Here's what you were reading in the last full week of 2007. Our American Values series finally scored, as did our holiday Big Fix feature. The violent deaths of Timothy Johnson and Benazir Bhutto drew attention, but as always, Jesus, dogs and Jonah Goldberg were tops with readers.

1. The cancer drug by Diana Wagman
2. A life and death, raw by commenters
3. Aunt Benazir’s false promises by Fatima Bhutto
4. The common defense by the editorial board
5. Tracking the mild coyote by Meghan Daum
6. A little bit of heaven on Earth by Joel Stein
7. It’s a campaign, not a crusade by Charlotte Allen
8. Domestic tranquillity by the editorial board
9. Politics? We’ll take good cheer by Jonah Goldberg
10. Collar the dogs by Will Beall

You perhaps recall Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs, who was defeated for re-election to the bench last year by a woman who had spent more of the previous decade running a bagel shop than practicing law. The defeat outraged many, including those of us at the Los Angeles Times editorial page and, apparently, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who promptly reappointed Janavs to the bench.

Janavs' tenure on the court was uninterrupted. But since, on paper, she was starting a new judgeship, she's up for re-election all over again this June. So if it's true that she was targeted because of her  foreign-sounding name, something that made her vulnerable at the ballot box, could she be defeated for the second year in a row? And would the governor again return her to the bench despite the voters' actions?

We'll never know. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported today that Janavs is retiring from the bench.

Janavs was the first Los Angeles Superior Court judge defeated for re-election in 18 years. She was trounced by Lynn D. Olson, an inactive attorney who ran Manhattan Bread & Bagel with her husband, Hermosa Beach Councilman Michael Keegan.

The Janavs-Olson race told establishment types everything they don't want to hear about judicial elections: slate mailers count more than newspaper editorials or Los Angeles County Bar Association ratings (the County Bar rated Janavs "exceptionally well-qualified," Olson "not qualified"); voters respond to partisan appeals (Janavs is a Republican, Olson a Democrat); voters like all-American-sounding names better than foreign-sounding ones; and voters are generally clueless when it comes to selecting judges.

In case you don't think that whole foreign-sounding-name thing really makes any difference, check out this review of recent judicial elections by Court of Appeal Justice Rebecca A. Wiseman.

In the end, Janavs was defeated not because she was a bad judge, but because she was beat-able. Schwarzenegger won wide praise (and considerable relief) from Janavs' colleagues when he reappointed her. The Times editorial page, which strongly backed Janavs, was queasy about the governor overriding the will of the voters, no matter how ignorantly they were acting (see the editorial below).

By the way, it's judicial election time again. Incumbent judges and challengers begin filing later this month for the June 3 primary.

The Times' editorial board wraps up its American Values series with 'The blessings of liberty':

The Bush administration soon will be consigned to history, and not a moment too soon. The end of this cynical, mean-spirited presidency provides the opportunity for a renewal of generosity and hope, for a widening of political and cultural horizons, for a return to strength tempered by humility, for an era of decency and mutual respect rather than the blunt exercise of force.

That will be the mission of the next president.

The board also raises an eyebrow at a lawsuit filed by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. seeking to block the publication of the "Harry Potter Lexicon."

The Opinion page caps off 2007 with a quiz on the year's "hard-to-forget moments," while columnist Joel Stein looks into his Magic 8 Ball and makes some predictions for next year. Under "Presidential election":

Barack Obama wins the general election but does not carry the Northeast, due to New Englanders' ingreasingly implausible excuse, "It's not that we're racist; it's just that the South would never elect a black person."

Readers weigh in on oil and green energy, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's hunting prowess and the billion-dollar child-support suit against Donald L. Bren. Snarks John Rabe,

I hereby publicly offer to be adopted by Bren. For a monthly remittance of $1,000, I promise to buy him one tie on Father's day, one pair of slippers and/or a robe at Christmas, and one joke card on his birthday....

For my part, the contract will be considered null and void if I get a DUI, disparage Bren in public or cause the police to be called to a noisy beach-house party.

The grisly and continuing story of the tiger that escaped from its San Francisco Zoo enclosure on Christmas to kill a man and maul two others brings to news accounts a name familiar and praised in some Los Angeles circles: Manuel Mollinedo, the zoo's director.

Mollinedo left his job as director of L.A.'s Department of Recreation and Parks in 2003, amid sharp budget cuts to his department, to take the San Francisco Zoo job. He previously was director of the Los Angeles Zoo from 1995 to 2002 and won high praise for his management there despite his lack of background in animal care or zoos. The job usually requires at least as much knowledge in the care and feeding of politicians and donors as it does oversight of exotic animals.

At the L.A. zoo, he oversaw improvements and expansions that helped stave off the loss of accreditation by the same organization that now is awaiting a report on the deadly tiger escape.

He grew up in Los Angeles and directed the parks department in Austin, Texas, before returning to L.A.

Mollinedo ran the L.A. Zoo in 2001 on the day that a Komodo dragon bit off a chunk of toe belonging to the San Francisco Chronicle's executive editor Phil Bronstein. That's a fact that may help keep the Chronicle's attention on Mollinedo as the probe of the tiger attack continues.

Writer Amy Wilentz describes the Benazir Bhutto she knew:

I'd known her for years, on and off -- mostly off -- since we'd been in college together, and her brother, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, had been a good friend of mine there too. To be a Bhutto seemed -- to us outsiders -- the essence of glamorous progressivism. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, their father, was the democratically inclined president of Pakistan, and we thought of the Bhutto family as Pakistan's Kennedys. Benazir, in jeans and sweaters with her straight black hair, was a torrent of energy; she was garrulous and articulate, skinny as a rake, unfailingly present and engaged, intellectually curious and as ready as a teeny-bopper to chase after every little piece of life she could get.

"Those were fun days, nice days," she said to me this fall.

But these days: less fun, was the implication....

Also on the Op-Ed page, the Big Fix series continues, asking experts how to survive the housing bust.

The editorial page features the eighth installment of the American Values series, on 'the general welfare.'

Pro-dog readers defend their pets against Will Beall's Op-Ed. Pacific Palisades' Rita Burton says, "Before Beall has a doggy meltdown, perhaps someone should remind him about obnoxious parents and their equally obnoxious children in restaurants, theaters and shopping malls."

As we have examined the values and candidates in this election, we, the members of The Times’ editorial board, have not had a lot of praise for President Bush. We disagree with him on the war in Iraq, on Guantanamo, on abortion, on the right of gays to marry, on global warming… I could go on.

That trend continues with today's piece in our series, as we have our issues with the president in areas such as healthcare and school vouchers. Still, we do sometimes agree, and two places where we converge are aired in today’s editorial. As we note, President Bush has been an important educational advocate and leader, and he has done his best to devise and win approval for comprehensive immigration reform.

So, while we’re not likely to find ourselves missing President Bush much after he goes home to Crawford, we appreciate that he has done much to elevate the place of education in our national dialogue. No Child Left Behind isn’t perfect — not by a longshot — but Bush’s advocacy of it helped bring Republicans into the conversation and expand the sense of a president’s responsibility in an area traditionally left to the states. Bush deserves credit, and we’re happy to give it.

On immigration, he has less to show for his work, but there, we can only hope that the next president will build on what Bush tried to do and finally create a mechanism for those who are in the country illegally to stay and become citizens. That’s a worthy goal for Bush’s successor. Unfortunately, the candidates so far aren’t doing much to inspire confidence that they’ll take up that cause.

As those of you who have been reading know, these editorials all have been framed in terms of eternal American values, but examining those values in fresh light yields some reminders. Education, for instance, now dominates much of our national political debate, but it barely existed as a public right in colonial America and through much of the 19th century. As a matter of “the general welfare,” then, it is a fairly new concept. Immigration, by contrast, was as vital to early America as it is today, testing some of our systems, yes, but also supplying the nation with new ideas and cultures and allowing to become a truly polyglot enterprise, unlike any country on earth. We only wish that more of our neighbors shared our faith in this country to absorb its migrants to adapt to them and with them.

Today’s editorial is the penultimate piece in our nine-part series, which we will conclude next week and then turn to our endorsements for president. We welcome your reactions — so far, we’re posted more than 125 entries on our discussion boards, and we’ve received several hundred letters and emails. The range of response has essentially covered the waterfront, from the much-appreciated admirer who wished he could elect an editorial page as president (who doesn’t?) to the less-impressed critic who this week wrote to say, simply: “your editorial again shows the world you are the scum of the earth.” Oh well.

A special Los Angeles minimum wage for workers at a handful of hotels near Los Angeles International Airport may take effect soon in the wake of an appeals court ruling today upholding a second attempt at a "living wage" ordinance.

The City Council acted in 2006 to extend to hotels near LAX the living wage laws that until then had applied only to businesses with city contracts. A coalition of business groups gathered signatures for a referendum to overturn the ordinance, and rather than go to the ballot the council repealed its law. Then they replaced it with a second ordinance that also compelled the hotels to raise their workers' pay and also committed the city to various property enhancements in the area. The business groups sued, asserting that the second ordinance was substantially the same as the first and, therefore, in violation of state election laws on referenda. The Superior Court agreed, but the Court of Appeal today reversed. Here's the opinion.

News releases abound. The hotels, as you would expect, are none too pleased with "a decision not supported by facts or precedent" in which the court "gutted the ability of Californians to challenge the acts of their government through a vote of the people."

The New Century Coalition, which campaigned for the special wage, said the ordinance is important "because often hotel owners don't pay a fair wage to their employees and this is a perfect example of what our public officials can do to reverse the growing gap between the rich and poor in our city."

Backers said today's ruling will lift 3,500 workers out of poverty. Opponents claim the ordinance is the first step of many to impose special wages on particular businesses based on their geographical location or their industry.

The Times editorial board opposed extending the living wage to the hotels. "The council should stop throwing good money after bad policy and instead withdraw the law," we said on January 3. "The living wage extension is an unwarranted and capricious government intrusion into private industry that could chase businesses out of Los Angeles while encouraging hotels to raise prices or lay off workers. It reinforces the growing notion that City Hall is not friendly toward employers."

Praise for Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto is coming in from every corner. President Bush said that Bhutto, who was assassinated today, "bravely gave her life" for Pakistani democracy. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called her an "outstanding leader who worked for democracy." U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said "she believed in democracy and the rule of law while opposing extremism and terror."

Here's Benazir Bhutto in her own words, when she last wrote for The Times:

We must be realistic about the history and politics of Pakistan. In a perfect world, perhaps the military would not play a role in politics. But Pakistan is less than perfect in this regard. The security forces fundamentally have served as a political institution in Pakistan, ruling either directly, through generals, or indirectly, by manipulating and ultimately sacking democratic governments.

I know that some people have been surprised that I have been negotiating a transition to democracy and talking about the future of Pakistan with Musharraf. On dictatorship, there can be no compromise. The parliament must be supreme....

I go back to Pakistan this autumn knowing that there will be difficult days ahead. But I put my faith in the people and my fate in the hands of God. I am not afraid. Yes, we are at a turning point, but I know that time, justice and the forces of history are on our side.

Niece Fatima Bhutto's recent Times Op-Ed offers a preview of the revisionist takes on Bhutto that are bound to come:

My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.

I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.

And click here to see what The Times editorial boards of old thought of Bhutto while she was in charge.

Photo courtesy Associated Press.

The editorial board examines 'The common defense' in its American Values series:

The challenge for the presidential candidates is to explain how they plan to defend the United States, particularly how they would combat international terrorist networks and how they would restore American prestige and leadership in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Most are struggling to do so while trying mightily to avoid awkward truths. It's not politic to admit that the U.S. is weaker than it was a decade ago. And there is no campaign advantage to acknowledging that our current troubles cannot be blamed solely on either the very real failures of President Bush (as the Democrats would prefer to do) or on the very real dangers posed by Islamist terrorists, nuclear proliferators or oil-flush anti-American strongmen (the preferred targets of Republicans).

We believe that the restoration of American leadership amid rising global anti-Americanism requires an explicit repudiation of the exceptionalism that has soured this administration's dealings with other nations, and so hindered the collective defense of the world's democracies.

The board also reacts to a report on how to safeguard the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The Op-Ed series "The Big Fix" continues, asking local experts how to solve L.A.'s most pressing problems in 2008. Today's question: how should we get from here to there?

Readers react to the death of leukemia patient Nataline Sarkisyan. Calabasas' David Hurwitz says, "Nataline's chances of long-term survival went from slim to zero as soon as Cigna meddled in her medical care."

Of the great purposes for which the Constitution was drafted — to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and the like — the call for a “common defense” is perhaps the most readily acknowledged in modern life. No one disputes this nation’s right to defend itself or its allies.

And yet, our modern sense of defense is far different from the one the founders first struck. When “the common defense” first became an obligation of the government, the United States lacked and feared strong central authority, even as the states struggled without it. The Constitution supplied that authority, and gave the new nation the structural institutions that allowed it to grow.

Still, the development of a massive defense apparatus was slow. As America set out on the course that has brought us to the present, its early years were defined in significant measure by this nation’s physical isolation from Europe. Distance allowed the United States to mature without the same defense burdens shouldered by its allies, but as America’s remove from the world diminished, our sense of defense has altered as well.

Today’s defense is a gigantic obligation of the federal government and a singular preoccupation of many Americans. We are engaged in two wars at this writing, and there are those who want to fight a third, against Iran, before the sand runs from the glass of this administration. Meanwhile, the scale of our national defense would surely stagger any of those who drafted the nation’s founding language. As we noted in an editorial just last week, none other than Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates recently pointed out that the Pentagon’s healthcare budget alone is larger than the entire American investment in building alliances through the State Department.

But, as we argue in today’s installment of our series on American values and the national campaign, this administration has confused bellicosity with strength. The president has taken America’s exceptional history and place in the world to such an extreme that he and his administration have substituted bluster for leadership. The result is a more dangerous world and a more isolated America.

A final word on defense: It is tempting for every generation to see its challenges as singular to their time and place. But as we note in today’s Cold Copy, the last time the editorial board of The Times was contemplating a presidential endorsement, it did so in the shadow of the war in Vietnam. Despite their long appreciation for President Nixon — who received the last presidential endorsement by The Times — our predecessors took a firm and principled position in 1970 that the time had arrived for the United States to leave Vietnam. Earlier this year, we took a similar view of the war in Iraq. “Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war,” we wrote on May 6. “But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.”

That editorial made us the first very large American paper to call for such a withdrawal. As you consider our reflections on “the common defense,” I hope you’ll also take time to read the editorial from May and still another few moments to listen to the quiet call of history that comes through the Cold Copy pieces of the Vietnam era.

The editorial board considers 'Domestic tranquility' as part of its American Values series:

No less than James Madison, the Constitution's principal author, saw the dangers inherent in a society that treasured equality but practiced inequity. Shay's Rebellion in 1786-87 rattled Madison with its armed assault on the wealthy, and the man who helped create this nation's legal architecture eloquently worried about those "who will labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings."

Shay's Rebellion has receded into the corners of the national memory; the Depression gave way to war and jobs; the Great Society came and went. But inequality continues to tug at the American conscience. In our land of opulence, poverty and decay upset our peace.

The board praises L.A. County's start-small plan to house 50 of Skid Row's most vulnerable residents.

On the Op-Ed page, local artists and experts answer the question, what would finally fix L.A.? Tell us your remedy here.

Readers react to a plan to ask police to disclose their financial records. Daly City's Ralph Givens asks, "Why should honest cops mind if we check their financial records?" But Chino Hills' Steve Velasquez counters, "Once again, the rank and file have no rights. How come the American Civil Liberties Union is not screaming mad?"

“Domestic tranquility” meant something different to the founders than it does to us. As the young America emerged from its revolution burdened by war debt and the tenuous ties between the colonies, those who forged the language of the Constitution worried about the potential for upheaval. They had rebellion on the brain, and their work reflected that.

Today, the threat of insurrection doesn’t worry us much, but the consequences of a badly divided society are painful nonetheless. Modern America is a land of wealth — of billionaires and magnates — but also a shameful home to poverty. Tens of millions of Americans live below the official poverty level — by some estimates, 60 million manage to survive on $7 a day — and their plight is exacerbated by a sundering of the nation’s infrastructure. Witness, as our editorial today points out, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, which swept equally over rich and poor but left its deepest wounds on those with the least.

These intertwined issues — poverty and infrastructure — form the basis of the latest entry in our series on American values and the campaign for president. The piece, in today’s paper and online, lays forward some of the editorial board’s thoughts on these issues under the general theme of domestic tranquility.

Our reflections in this area take cognizance of the fact that there aren’t lots of votes in the problems of poverty. The poor don’t often make it to the polls. And yet, surely people of disparate faiths and politics can agree that there is a moral imperative to confront poverty and to help those burdened by it. “Blessed are you poor,” Christ said, “for yours is the Kingdom of God.” More practically, the Talmud calls for all of us to absorb those who suffer without means. “Let the poor be members of thy household,” it enjoins. As a nation, we have tried over the generations, whether in FDR's determination to end the Depression or LBJ's Great Society. And yet, stubbornly, the poor are with us still, and so, too, are politicians and their attempts to grapple with class divisions.

In this year’s campaign for president, most candidates aren’t saying much about poverty, but our editorial today records our appreciation for John Edwards, who alone among the candidates of either party seems committed to elevating the issue to one of central concern. Others, as we note, have valuable things to say in these areas, and some have records of caring, but only Edwards has made poverty a centerpiece of his work. We applaud him for that.

One other note about today’s piece: It marks the first editorial in the history of the Los Angeles Times to quote both James Madison and Bruce Springsteen. Our work here is done…

Like you, many of us are trying to work and relax this week. With that in mind, we’re hoping to present the balance of our series on American values over the next few days, and like to imagine them sparking a few family conversations around your table. Next up is our examination of the “common defense,” followed by the “general welfare” and then a look at where we’re headed next and an attempt to enlist your participation in what, for us, will be a historic set of presidential endorsements.

Author Kerry Madden says a child's belief in Santa Claus is essential ecstasy:

I made up my mind to teach my children to believe in Santa Claus when I was still a teenager reading Betty Smith's novel, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." I never forgot the parenting advice that Katie Nolan got from her mother, who insisted that Katie's new baby, Francie, be taught to believe in Kris Kringle, for "the child must have a valuable thing which is called imagination. The child must have a secret world in which live things that never were. It is necessary that she believe." Katie argued that it was a bad idea because the child would learn it was a lie. The grandmother replied: "This is called learning the truth. It's a good thing to learn the truth oneself. To first believe with all your heart, and then not to believe, is good too. It fattens the emotions and makes them stretch."

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez notes that all politics is identity politics. And full-employment policy advocate Bill Drayton advises voters to look beyond promises of no new taxes. 

The editorial board is disappointed that there will be no hate crimes legislation this year, and says it's risky to allow unlimited donations to various mayoral projects. The board thinks it's quite Scrooge-like of the British to make Santa get skinny.

Going into an extended holiday week, Opinion L.A. draws its best numbers from politicians, labor strife, teen moms and tales of bad meds and economic woe. Sixth place goes to Craig Mazin and Matt Edelman for the previous week's Dust-up on the writers strike, but if we counted all five of the Mazin/Edelman Dust-up entries that would move their debate way up the list, as these continue to draw a lot of interest lower down in our Top 50 lists. So once again, it's clear that everybody's enjoying the WGA strike, even if nobody will admit it. And speaking of bridesmaids, four out of the 11th-15th-place spots were taken by our American Values editorials. Show your American spirit and read the whole series already.

1. Clintonian triangulation comes full circle by Jonah Goldberg
2. Stop scaring us by Henry Miller
3. Generic drugs' hidden downside by Naomi Wax
4. The polarizing express by Ezra Klein
5. So a fruit fly goes into a bar... by Marlene Zuk
6. Who strikes? by Craig Mazin and Matt Edelman
7. Honey, I shrunk the president by Jonathan Haidt
8. More writers' strike drama by the editorial board
9. Dollar signs by Howard M. Wachtel
10. Knocked up but not out by Meghan Daum

Columnist Joel Stein learns that heaven isn't all harps: 

The book ["Heaven"] is 533 pages long, so I decided to just call [author Randy C.] Alcorn at his ministry in Oregon. He's one of the foremost non-dead experts on heaven, having also written "50 Days of Heaven," "In Light of Eternity: Perspectives on Heaven" and "Heaven for Kids"....

The clouds-and-harp version came about for two reasons, Alcorn told me. One is Satan. The other is the early church fathers who tried to blend the Bible with Greek philosophy and wound up with a Platonic version of the afterlife stripped of the physical. In the heaven in Alcorn's book, he imagines we'll be riding on the backs of brontosauruses and throwing baseballs with Andy Pettitte. This does not sound like it will be heaven for brontosauruses or Andy Pettitte.

But that's actually the heaven on Earth that only gets going after the return of Christ.

Author Alex Frankel remembers to thank the miracle workers who make Christmas happen -- store staff and deliverymen and women. Bob Stone and Rick Cole say Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's across-the-board cut would be too painful.

The editorial board says the EPA's decision on California emissions was a politicized one, and explains why Bush finally yielded on an investigation into CIA tapes. The board also notes that Kiefer Sutherland, unlike most convicted celebs, will serve a fairly long time in a Glendale jail.

Readers react to the EPA ruling. Temple City's Robert C. Lutes says, "Under this irresponsible administration, the EPA should be renamed the EDA -- the Environmental Destruction Agency."

Biotechnology has left the domain of 'weird' and planted its feet firmly in the realm of 'kind of scary.' NPR takes a look at some bizarro bio-art:

During a recent workshop, hosted by the Machine Project in Los Angeles, Zurr guided a small group of aspiring bioartists through a "painting" exercise. First, [artist Ionat] Zurr sawed open the femur of a freshly-slaughtered cow. After choosing which cells she wanted, she "painted" them onto a three-dimensional scaffolding made of degradable polymer — a type of plastic. Over many weeks, the cells will grow over whatever shape the scaffolding takes, turning into a living sculpture of skin.

And now, according to the Loh Down, scientists have created creepy, crawly biobots:

...bio-engineers grow heart muscle cells, harvested from rats, onto thin plastic skeletons. The skeletons are patterned with protein blueprints that guide the cells into alignment. Once deposited, the cells mold around the plastic to form working muscle tissue.

The robots can flex their home-grown muscle tissue and move independently -- like living creatures. One such tissue robot, invented at Harvard, creeps across its Petri dish like an inchworm. Another one has a tail like a fish and can swim. A group at National University in Korea has designed a crab-like version that sidles about on six legs.

Because they're partly alive, these machines don't need external power. They just need food -- a simple sugar solution.

Seriously, haven't these guys seen "The Matrix"?

Granted, the art above probably raises more objections than the science, but it won't be long until scientists incorporate artificial intelligence and these half-living vessels -- and then the moral issues are bound to get messy.

Notice, stem cells feature somewhat in the first of these projects -- but neither one really needs them to push the limits of bioethics. As the editorial board notes in 'Life,' part two of its American Values series:

Last month's news that scientists in Japan and Wisconsin had modified adult skin cells to behave as embryonic stem cells seemed at first to have resolved this issue, but that's only true if you believe that the debate over stem cells, cloning and genetic modification is a subset of the debate over abortion. It is not. It is, or could become, the central life debate of our time, and depending on your perspective, the questions it raises are either exhilarating or horrifying.

You can read the piece and explore the series here.

The editorial board continues its American Values series with 'Powers of the earth':

Democratic states are usually depicted on political maps using the color blue, but a more logical choice would be green. On environmental issues, the Democratic presidential candidates behave not so much as individuals as they do a bloc; though they have subtle ideological differences, most are in lock step in their views on fighting global warming or reducing pollution. All are basically in accordance with the green orthodoxy preached by organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists or Environmental Defense. As for the Republicans ... not so much.

The GOP candidates are neither as green nor as unified as the Democrats. In part, this reflects a split in the evangelical Christian community. Though the Christian right has set positions on many major political issues, it is deeply conflicted on the environment because the Bible gives no clear guidance on it....

The board thinks that Los Angeles police officers shouldn't have to disclose their financial information.

Columnist Rosa Brooks says that barriers to stop violence in Iraq have made sectarian segregation the status quo. Kevin Morris and Glenn C. Altschuler wonder if the strike will end union labor in Hollywood. Columnist Patt Morrison wants one million more trees in L.A.

Readers react to California's healthcare plan. San Diego's Randall Smith says, "This solution doesn't even pass the laugh test. If a law were passed forcing people to buy food, would it solve the problem of hunger?"

"The Powers of the Earth," which today continues our series on American values in the context of the presidential campaign, represents the merger of two major lines of editorial work for us in 2007 — exploration of issues involving the environment, especially in the area of climate change, and the intensifying race for president.

Those are closely related topics, for the obvious reason that the next president will steer the nation through a crucial period in the fate of the planet. The Bush Administration has not always been wrong on climate change and the environment — its unwillingness to sign the Kyoto agreement, for instance, has been widely misunderstood. But it's faint praise to say a president is occasionally right, and that's the best that can be said for Bush's record in this area.

As we have documented in our series on global warming, the Bush years have been marked by inattention, ignorance and worse when it comes to climate change. Still, there are policy solutions, for any president willing to pursue them: Wind and solar power provide real opportunities for energy production; conservation already has proven enormously effective and can continue to ease our energy burdens. Even such relatively unexplored ideas as cutting down on beef consumption — and, with it, methane production — could have extraordinary impact. That said, there are also tempting but misguided options, notably nuclear power.

Warming, of course, is just one of the troubles that we are busy inflicting on the planet. As our editorial makes clear, the next president will confront questions about clean air, clean water and mining, all areas that will shape our physical lives and those of coming generations. These, then, are the challenges that face the president who sifts through this administration's environmental wreckage.

We're pleased to present these thoughts on them — both in today's editorial and in our Warming World series. Both can be found in special collections on our Opinion pages.

Have the reforms of the 1990s improved California politics? Depends on your point of view — or, according to a Times column, whether you're retired. Former Gov. Pete Wilson, state Senate leader John Burton and former Assembly speaker Willie Brown raised eyebrows on that topic in a policy forum this month:

"The Legislature was far less partisan than today," Wilson recalled of the 1960s. "... when John and Willie and I were all freshmen assemblymen, there was a great deal more drinking in the Legislature. These guys, the teetotalers, need to lighten up a bit."

All half-humorous comments aside, notes George Skelton, "The group also agreed that term limits are too short and that the current Legislature suffers from inexperience."

Now, those term limit rules are being revisited through Proposition 93. The initiative has some high-profile enemies and allies, and for this week's Dust-Up, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Controller Steve Westly spar over the proposition's pros and cons. 

Today, in the defender's corner, Westly argues that 93 "would make the state Legislature more efficient and effective":

Currently, 12 of 34 legislative committees are chaired by first-year lawmakers. These committees determine the laws that affect our schools, housing, jobs, public safety, transportation and the environment. Under Proposition 93, legislators could gain experience before chairing a committee. This would benefit the process and, ultimately, the voters.

Proposition 93's reforms would also slow the constant campaign cycle that exists now. Termed-out legislators start campaigning early to win a seat in the other house or another office. Instead, legislators would continue to work for — and campaign to — constituents in their home district.

But, contends Poizner,

The question asked by The Times today is, why shouldn't the public be allowed to vote for whomever it wants for as long as it wants?

The answer is that the ability of voters to choose in elections is restricted in California — not by term limits, but by the politicians' self-interested gerrymandering of legislative seats. Incumbents simply don't lose, and seats don't switch from one party to another, thanks to these safely drawn districts. [...]

Today, the only way politicians ever leave office in California is because of our existing term-limits law.

Read the whole exchange and discuss the debate here.

Christmas season is closing in, and candidates are splurging on campaign stocking stuffers. Mitt Romney's recent attack ad accused fellow presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee of being 'soft on crime' — but in the passive-aggressive spirit of the season, Huckabee has turned the other cheek with an ad play that sprinkles season's greetings and sweeps the legs out from under Romney. The move was a pretty 'wily' one, says NPR:

On Tuesday, Huckabee shot back with a cheerful holiday ad with the song, Silent Night, playing in the background.

Now there's a trick: You get ahead in the polls, and then you declare Christmas!

Maybe too wily: Check out Michael McGough's post below on the subliminal cross.

But closer to home, a Dec. 11 special election for an L.A.-area Assembly seat brought tidings of discomfort and failure. From the Sacramento Bee:

Stop by the Mike Gipson for Assembly headquarters after voting and you could win a $250 gift card.

That was the none-too-subtle message delivered in a political mailer that has stirred charges of vote buying and has the state's top elections official saying the practice should be illegal.

It's not illegal (since the mailer, made to look like a Christmas Card, states, "you are eligible to win ... no matter who you vote for") and it probably shouldn't be — but it is in bad taste, particularly since some say it targets low-income African Americans.

Regardless, the election ended up with an abysmal 11.4% turnout, and Gipson lost. Which either means people won't vote for love or money, or that Gipson's tacky move lost him the election. I'm guessing it's the former.

*Photo from the Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert

A drug that can alter sexual orientation? UC Riverside's Marlene Zuk puzzles it out:

Manipulating glutamate transmission, they discovered, allowed them to alter -- sometimes within hours -- whether the flies courted males or females. The altered males interpreted the odors of other flies (the primary come-hither signal) differently from their wild counterparts.

If what's sauce for the fly is sauce for the human, this could mean that chemicals in our own nervous systems are involved with sexual orientation too. And I'll admit that it's entertaining to imagine popping a pill to swing one way for a party, the other for a get-together at grandma's. But that dystopian possibility probably isn't in the cards. The truth is that chemicals no more control who we are sexually attracted to than they do anything else. Which is to say, they control everything and nothing.

Writer Luis Torres explains how a comal, or tortilla griddle, is central to his family story. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour argues for an end to the death penalty. USC senior fellow Celeste Fremon says asking cops to hand over financial records will just drive officers off the force.

The editorial board asks Californians to give the governor's healthcare plan a chance, and urges Congress to follow through with funding and enforcement a plan to help Iraqi refugees. The board also explains what a World Trade Organization investigation of farm subsidies could mean for the economy.

Readers react to a proposal to do away with carpool lanes. L.A.'s Jim Bean says, "How is making carpool lanes into toll roads going to get more single-passenger cars off the road? If lone drivers can buy their way onto the diamond lane, they will."

When is a Christmas greeting not just a Christmas greeting? When it’s paid-for a presidential campaign. Mike Huckabee’s new television ad, in which he reminds viewers (and Iowa voters) that “what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ,” is notable not just for its explicit invocation of Jesus but for some subtle iconography that recalls the subliminal ads associated with the 1950s. 

Behind Huckabee in the ad are bookshelves whose intersection with a divider forms a cross. In the next ad, perhaps Huckabee could position a picture of Mitt Romney on a shelf in front of a box with two protruding pencils, causing viewers to wonder: Could it be Satan’s brother?

Today’s piece of our series on American values may surprise readers who, when they consider their own happiness, think in terms of personal satisfaction. When we discuss the “pursuit of happiness,” we do so not in the sense of a hedonistic quest but rather in the pursuit of economic well-being. As the editorial notes, that represents an older and, to us at least, a sounder basis for considering happiness and the government’s role in protecting our ability to secure it. For us, John Locke gets the nod over Timothy Leary.

The proper role of the government in the pursuit of happiness is not always philosophically pure so much as it is deeply practical. As such, it can disappoint those who search for absolutes. Those who would hold the government responsible for actually delivering happiness must inevitably be disappointed to discover that no government, no matter how big or insistent, may guarantee that its citizens are happy. Workers’ paradises tend not to be.

Conversely, those who see no role at all for the government in protecting a people’s right to pursue their well-being ignore the proper place for the state in shaping the economy and interceding where interests collide. The abolition of government has its downsides, too.

We happily find ourselves in the practical center between those poles. There, the government trains workers and protects the livelihoods of retired women and men; it sets rules and anticipates blips in the economy that could have devastating effects. But, when it functions well, it does so without coddling or infantilizing those it serves; it recognizes, for instance, the benefits of free trade, as we note, “rather than pandering to those who feel threatened by the global marketplace.” That has ramifications for the tax code, the deficit and the future of social security, among other areas. Some candidates are talking about those topics, and we commend them, even if we don’t always agree with where they come out. To those who are trying to duck these tough questions, we hope to keep up the pressure from our end, and hope readers will join us.

Today’s editorial brings us close to the halfway point of what we’re setting out to do over these weeks — to lay down a reasonably cogent and coherent set of values that reflect our history and that we hope to apply to the campaign. As we turn into the backstretch, we do hope you’ll join us, as scores of you already have, by sharing your thoughts on these pieces with us and with each other.

Just follow the links.

The editorial board continues its American Values series with a discussion of the pursuit of happiness:

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution later echoed [John] Locke's notion that government has no rights to an individual's property, nor can it dictate what that person does to earn it. As a result, we take for granted the freedom to pursue our fortunes as we see fit. Yet, as Locke noted, one person's pursuit often conflicts with another's, so government intervenes to strike a balance. Today, our free enterprise system is regulated in many ways by the exercise of government power, including taxes, industry subsidies and monetary policy. A defining feature of the next president's economic strategy will be how he or she uses government power to tilt the balance in the economy -- not just among interest groups and their pursuit of property, but among generations.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg says if Hillary Clinton goes down, so does the cult of Bill. Contributing editor Gustavo Arellano points out that Orange County may wage war on day laborers, but it still keeps employing them. The Hoover Institution's Henry I. Miller argues that Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) bill to ban chemicals in toys may help rats but doesn't do much for kids.

Readers respond to The Times' American Values series. See why Santa Monica's Arthur Hansl says of the 'Liberty' editorial, "Never have I seen a more wrong-headed editorial."

Quote of the Day from the National Journal's Hotline blog:

"I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim."

-- HRC endorser/ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey

Even though he endorsed Clinton, the former Nebraska govenor and senator seems to see this as valuable "experience" that HRC doesn't share. From the Seattle Times:

"There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal," Kerrey said after the kickoff of a five-day tour of Iowa by Clinton. "He's got a whale of a lot more intellectual talent than I've got as well."

It's cute and it sounds open-minded on the surface, but it's also part of a larger trend of people bringing up the "M" word all the time, in any context, frequently in ways that can be twisted around to suit smear tactics and have far more staying power than some old drug-use rumor.

Come on, people. Obama's related to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but that's not alienating Dems or endearing him to Republicans.

When we last week launched our series on American values and the 2008 presidential campaign, we asked for your thoughts on the pieces, and you responded. In the hundred or so posts to our discussion boards on the four editorials we've run so far, some of you complained, some asked questions, a few even praised our work.

In the spirit of the conversation we're eager to have, I thought I should respond, publicly, to some of the more provocative messages you've sent so far.

First, some of you are clearly angry with us, and much of that comes from those who don't like our views on immigration. For us, immigration is a source of vigor and replenishment in American society — and that includes legal immigration as well as immigrants who are in this country illegally. Not everyone agrees. Peter, responding to our first editorial suggests that we're pulling our punches when we welcome immigrants even as we acknowledge the tension between our belief in the rule of law and our compassion for those who are not in the country legally but are becoming part of its social and political fabric. "Who are you afraid of offending? The anxiety over our language and culture is real." Another reader, Bill, echoes that alarm and adds to it the charges of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty — he calls us "a source that doesn't exhibit honesty in any way, shape or form." Well, yes, Peter and Bill, we hear the anxiety. We just don't share it. To us, the challenges to our culture are invigorating, not alarming. And no, as should be obvious, we're not afraid of offending — hey, we offended you!

Bill is not alone in charging us with hypocrisy — that's an accusation that crops up in letters as well as in our discussion boards. GBW, writing about our "Life" editorial, suggests that we like federalism when it works for us, and drop it when it doesn't. That's intriguing, and in some ways correct. Still, I'm going to argue that it's not hypocrisy but rather an endemic feature of living in a society where both states and the federal government have duties. States' rights once were the province of conservatives, who saw them as the bulwark against integrationist federal authority; lately, they've been more appealing to liberals, as states take a more aggressive position on global warming, for instance. As for the editorial board at The Times, we have our mishmash of views like anyone else, but we've never suggested that we live and die by federalism. We think the states should lead on certain issues and the federal government on others. And we're hardly alone in that.

For some readers, the very idea of The Times holding forth on these issues and values is offensive. It reeks of superiority. Ted is one who doesn’t think much of us, and he questions our belief in due process for those captured outside America. Another reader, Martin, highlights the fact that our editorials "are strictly the opinions of the LA Times staff member or members," whom he sees as liberals intent on inducing readers to "vote for candidates that are in line with the agenda the LA Times wishes to push." Here, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I enter the plea of partly guilty. Yes, we're putting out an agenda, if by that you mean an attempt to draft a coherent set of ideas that should guide this campaign back to the roots of American history and society. That's what editorial boards do, for whatever it's worth. But just so you know: We're hardly lock-step liberals. The editorial board and our colleagues, which are responsible for these pieces and the other editorials on our pages, is comprised of liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and a libertarian or two. We have varied views on the many issues we're discussing, and we don't all agree with every word of the pieces you're reading. And while we do intend to endorse candidates next year, we haven't settled on anyone yet, so these pieces are not plugging a contender. We do want to contribute to a conversation — to lead it where we can — but there's nothing hidden or nefarious about that. We're trying our best to put down some thoughts that we think are worth discussing. We're not the Trilateral Commission.

PillGirlReport.com editor Naomi Wax explains the downside of generic drugs:

It's a drag when you suffer from depression. And it's really a drag when the medication you've been treating your depression with effectively for years suddenly leaves you feeling anxious, nauseated or even suicidal. Even more of a drag? When you realize those symptoms began when you switched from your brand-name antidepressant to its generic version. But it's downright depressing when your doctor, pharmacist and health insurance provider insist that you're wrong, that there is no difference between brand-name drugs and their generics, and that these side effects you're experiencing must be in your head. You are, after all, "mentally ill."

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez writes from New Hampshire on that state's reinvention, and freelance writer L.J. Williamson isn't enough of a Scrooge to complain about DWP's holiday light show, but he she does complain about the lack of bike access to it.

The editorial board tells L.A. County to prepare for the possible onslaught of freed inmates, asks the ports to pass a clean truck fee, and tells striking writers and producers to stop the drama and get back to dialogue.

Readers react to the Barack Obama-Oprah Winfrey lovefest. Los Angeles' Mitch Paradise notes: "Two of the most prominent, articulate and decidedly un-Southern African Americans -- the Harvard-educated Obama and the queen of all media, Winfrey -- take their road show to South Carolina and pander to the black folks there like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) to a Minuteman convention."

The grim mood of the nation did not spare readers of the L.A. Times opinion pages this week. Tales of doom, gloom, war, corruption and the ruins of ancient societies dominated our traffic (which was light, so tell a friend about Opinion L.A. already). "A more perfect union," the opener for our American Values 2008 series, barely missed the top 10 and our second, "Life," made the top 20, so if you haven't started feasting on the whole series, do yourself a favor. ("Liberty" and "Justice" went live today and will be counted in next week's traffic.) Without further ado...

1. Symptoms of an economic depression By Steve Fraser
2. AWOL military justice By Morris D. Davis
3. Stonehenges all around us By Craig Childs
4. Is this really World War IV? By Peter Beinart
5. The Supreme Court's habeas hearing By the editorial board
6. A FISA fix By Michael B. Mukasey
7. F in science, A in self-esteem By the editorial board
8. Torture's blame game By Rosa Brooks