barbaric," the Daily Beast's Dan Lyons says bluntly. And it's up to us, the consumers, to do something about it rather than turn a blind eye. He writes:

As the Times article points out, this isn't just Apple. It's every company. It's every product we use. It's our entire way of life, built on the backs of people who are being treated in ways that we would not allow ourselves or our countrymen to be treated.

Ultimately the blame lies not with Apple and other electronics companies -- but with us, the consumers.

And ultimately we are the ones who must demand change.

RELATED:

Apple reports record sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs

iPad down to 58% of tablet sales as Android catches up

Apple discloses names of suppliers, manufacturing partners

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: A representative from Foxconn Technology Group speaks to applicants outside the computer component maker's plant in Shenzhen last year. Credit: Associated Press

On Wednesday, Newt Gingrich appeared before an audience on Florida's Space Coast to extol his proposal for a permanent American colony on the moon by 2020, and his even more science-fiction plans to pass a "Northwest Ordinance for Space" that would allow Moonies to petition for status as a U.S. state once the population hit 13,000 (see video above). 

Many will be tempted to make fun of this. They might say, for example, that Gingrich's space plans are right in line with GOP energy policy because if we continue to "drill, baby, drill" with no consideration of the climate impacts, we'll need to be well versed in surviving hostile planetary environments. They might start calling Gingrich President Moonbeam, or suggesting that Newt move moonward to become the colony's leader. But I'm not going there, because as Gingrich points out, John F. Kennedy was a moon visionary too, and there's nothing wrong with dreaming big about space exploration. Plus, it reminded me of being 12.

In 1975, my favorite TV show was "Space: 1999," a space opera about a team of colonists on the moon who become unwitting galactic explorers when the moon is blasted out of Earth's orbit. It was fun and inoffensive '70s fare starring Barbara Bain, who looked pretty hot in a jumpsuit, and husband Martin Landau, and its major innovation in my mind was the development of ray guns that looked like hand staplers, allowing me to play moon colonist with my parents' Swingline. But here's the thing about that show: It actually posited a better reason why America would want to build a colony on the moon than Gingrich has.

Why did the moon in "Space: 1999" get blasted out of orbit? Because the moon was being used as a storage repository for the Earth's nuclear waste, and for reasons I don't recall, the radioactive dump exploded with such force that it sent the moon soaring out of the solar system. Five minutes' thought will expose the silliness of this notion: Can you imagine the expense of shuttling barrels of nuclear waste all the way to the moon? Or the risk of an accident that would spread radioactive waste all over Cape Canaveral? But this was sci-fi, and that was such a minor plot point in a show that was really about strange encounters with shape-shifting aliens that it was easy to take for granted.

Gingrich's candidacy, unfortunately, is not sci-fi, so he's obliged to come up with a justification for his moon plans that's at least as reasonable as the one dreamed up by a 1975 TV show's writing staff. He fails the test. His apparent reason for setting out on an eight-year, phenomenally expensive moon colony quest, even as he proposes cutting taxes and slashing other government programs, is to stick it to the Chinese. Gingrich wants America to dominate space exploration and, in the course of getting there, produce technologies that will have useful commercial and military applications, just as the Apollo program of the 1960s did. This would establish our dominance over China in these areas, just as we beat Russia on the first moon walk.

Apparently, Gingrich is recalling his days as a 12-year-old too. Back then, we were in the midst of a paranoia-fueled Cold War with the Soviet Union. The space race was born out of fears that the Soviets would surpass us in missile technology. Yet not only are we not in any such contest with the Chinese, there are much better ways to remain dominant in satellite, missile and other technologies than working to establish a moon colony -- we could invest directly in research and development of these systems, rather than the esoteric technologies needed to sustain life in a low-gravity, oxygen-free lunar environment, which doesn't really have a lot of applications here on planet Earth. Moreover, there's little evidence that the moon contains minerals or other materials worth exploiting, at least not at the expense it would require to get at them.

There is, of course, some value in continuing to research manned spaceflight to the farther reaches of the solar system and beyond, and getting back to the moon first would be a nice start. But of all the spending priorities facing the U.S. Treasury in the midst of an economic downturn, this vision isn't just "grandiose," as Gingrich himself concedes -- it's absurd.

See you on the dark side of the moon, Newt.

ALSO:

Newt's debt to Clinton

Is there really 'something' about Gingrich?

Fireworks on agenda of tonight's GOP debate

-- Dan Turner

Monday night's Republican debate in Tampa left many observers wondering how such a hot campaign could produce such tepid TV. The four GOP candidates will meet Thursday evening in Jacksonville for one final talkfest prior to next week's Florida primary, and it's likely to be a much more entertaining session -- if not necessarily more enlightening.

One problem Monday was the lack of response from the audience at the University of South Florida -- moderator Brian Williams' request for decorum seemed to drain the fire out of the candidates as well. CNN, which is running Thursday's debate, says it won't repeat that mistake. But another issue was Williams' questions, which delved more into the candidates' foibles and squabbles than into big policy issues.

Clearly, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would rather focus on policy, where he can sound well-researched and insightful, than on his consulting work for Freddie Mac and his advocacy for Medicare Part D, where he often sounds like a Washington insider. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seems to prefer talking about policy too -- it tends to show off his problem-solving mentality and experience as an executive, even as he tries to demonstrate his bona fides as a conservative.

But tracking polls show that Romney's stepped-up attacks on Gingrich's work as an "influence peddler" are working in Florida, even as Gingrich's momentum builds nationally. So it's a fair bet that Romney will attempt to steer Thursday's discussion back to Freddie Mac, Gingrich's "grandiose thoughts" (to borrow a phrase from former Sen. Rick Santorum) and the former Speaker's other supposed character flaws. Sparks will fly, knuckles will whiten, responses will grow testy.

Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) -- the candidates often overlooked by debate moderators -- may benefit from the mudslinging between Romney and Gingrich. Most Republicans seem to yearn for someone other than Romney to lead them, yet they're having as much trouble committing to Gingrich as they've had with any of the other anti-Mitts. So Santorum and Paul remain viable as long as the support for Gingrich wavers, as it has done this week in Florida.

Yet debating whether Gingrich was a "lobbyist" or whether Romney dodged taxes by parking part of his IRA in the Cayman Islands doesn't give Paul or Santorum a chance to differentiate themselves from the long line of anti-Mitts who have come and gone. Talking about how to boost American manufacturing (Santorum's pet issue) or the gold standard (a Paul favorite), on the other hand, would set them apart, for better or for worse.

So what one issue would you most like to see Wolf Blitzer and his CNN colleagues ask the candidates Thursday night? Take our poll below, leave a comment or do both!

RELATED:

GOP debate: Killer Mitt vs. President Newt

Mitt Romney doesn't want a tax break from Newt Gingrich

Does Romney really believe the things he says about Gingrich?

-- Jon Healey

Photo: Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich and wife Calista campaign in Florida. Credit: Joe Burbank / Orlando Sentinel

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, meet Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas.  

You two have something in common -- a visible dislike of President Obama.

On Wednesday, Brewer met Obama on the tarmac in Phoenix as he got off Air Force One, and the two had a brief but animated conversation, including at one point some finger-pointing by the governor.  Pool reporters said Obama walked away mid-sentence.

From Times reporter Christi Parsons' story: 

Brewer told pool reporter Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico that the president seemed upset about her book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," in which she criticizes Obama for opposing her [immigration] law….

A White House official offered this take on the encounter: "The governor handed the president a letter and said she was inviting him to meet with her. The president said he'd be glad to meet with her again, but did note that after their last meeting, a cordial discussion in the Oval Office, the governor inaccurately described the meeting in her book."

The Arizona dustup came two days after goalie Thomas declined to join his Stanley Cup champion teammates who met with the president at the White House for one of those sports photo-ops.

In a posting on his Facebook page the next day, the Bruins star explained his absence:

I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT

OK, I think it's safe to say that neither Brewer nor Thomas will be invited to a state dinner soon.

But were their actions over the top? Were they disrespectful to the president? Was what they did exactly what's wrong with the country?

Not really. All they did was act like, well, Americans.

We don't have a king. We have a president. We respect the office -- but we are free to disagree with its occupant.

Don't like his policies? Then don't show up for a silly photo-op.

Don't like his policies? Then tell him so, in a civil but forceful way, to his face.

And if he doesn't like what you're saying? Then he can tell you so, in a civil but forceful way, to your face -- and even walk away.

Honestly, we'll know we're in trouble as a country when people can't do what Thomas -- and Brewer and Obama -- did this week.

And frankly, I like that a lot better than hearing John A. Boehner introduce Obama before the State of the Union address with the traditional House speaker's line -- "Members of the Congress, I have the high privilege and the distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States" -- when that same House speaker has already bashed the president’s proposals as "pathetic"  and then, after the address, labels it "just another campaign speech." 

Yes, our leaders need to work together. And sure, it wouldn't hurt for everyone to step back and just take a deep breath now and again.

But presidents are people, and there's no harm in letting them -- and those who disagree with them -- act like it more often.

ALSO:

McManus: Obama's common touch

Jan Brewer 'confident' Supreme Court will uphold immigration law 

Huntington lands treasure trove of Lincoln letters, Civil War telegrams 

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Obama in an animated exchange at the airport in Phoenix on Wednesday. Credit: Haraz N. Ghanbari / Associated Press

Los Angeles Police Department cruisers are involved in an average of one crash per day, reports Times staff writer Joel Rubin.

Most of the crashes were minor, but some resulted in life-threatening injuries or totaled police cars, or were the result of the officer violating traffic laws, according to LAPD records. In at least two incidents, the driver of another car was killed.

And at a time when the Los Angeles Police Department is trying to stem the steady stream of lawsuits filed against officers that cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year, traffic accidents remain a significant and costly obstacle. They represent nearly one out of every four lawsuits filed against the department. The city has paid nearly $24 million in settlements or verdicts in about 400 LAPD traffic-related lawsuits over the last nine years and must contend with dozens more cases that remain unresolved, city records show. In all but a few of the closed cases, city officials opted to pay a negotiated settlement instead of taking their chances at a trial -- a strong indication that the officers were in the wrong.

As the LAPD and the Los Angeles Police Commission consider the best way to investigate these crashes and prevent others, cartoonist Ted Rall has also been hard at work drawing up ideas. His proposals are above. I'm especially fond of his idea for installing "giant airbags all over town" -- but some might argue that L.A.'s already done that.

ALSO:

For jobs, look to Sacramento

Condom rule: First step in porn master plan?

Foodies mourn California's ban on shark fin soup

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Cartoon: Ted Rall / For The Times

What's the opposite of "I told you so"? Because whatever it is, I need to say it about the draft map proposals released Wednesday by the Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission. Blogging on the recently concluded special election in Council District 15, I said there was just no way that Watts was ever going to be severed from the distant harbor.

But except for gaining or losing a few blocks at the far northern end, where Watts joins South Los Angeles and the central city, Council District 15 doesn't change. It can't, and it won't, because it has nowhere else to go. It's fenced in by the harbor on the south and the very strange shape of the city boundaries from there northward. Unless more territory is annexed to or detached from Los Angeles, this district will look pretty much the same in 50 years as it does today.

Never mind. The proposed map moves Watts out of the 15th and makes it part of a Council District 9, which traditionally takes in most of downtown but now would go only as far north as Olympic Boulevard.

Is that good or bad? It's different, and it could be good, although I'd be interested to know what Watts residents think. I suspect that many of them might like to finally be severed from San Pedro, the harbor community that always controls the election of the 15th District council member because it's where most of the money and most of the votes reside.

Every council member from that district, going back at least to World War II, has been a San Pedro resident. And it must be extraordinarily hard for the District 15 members not to promote the interests of their neighborhood and its very distinct demographic -- families with roots in fishing, shipping, loading, unloading and moving freight, largely white with a strong Italian, Croatian and Greek ethnic identity -- as opposed to Watts, with its distinct history and largely African American and Latino immigrant demographic, as well as environmental degradation, dense public housing problems and persistent gang crime.

Of course, not every community can have its own district. Communities must be joined with others that are like them -- or very unlike them. So would Watts now instead be pushed around by wealthy and gentrified downtown?

Perhaps not. The Bunker Hill and Flower Street office towers would be excluded, as would most of the 1920s bank buildings that are now condos and apartments. A lot of the conversation is going to focus on how the northern two-thirds of downtown would now be united as part of the same 14th District that includes Boyle Heights and far-away Eagle Rock. But the 9th District, in addition to Watts, would include downtown's Staples Center, L.A. Live and, assuming it gets built, Farmers Field football stadium.

So is this now the Anschutz Entertainment Group district, and will Watts now become the afterthought of AEG, instead of remaining the afterthought of the Port of Los Angeles? Could the AEG connection be better leveraged to help fund improvements in Watts?

Don't know the answer yet. Let's watch and listen.

ALSO:

Watts and Not-Watts

Planned remapping of  L.A. City Council districts draws fire

INTERACTIVE MAP: Current and proposed Los Angeles City Council districts

--Robert Greene

Facing criticism on many fronts -- including from The Times' editorial board -- California State University trustees backed down Tuesday from their long-planned, much-amended and nevertheless unacceptable proposal for setting salaries for campus presidents.

Instead, they adopted a last-minute, alternative proposal to cap the salaries of new presidents at no more than 10% above what the new hire's predecessor made. And that doesn't include the hefty $400,000 pay for the president of San Diego State University that caused such a ruckus last summer. At this point, the cap would be $325,000.

This sounds like a reasonable interim proposal, but the trustees still haven't come up with something that represents an equitable and smart policy for hiring good people without giving away the bank. Too bad so much time was wasted on the ill-conceived proposal that fell apart. It compared salaries at CSU with those at universities with medical schools, law schools, bigger endowments and bigger research budgets.

Meanwhile, let's hope that the two bills in the Legislature that would regulate pay for Cal State presidents are either withdrawn or die quickly. The provisions in those bills are more arbitrary and problematic than the proposal that died Wednesday. The trustees may have been less than nimble at devising a reasonable way to pay executives, but legislators know even less. Control of academia by politicians is seldom a good idea.

ALSO:

CSU pay plan doesn't add up

Salary plan for San Diego State president stirs furor

Cap on new Cal State campus presidents' pay urged

--Karin Klein

Photo: San Diego State's Elliot Hirshman. Credit: San Diego Union-Tribune