I never expect to hear much about the benefits of the free market in the New York Review of Books. And when it's John Maynard Kenynes biographer Robert Sidelsky Skidelsky* reviewing frequent Times contributor Joseph E. Stiglitz' book Making Globalization Work ("A damning denunciation of things as they are," says Salon's Andrew Leonard), well, I expect it even less than usual. But strike>Sidelsky Skidelsky slips a surprising bit of good news into his polite-but-negative review of the book:

First, Stiglitz greatly underestimates the extent to which globalization, imperfect as it is, is helping people in poor countries. Already, it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Stiglitz finds a world "replete with failures." Typical is his remark that although 250 million Indians have improved their standard of living "immensely" in the last two decades, 800 million haven't—a good example of his failure to give progress its due. Or: "The sad truth...is that outside of China, poverty in the developing world has increased over the past two decades." The World Bank puts it differently: "By the frugal $1 a day standard we find that there were 1.1 billion poor in 2001—about 400m fewer than 20 years previously." Stiglitz believes that the increase in poverty outside China qualifies the progress made in poverty reduction. But 400 million fewer people living in extreme poverty is a happy, not a sad, truth, whether it happens in China or anywhere else.

He also underplays the gain achieved outside China. It is true that the number of very poor outside China rose slightly. Stiglitz cites the figure of 877 million in the developing world in 2001 living on less than $1 a day, an increase of 3 percent over 1981. What he fails to mention is that the total population of these countries increased by 20 percent over this period, so that while there is a slightly higher number of very poor people in the developing world today, they represent, proportionally, a decline from 32 percent to 21 percent of the overall population.

Stiglitz also ignores the fact that the number of those living on between $1 and $2 a day rose about as much as the number of people living on under $1 a day fell. Nor does he mention the World Bank estimate that if global poverty continues to fall at the rate it did between 1981 and 2001, the reduction will almost certainly be sufficient to meet the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015.[4] A different observer might see the glass half full rather than half empty.

Where Stiglitz accepts that progress has happened, he denies that it can be attributed to the current way globalization is occurring. His method is to show that countries that rejected the free-market mantra known as the "Washington consensus" did better than countries that followed it. For example, East Asian governments, such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, invested in industries with high growth potential, encouraged their populations to save, limited imports that undercut their agriculture and manufacturing, and (in the case of China and India) restricted short-term capital flows.

Such interventions may or may not have contributed to their "miracles." But surely much more important were the acts of domestic liberalization of the economy: for China the decollectivization of agriculture and introduction of the "household responsibility system" in the late 1970s; for India, the deregulation of much production, investment, and foreign trade in the 1990s. Above all, the "export-led growth" of East Asia depended crucially on the opening up of foreign, especially Western, markets through bilateral deals and successive rounds of tariff reductions.

Film critic extraordinaire Alan Vanneman has more on this eggheads' tango, concluding: "It’s striking that economists have such a hard time believing in the most fundamental concepts of their field."

* Thanks to reader Scott Lahti for pointing out my misspelling.

Take this as the second installment of my open-ended Opinion L.A. series to instill pride in our hometown international airport by shaming facilities in other big cities. Today's dubious honor of making Los Angeles International Airport look cutting-edge belongs to London's Heathrow Airport, which should be celebrating the beauty and efficiency of its long-awaited Terminal 5 (popularly known as "T5"). Rather, the unmitigated disaster that has been the first few days of operation at the roughly $8 billion terminal, which is expected to eventually relieve some congestion at Europe's busiest airport, prompted one British member of Parliament to dub T5 a "national humiliation." Here's an excerpt from a synopsis of the chaos by the Times of London:

The Terminal 5 luggage farrago has left 28,000 bags in temporary storage and airport staff admit it could take a week to reunite the baggage with its owners.

The scale of the problem was revealed today as Jim Fitzpatrick, the aviation minister, conceded that the grand opening of the heralded Heathrow terminal had “fallen well short of expectations”.

Before his announcement it emerged that one of the passengers to lose their bag at Terminal 5 was the foreign minister for an EU country ...

A high-tech baggage system, which was supposed to revolutionise luggage handling, has failed to work properly since Terminal 5 was opened last week. BA has cancelled hundreds of flights as 400 additional staff battle to reduce the suitcase backlog.

Contrast the situation now with the kind of hype just last week ago that preceded T5's opening. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Indeed, the Heathrow hassle has put even the famed British stiff upper lip to the test. But that may be about to change - at least in part - thanks to a big, new $8.7 billion passenger terminal opening this week after 15 years of planning, protests and environmental lawsuits. It's the most expensive airport terminal ever built, and four times the size of the old Terminal 4 used by most San Francisco passengers.

Come Thursday, Heathrow will finally open its sparkling Terminal 5. The soaring, glass and steel structure will have just one airline tenant: British Airways ...

Like the new airports in Bangkok, Hong Kong and Denver, it's likely Heathrow's new terminal will experience birthing pains; expect some glitches over the next few weeks.

Even without the London debacle, our hometown airport has news of its own to celebrate -- carriers that threatened to flee LAX last year are instead adding more flights to international destinations:

Foreign airlines are turning to LAX again despite crowded, aging terminals -- frequent-flier surveys often rank it among the nation's worst -- that have made it the bane of airlines and passengers.

While U.S. carriers are cutting back amid a slowing economy and high fuel costs, international airlines are flocking to LAX as more overseas travelers look to take advantage of the weak dollar.

Fares are likely to remain high as long as oil prices stay at their current levels, but the upswing in overseas flights could provide relief to some of the more-popular destinations in Europe, South America and Asia. And with the number of nonstop flights growing, people on international flights can look forward to reaching their destinations faster.

Eat your heart out, London -- we Angelenos will take our "crowded, aging terminals," so long as they actually work.

Fred Karger still sees hope for the Boom Boom Room, the legendary gay bar in Laguna Beach that closed last year after a 61-year run. He's rallying supporters tomorrow at the Century City headquarters of American International Group, the building's owner.

It's a long shot, but Karger -- an activist now retired from politics -- wants the Room eventually to reopen. Click here for John Keitel's film on the Boom Boom Room's place in history and efforts to save it. Featured are former Laguna Beach Mayor Robert Gentry and current Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who describes hearing loud music down the street, walking in and finding "an incredible, positive, happy group of gays and lesbians."

You can still vote for Ricardo Lara or Arturo Chavez on June 3, but it won't do you much good. Both will be on the ballot for legislative seats, as confirmed by the Secretary of State's certified list of candidates.

Once a person certifies his or her candidacy, there's no turning back -- from the ballot. But that doesn't keep the Powers That Be from enticing, or chasing, candidates out of the race. Call it the pre-election, which narrows the voters' choices even before the primary.

You recall, of course, that in the race to succeed speaker and 46th Assemblyman Fabian Nuñez, Lara was vying with labor official John Perez -- who happens to be Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's cousin -- but dropped out about the time Villaraigosa appointed him to the city Planning Commission. Arturo Chavez, an aide to state Sen. Gil Cedillo, also dropped out. Anthony York of Capitol Weekly reported that the moves followed meetings between Nuñez, Villaraigosa, and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor leader Maria Elena Durazo.

Jerome Horton dropped out of his state Senate race against Mervyn Dymally and Roderick Wright in time to keep his name off the ballot.

If the June 3 election is the Stealth Primary, what do you call the election coming up on April 8?

Next Tuesday, voters in 14 Los Angeles County cities will go to the polls to elect city council and school board members. Or they were supposed to, anyway. Our good friends in Vernon (population 90, or thereabouts) canceled their election because they just couldn't get anyone to challenge the two councilmen who are running for re-election. Of course they couldn't. The last time someone challenged an incumbent, the city cut off their power and declared their home unfit for habitation.

There are elections in some democratically run cities as well, such as Avalon, which was featured in the Times on Saturday and in the March Los Angeles Magazine. In addition to city council candidates, the ballot in the small city on Catalina includes a measure to raise a tax on admissions to city attractions from 4% to 6%.

Three cities — Culver City, Malibu and Sierra Madre — are asking voters to sustain, increase or otherwise update their utility users tax, more commonly called the phone tax. This is the same move that the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and Huntington Park took on Feb. 5, for the same reasons: lawsuits and changes in federal law have called into question the application of these taxes to cell phones and other more modern communications devices, so in order to keep the taxes the cities must get the voters to ratify or change the laws.

Culver City's Measure W (pdf) would keep the rate at 11%, relatively high in the world of municipal phone taxes. It follows the lead of Pasadena, which called on voters to keep the tax at the existing rate. In Malibu, Measure D follows the Los Angeles model, lowering the tax — in this case, from 5% to 4.5% — while broadening it to new technologies. The Sierra Madre ballot has two measures: Measure U (pdf) would allow the current 6% tax to increase to up to 12%, while Measure UA would require all such revenues raised to go to police and other public safety functions. Very clever — U could be safely passed by a majority vote as a general tax, while UA, as a special tax, must get 2/3 to pass but carries the appeal of public safety.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors recently passed on the chance to update the county's phone tax, and may revisit the issue in November.

To keep up to date on the region's head-spinning array of elections — April 8, June 3, November 4 and next March — check in frequently at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/elections/.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) notes that sexual assaults are frequent -- and frequently ignored -- in the military:

Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq....

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment," which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist.

Writer Andrew Gumbel knows why Hillary Clinton is fighting so hard to stay in the race -- because it works. Columnist Gregory Rodriguez says Americans have a habit of hero-worshipping candidates, and it tends to backfire. Euro Pacific Capital President Peter Schiff argues that we need to hit bottom before we can recover from the housing crisis.

The editorial board wants better beef tracking, and more nuanced exploration of the links between race and gangs. The board praises the FCC for taking a broad view of media competition in approving the XM/Sirius merger.

Readers react to a shift in John McCain's rhetoric. L.A.'s Susan North says:

Listening to McCain's speech before the World Affairs Council made my brain hurt. In the speech, he admonished America to listen to our democratic ally nations. Would that be all those same nations that have been crying out, for months now, "Surge? Are you people nuts?"

Remember the study a few years ago that showed U.S. students thought they were much better at math and science than they really were? Internet users seem to have the same level of self-deception when it comes to spyware and other malicious programs distributed through the Net.

Slaves drivers, racists, greedy farmers, deluded business people and libertarians: The Opinion section was a real rogues’ gallery last week as the continuing history of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Stonehenge-like resurrection of a year-old David Ehrenstein piece proved, um, something about, uh... Well it proved something we already knew — Barack Obama has been very, very good to our traffic.

Thanks for reading the Los Angeles Times. Here are the winners:

1. Obama blew it, by Michael Meyers
2. Someone give Ben Bernanke a hug, by Joel Stein
3. Old Hickory's slaves, by Carl Byker
4. Obama the Magic Negro, by David Ehrenstein
5. Farm bill feeds greed, by the editorial board
6. Where the votes are, by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
7. Welcome to the right, Mr. Mamet, by Andrew Klavan 
8. Equal justice, by the editorial board
9. Obama's Lincoln moment, by Tim Rutten
10. How to get ahead in webcasting, by Jon Healey

Is the raging battle for Basra a good thing for the U.S. interests in Iraq? Or is it  a bad thing for the U.S. national interest in getting its troops out of a relatively stable Iraq as quickly as possible? It’s too soon to know, but Americans can be forgiven if they feel more confused after listening to the Orwellian statements emanating from their government.

Until last week, the Bush administration was insisting that the stunning (and real) drop in violence following last summer’s U.S. troop surge was beginning to foster Iraqi political reconciliation.

Last week, as U.S. forces were drawn into heated battles in Baghdad and launched artillery strikes into Basra, the president asserted that the resumption of full-scale warfare between the Shiite-led government and its chief Shiite rivals is a positive development, as it means that the government, led by the unpopular Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, is now strong enough to be able to crack down on the criminal elements in Basra.

So, if there is no fighting in Iraq, that’s proof that the surge is working and U.S. troops should stay to consolidate their gains. And if there is what looks a great deal like the resumption of an intra-ethnic civil war over money, power and control of territory in Baghdad as well as in Basra, then that’s proof that the surge worked, but U.S. troops should stay because there’s more to be done. Got it?

The Democratic-controlled Congress is unlikely to buy this particular piece of spin, however expertly finessed by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker. Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to testify on April 8 and 9. Oddly, April 8 is the new deadline set by Maliki for the “criminal gangs” in Basra to turn over their “heavy and medium-sized weapons” in exchange for unspecified cash rewards. (Maliki had initially given them three days to hand over the weapons, but extended it as the Iraqi military’s effort to retake Basra flounded amid heavier-than-expected opposition.)

Congress should not wait until April 8 to begin demanding answers to the many questions raised by this bloody new turn of events. First, is it true that Maliki did not give his U.S. ally advance notice that he intended to invade Basra? If not, why not?

There are many reasons why Maliki needed to get Basra back under control. Its vital port has in fact has been under gangland management for years. British forces failed spectacularly in attempts to bring law and order to the waterfront, or to pacify the rival militias fighting turf wars over Basra. And Maliki’s political competitors in the southern Shiite belt appeared poised to do well, if not sweep, the provincial elections slated for October.

Whether Maliki sandbagged the United States into helping him make war on Basra now is an open question. President Bush said Friday he was not sure why Maliki chose this moment to try to crush the Madhi Army. That militia is controlled by Maliki’s rival, the anti-American cleric Moqtada Sadr, who had been abiding by a cease-fire he declared seven months ago. Maliki’s foes say he’s using the Americans to help him wipe out his political competitors ahead of the elections. Whether or not there is any truth to such a charge, this view held by the rival Shiites now under U.S. bombardment will make Washington seem even less credible as a honest broker for Iraqi political reconcilation. Even if Maliki succeeds in cleaning up Basra with a minimum of bloodshed, the renewed internecine violence highlights the importance of planning a careful, strategic U.S. military disengagement from Iraq.

Chelsea Clinton may not actually speak to the press, but she's finally getting some. She faced two fairly controversial questions from the non-press-pass-holding hoi polloi. The first was a college kid in Indiana who had to mention Monica. From Top of the Ticket:

...some guy asked Chelsea if her mother's credibility had been injured by the infamous sexual relationship her father had with the White House intern.

"Wow," said Chelsea, "you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know, maybe 70 college campuses I've now been to.''

Then, she fired: "And I do not think that is any of your business."

The reply drew loud applause.

And today, Fox News is reporting that when asked whether her mother would make a better president than her father, Chelsea sided with Hillary:

“Well again, I don’t take anything for granted, but hopefully with Pennsylvania’s help she will be our next president, and yes, I do think she’ll be a better president,” Clinton said at a stop in Allentown, Pa.

The last time Chelsea made such a splash might have been for something she said in private, responding to her mother's claim that young people have a bad work ethic (neglecting, apparently, the hard work her own daughter was doing). Hillary publicly apologized to Chelsea. The former first daughter was famously sensitive about the press as a teen at 1600 Pennsylvania and still is today, it seems. The Bush twins are regular, if unintentional, celebutantes by comparison.

In the increasingly unlikely event that she's first daughter again, how would Chelsea behave? Would she work behind the scenes, or help First Dude Bill with domestic tasks? Or would she stick to her private life outside DC? The young Obama daughters would probably be kept behind the scenes. Probably only Meghan McCain could follow up the Bush twins for media presence and fashion sense.

*Photos of Chelsea Clinton and Meghan McCain courtesy AP.

Paul Leonard goes toe to toe with Christopher Thornberg on forcing lenders to renegotiate with defaulters. More to come later today.

You don't believe FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and LAPD Chief Edward M. Davis were uncredited script doctors on the All In the Family pilot? We've got evidence!

Robert Ellis laments what the ruling party is doing to Turkey.

In our most recent installment of the inaptly named Opinion Daily, Jon Healey lays odds on Jango's race to survive in an imploding market for webcasting.

Author and UCLA lecturer Lawrence Grobel finds his past on sale at Amazon.com:

We printed 2,000 copies of each issue and sold them for 50 cents each. So, imagine my surprise when I recently discovered that Amazon.com had a listing under my name that said: "SATYR . Paperback. Used. $366."

$366! Was this a joke?

I went to the site offering the three issues for sale, and sure enough, it was for real. Only at Zubal.com they were listed at $348.20. It was also offering a first edition of my 812-page biography, "The Hustons," for $1.

Columnist Joel Stein discovers a shady journalistic cover-up: celeb mag editors-at-large aren't really editors, they just play them on TV. Human Rights Watch's Jennifer Daskal and Leslie Lefkow say that U.S. policy suffers when missile strikes on alleged terrorists go awry.

The editorial board criticizes John McCain's answer to the credit crisis, examines what lies ahead for new UC President Mark Yudof, and hails Starbucks and the upscaling of America:

[T]he Starbucks model -- a global-village blend of faux-Italianate lingo, American efficiency and post-modern abundance of selection, all built on the easy international flow of coffee beans -- is everywhere, readily reproduced by McDonald's, Dunkin' Donuts and any old bodega.

It's the happy flip-side of living in a country where even the poor people are fat.

On the letters page, readers discuss Jonah Goldberg's column claiming we were having a race conversation long before Barack Obama's speech. Phil Boiarsky of Columbus, Ohio disagrees, saying, " I am 63 years old, and this is the first time I have heard the 'white' side of the issue."

The man behind a write-in campaign for six Los Angeles Superior Court seats said Thursday that he targeted Latino judges because they would be easier to defeat, especially if he is successful at recruiting Filipino challengers.

"When you're running against a Caucasian, it's kind of hard," the Rev. Ronald C. Tan of Carson said. "As Filipinos, our names are almost the same as Hispanics, so that puts us on co-equal ground."

Tan said he is still hoping to get some Filipino lawyers to actually run write-in campaigns against the  six judges. "I'm in the process of convincing a couple of my dear friends to run," he said.

He said his primary reason for petitioning for a write-in campaign was his concern about appellate rulings in religious rights cases on subjects such as abortion, gay marriage, evolution "and all that."

"It's legislation from the bench," Tan said. "A lot of judges who get elected have very, very liberal views."

He said he was especially concerned about  rulings from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. "Most of them are judges that come from the ranks" of the Superior Court, he said.

A secondary goal was to get more Filipino-Americans on the bench, he said. "There hasn't ever been a judge who has been a Filipino-American," he said.

In fact, Mel Red Recana was presiding judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court and is currently serving on the Los Angeles Superior Court. He was born in the Philippines and is of Filipino descent.

As for why Tan didn't get his friends to file for the regular campaign and get their names on the ballot, he said he just didn't get around to it. "It was a question of timing," he said.

Only one Los Angeles Superior Court judge -- Ralph Dau -- has been challenged by traditional means in the June 3 election, with an attorney, Sydnee R. Singer, coming forward to put her name on the ballot as Dau's opponent. That meant, almost, that the other 144 judges up for election this year were to be deemed elected without their names even appearing before voters. But judicial election laws include provisions for write-in campaigns if petitioners present enough signatures after the close of regular filing. Judges who are named in the petitions must have their names on the ballot after all, but no opponents are listed.

Tan filed petitions on Judges Juan Carlos Dominguez (in the Pomona North Courthouse); Hector M. Guzman (Torrance); Daniel S. Lopez (Pomona); Daniel P. Ramirez (Whittier); Jose Sandoval (the Foltz criminal courts building in downtown Los Angeles); and Michael Villalobos (West Covina). Their names will now appear on the June ballot.

The six still don't know whether they will actually have campaigns run against them -- or by whom. Questions about whether to raise campaign money, hire consultants or any of the other things that challenged judges must do still await resolution.

"It took us totally by surprise," Villalobos said. "We are taking this challenge seriously, but it's really difficult at this point because we don't know who the candidate will be."

Tan was assisted in his effort by William D. Johnson, a judicial candidate who filed in the traditional manner and is running for an open court seat against Superior Court Commissioner James Bianco. County records show that the William D. Johnson who circulated petitions for Tan on several of the challenged judges and the man running against Bianco are the same person. Johnson did not return a call for comment.

Johnson is an attorney with an international law practice in downtown Los Angeles. According to his web site, he has a 78-acre ranch in La Canada where he raises horses, cows and alpacas.

Tan said he met Johnson at the County Registrar-Recorder's Office in Norwalk. Tan said the two men spoke for about an hour and realized they shared many concerns. But Tan said he was not aware that Johnson was active in the Ron Paul for President campaign. "I'm not voting for Ron Paul," Tan said.

A petition was also circulated for Tan by USC student Jeffrey Hubbard, who also has been active in the Paul campaign.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Willis G. Regier surveys Aesop translations:

Nine translators dominated Aesop in English over the past 500 years, and new ones are vying for attention. What do the translations show? Most obviously, some Aesops have more Aesop, much more, than others. Some have been much more reprinted, and more popular. And some change the fables: In some editions a lion outwits three bulls, in others four. Animals are altered: A weasel in one translation is a cat in another, toads become frogs, crows become ravens, a bear becomes a tiger, a lion becomes a leopard, and so on.

There follows a colorful tale of Royalists fighting Roundheads, Anglicans lecturing souls into heav'n, and the winner of the best-overall-translation wreath: Laura Gibbs' Aesop's Fables. Yet it still leaves my lifelong Aesop question unanswered...

What the hell is the fable "The Man and the Satyr" about?

Here, try reading another version of the tale. Or try this one and see if you can figure out what the moral could possibly be.

Is the moral that satyrs are too dumb to understand rudimentary heat transfer?

Or is the idea that the satyr is right, and it is wrong to produce breath that is warmer than frost but colder than porridge? That seems to be the point of this version, which includes a moral:

The man who talks for both sides is not to be trusted by either.

So, I give up: Why is a man who maintains a body temperature of 98.6 fahrenheit more or less trustworthy than any other man who maintains the same body temperature? Do you need to know the temperature of satyr breath to understand this one?

Contributing editor Michael Kinsley asks a question few have dared -- how long does it take Hillary Clinton to do her make-up? He writes:

Every day for almost two years, the candidates campaign. The average day is probably 15 to 20 hours. The average amount of sleep could be four hours. Yet, every day, the male candidates can sleep an extra precious half-hour or more -- or spend the time cramming for the day -- simply because our culture doesn't impose the same rules on them about their appearance.

And these really are rules. Sure, there are women who take no more trouble about their appearance than most men do, and men who take more than the typical woman. But a middle-aged woman who is the first of her sex to make a serious run for the presidency is not going to be a pioneer in indifference to looks. One revolution at a time. She has got to look put together, all day, every day.

Columnist Rosa Brooks warns her fellow mothers against aggressively marketed, often orphaned Disney princesses. The Center for European Policy Analysis' A. Wess Mitchell notes the efforts of NATO's newer members in Afghanistan. And Harold Hall, wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 20 years, says his case shows why the state should reconsider execution.

The editorial board highlights the need for transparency in the LAPD, examines Mexico's raging drug war as it hits a small border town, and argues for habeas rights for two U.S. citizens held in Iraq.

Readers consider California's law against driving while cell-phoning. Valencia's Lisa Stevenson says:

We have always been eating, drinking coffee, reading road maps, changing radio stations, applying makeup, shaving, talking to passengers, disciplining children, groping for dropped gum, staring at sign-twirlers and beating out drum solos on our steering wheels while driving. Yet there are no laws banning these activities.

California may be one of the world's biggest economies, and Los Angeles may be the global city of the future, but compared with the rest of the country this place is second class in political sex scandals. Move over, Gavin Newsom. Sit down, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Back of the line, Antonio Villaraigosa.

Check out Detroit. Now, that's a town that knows how to have a scandal. Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his former aide, Christine Beatty, are both out on bail after entering not guilty pleas yesterday on perjury, obstruction of justice and other charges. They allegedly lied under oath about having an affair, in a lawsuit brought by police officers who claimed they were being punished for trying to investigate Kilpatrick's misdeeds. Go beyond the confines of the charges to the broader scandal, and you've got everything: sexually explicit text messages (on city equipment, no less), a supposedly "lewd party" at the mayor's mansion, strippers, even a murdered stripper, claims of racial bigotry. But the bottom line: not just sex, but up to 90 years in prison.

In New York, of course, they know what they're doing; Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace not just for an extramarital affair, but for allegedly paying call girls for sex -- in other words, for breaking the law.

How tame we seem in comparison. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's political career supposedly was at an end a year ago when he admitted having an affair with an underling who just happened to be the wife of his good friend and political aide. But no laws were broken, and yesterday hardly anyone batted an eye when Newsom said that, yes, he's interested in running for governor in 2010. The affair rated a low mention in the San Francisco Chronicle story, taking a backseat to Newsom's proclamation honoring a gay porn studio.

And Villaraigosa? Please. So he had an affair and his marriage broke up. Ho hum. Last summer it was common knowledge that his relationship with newscaster Mirthala Salinas meant the end of his political ambitions. That now seems quaint. If Newsom is still a potential candidate for governor, so is Villaraigosa.

And the Los Angeles Times stories on Arnold Schwarzenegger's on-set groping of women seem almost child's play. Not only no crime, but no actual sex.

There are plenty who argue that it's all our fault here at the Times. If we were looking for political sex scandals, we'd find them. Don't forget the whole Bonaventure episode of 2006, for example. Surely there is plenty more of that kind of thing out there. It could be that we just don't have the hunger for dirt, so we don't go after it. Well, Kilpatrick and Spitzer -- and the example set by persistent journalists at the New York Times and in Detroit -- should provide some inspiration. But it's also entirely possible that California's politicians are just not as cutting-edge as we'd like to believe.

Here's one for the "Who Knew?" files: the news media's attention to the sub-prime fiasco rises and falls in step with its fascination with Britney Spears. Coincidence? I think not! I would not have noticed this linkage had it not been for Trendrr, a fascinating site that recently went live. An offshoot of Wiredset, a New York agency that specializes in promoting media through the Web, social networks and mobile carriers, Trendrr lets users assemble and compare data from a dozen sources (more to come soon), including Google News, Bit Torrent, eBay and YouTube. It also invites users to request new sources or submit their own. For example, you might want to gauge interest in a particular band by seeing how often people were posting videos of that act on YouTube. Or, if you were a studio, you could graf how often the trailer for your summer blockbuster was being played on MySpace.com vs. YouTube vs. DailyMotion. My examples don't do Trendrr justice, so click here to check out the site's most popular trend-mapping exercises. Then try creating some of your own.

Contributing editor Ian Buruma says Tibetan culture may not survive China's modernization, except among the diaspora:

The Chinese have exported their version of modern development to Tibet, not just in terms of architecture and infrastructure but people, wave after wave of them: businessmen from Sichuan, prostitutes from Hunan, technocrats from Beijing, party officials from Shanghai, shopkeepers from Yunnan. The majority of the people living today in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, are no longer Tibetan. Most people in rural areas are Tibetan, but their way of life is not likely to survive Chinese modernization any more than the ways of the Apaches did in the United States.

George Washington University's Jonathan Turley wonders why you can be competent to stand trial, but unfit to represent yourself. And Hope College's David G. Myers says primal urges are to blame for March madness.

The editorial board warns taxpayers that they'll face new risks as Fannie and Freddie buy more mortgages thanks to a rule change. The board also wants to know where scientific exhibits got their cadavers, and thinks the Supreme Court erred by not giving Jose Medellin, a Mexican national on death row in Texas, another day in court.

Readers discuss discussing race. Torrance's David Nelson says, "The article begins: 'How do we start a national dialogue on race?' A better question is: Why should we?"

Whoops, different  Fabian — not current speaker Fabian Nunez, but Fabian Wesson, wife of former speaker and current Los Angeles City Councilman Herb Wesson, has opened a committee to explore a 2010 run for the 47th Assembly District seat of speaker-elect Karen Bass, when Bass is termed out. Bass took the seat after Herb Wesson was termed out. All are Democrats.

Fabian Wesson is no stranger to Sacramento or Los Angeles politics. She is a consultant to Mervyn Dymally, the assemblyman-turned-senator-turned-lieutenant-governor-turned-congressman who is now back in the Assembly and running to go back to the Senate. Wesson also is a member of the Coliseum Commission and the California Science Center board.

Fabian (pronounce it FAY-bee-an, like the teen idol of the 1950s and '60s, not FAH-bee-an, like the current speaker) Wesson said she's still thinking over whether to pursue the seat, especially since she now has Herb home full-time after his six years of jetting to Sacramento and back.

So where is the 47th Assembly District? Take your pick — it covers Westside communities like Century City and Westwood but stretches east to take in the Miracle Mile and South Carthay and south to Culver City, Ladera Heights, Hyde Park and Crenshaw.

The last time the Department of Homeland Security tried to crack down on employers by sending them "no match" letters, a court stopped the plan in its tracks, saying it would end up hurting legal workers. What's changed six months later? Pretty much nothing.

DHS promised last fall it would review its plan, which would send employers a warning if they had enough employees with social security numbers that didn't match their names. Last week the agency released its proposed revisions (pdf) for public comment, offering only the smallest technical tweaks. The Washington Post reported that lawyers familiar with the original case against the plan anticipated ongoing court battles over the rule.

The editorial board has weighed in against masochistic efforts like these, which put the hurt on the American economy to underscore the need for comprehensive immigration reform. DHS has put out numbers on what it'll cost employers to comply: $3,000 to $7,500 for small businesses, and $13,000 to $34,000 for larger ones. As the Post notes, that doesn't include the cost of replacing workers.

That's not the only hurt employers will be feeling if the Bush administration continues its piecemeal immigration reform — on Thursday, higher fees go into effect for employers who violate immigration laws. Controversial immigration raids continue, including a major one last month in Van Nuys. And Congress is getting in on the game, examining enforcement-only legislation once again.

*Photo courtesy AFP.

It's easy to riff on Sen. Hillary Clinton's apparent whopper about being subjected to sniper fire in Bosnia. So let me begin, before David Letterman has a chance to taunt the candidate with, "Liar, liar! Pants suit on fire!"

Actually, I have a serious point to make about this gaffe. Hillary is not the first candidate (though she might be the first female candidate) to hype or fabricate combat experience. This sub-species of resumé padding has tripped up other politicians, not all of them prominent, and at least one esteemed historian.

You don't have to be a presidential candidate to get into this fix. Last December the Boston Globe told the familiar story of a school board candidate in Lawrence, Mass., who won election after "touting his 20 years in the U.S. Marine Corps," only to be contradicted by a family member and pilloried by other politicians.

Why do they do it? It's true that presidents great and not-so-great have trumpeted their military service, but the most recent decorated warrior to seek the presidency didn't seem to get much mileage from it. And straining to seem like one of the guys can backfire, as Michael Dukakis (a real veteran) discovered. Hillary would have been better advised to say that her scars came from the battle over healthcare.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, a baptism is valid even if it is performed by a layperson and even if it takes place in private. My sainted mother remembered that when she administered a "kitchen baptism" (head under the spigot) to a grandson she wasn't sure would be dipped by his parents.

So why did Pope Benedict XVI have to baptize Magdi Allam, a journalist from a Muslim background, not just in public but at a televised Easter Vigil service at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome? Was the pope offensively flaunting a prized conversion and giving credence to Osama bin Laden's taunt that Benedict was playing a "large and lengthy role" in a "new Crusade" against Islam? Was this an another affont, intended or not, from a pope who raised Muslim hackles in 2006 when, during a lecture in Germany, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who accused the Prophet Muhammad of commanding that Islam be "spread by the sword"?

I don't think so. First, Allam was one of seven people received into the fold by Benedict, Second, the  baptism of new Christians is an Easter Vigil tradition. In 2005, the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, baptized five new Christians at the vigil, filling in for the ailing Pope John Paul II. Third, even if Allam was chosen because of his prominence, there is nothing new about Christians (or adherents of other faiths) trumpeting the admission of a high-profile convert. Certainly Buddhists take pride in the fact that Richard Gere is one of them. Fourth and most important, Allam's conspicuous conversion was a matter of his own choice, a choice the Roman Catholic Church would have been bound by a decree of the Second Vatican Council to respect even if he had decided to become a devout Muslim.

It wasn't always thus. You don't have to be Osama bin Laden to recognize that Christianity also has been "spread by the sword" or that in the past the Vatican operated on the assumption that "error has no rights." And Allam's voluntary conversion contrasts dramatically with the 19th century case of the kidnapping and Christianization of Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish boy from Bologna who was seized from his parents by papal police after the local Inquisition discovered that he had been baptized as an infant by a Christian servant girl. Pope Pius IX (whose humongous miter Benedict recently wore) rejected appeals that the boy be returned to his family. Edgardo later was ordained a Catholic priest. (The Catholic League on its website offers a tortured defense of Pio Nono's conduct in this case.)

Intolerance is an occupational hazard for believers of all kinds.   But the Catholic Church of which Allam is now a member eventually joined other Christian bodies in recognizing that belief cannot be compelled and that, in the words of Vatican II, "the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature." It's too much to hope that Osama bin Laden will accept this teaching, but other Muslims do. An increase in their numbers is the best insurance against the "clash of civilzations" between Christians and Muslims.

The editorial board today says no to nuclear power no matter what Gov. Schwarzenegger thinks, laments the long backlog that legal residents face when applying for citizenship, and explores what to do after the heparin fiasco:

After various scandals involving Chinese products -- pet food, toys, seafood -- many Americans already avoid products labeled "Made in China." But hospital patients have no way of knowing where a widely used pharmaceutical was manufactured or where its ingredients came from. They don't put such information on IV bags, as though stroke victims are in a position to check anyway.

It took a long line of regulatory failures and legal loopholes for a contaminated drug to reach U.S. hospitals.... Legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee would help, though it would not solve all the shortcomings.

Modern Art Notes editor Tyler Green reminds Angelenos not to forget about MOCA as they embrace the Grand Avenue project. Columnist Jonah Goldberg says America was talking about race long before Barack Obama's speech. Memoirist Peter Godwin says that Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has led his country to ruin:

I was one of those who gladly dismissed Rhodesia and became Zimbabwean. Upon the firm economic infrastructure he had inherited, Robert Mugabe, our first black leader, built a health and educational system that was the envy of Africa. Zimbabwe became the continent's most literate country, with its highest per capita income. Zimbabwe easily fed itself and had plenty left over to export to its famine-prone neighbors.... Fast forward to today, and the country is unrecognizable.

Readers react to Gov. Schwarzenegger's dismissal of Clint Eastwood and Bobby Shriver from a state commission. Laguna Niguel's Kurt Page says, "At least the governor defends his action with insight and wisdom when he says that the toll road 'has to go through somewhere'.... Brilliant stuff."

*Photo of Robert Mugabe courtesy Bishop Asare EPA

On the heels of the Iraq war's fifth anniversary comes another somewhat arbitrary but far more grim milestone: 4,000 American soldiers have now died in the conflict, though casualties have been low so far this year. The editorial board didn't remark on the death toll when it hit 2,000 (in October 2005) or 3,000 (at the end of 2006), even though those points coincided with some other big events -- the ratification of a draft constitution and Saddam Hussein's execution.

The board did write when the death toll hit 1,000, highlighting the randomness of marking a number of dead (sorry, no link):

Six U.S. soldiers were killed, two Italian aid workers were kidnapped and warplanes bombed a Sunni enclave in Fallouja, a city mostly off-limits to coalition troops. It was just another day in the war Tuesday, except for the numbers. By this morning, Iraq time, the Associated Press count of casualties stated that 1,000 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq, aside from more than 100 other coalition soldiers and thousands of Iraqi noncombatants. And many thousands more have been wounded.

It is an obvious point at which to ask: To what end are U.S. personnel continuing to die? What is it that commanders should tell their troops as they head into lethal streets?

The board noted another, less round number in January...

A reader takes exception to my comment in an earlier post that California's constitution lacks the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment "right to keep and bear arms."

But even 2nd Amendment enthusiasts admit (and lament) that California is lacking a guarantee for either a collective or an individual right to keep and bear arms. Commenter Tom points to Article I Section 1 of the state constitution declaring: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty..." Tom concludes, "I  seem to have the inalienable right to defend my life."

But Pennsylvania's constitution, which does have a robust (or wacky, depending on your point of view)  right to keep and bear arms also includes boilerplate similar to California's: "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness." So, if Tom is right, Section 21 of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights — "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" — is, as Chief Justice Marshall would say, mere surplusage.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez says Barack Obama's speech on race may have been brilliant, but it was the wrong move:

Throughout the campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton's surrogates repeatedly tried to bait Obama into talking about race; they worked to pigeonhole him (and marginalize him) as the "black candidate." But in the end, it was Obama's own alliances that tripped him up and obliged him to directly address a subject (one that he now says we "cannot afford to ignore") that he had so deftly avoided -- or as the Obamaphiles had it, transcended. For all the kudos the Illinois senator has received for his candor, the very act of delivering Tuesday's address was a defeat. Obama was a much more powerful force for racial progress when he so effortlessly symbolized it, rather than when he called on us to address "old wounds."

Assemblyman Van Tran (R-Garden Grove) argues that SAT subject tests should stay, in part because they give recent immigrants a chance to show their strengths. Loyola Law Schools' Karl Manheim and Consumer Watchdog's Jamie Court say health insurance mandates of the Clinton and Obama kind may not pass constitutional muster. And writer Joe Queenan wonders why Garth Brooks gets a spot in his kid's academic calendar.

The editorial board notes new Census numbers showing that California sprawl is slowing down, and looks at why double amputee Oscar Pistorius was barred from the Olympics for being too fast. The board also explores why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger dismissed fellow film icon Clint Eastwood and brother-in-law Bobby Shriver from a state commission.

Readers react to the violence in Tibet. Sherman Oaks' Elke Heitmyer says, "Tibet has been 'another Burma' for a long time already."

Today's the deadline for the 30 Los Angeles Superior Court judge candidates on the June 3 ballot to file their latest fundraising reports, and it will be interesting to see who the big money-raisers are -- and who is funding their campaigns.

Fundraising is part of the perpetual quandary of California judicial races. Candidates don't like asking for money, but of course they want to win, and one of the best ways to won is to send out lots of carefully targeted mail, which in turn costs money.

Judicial candidates often consider themselves above politics and many bristle when one of their number actively raises cash from the same partisan business or labor interests that fund legislative races or ballot measures. But is it any cleaner for judicial campaign money to be donated by attorneys who will later plead their cases in front of the victors?

Warnings of pay-to-play justice have been increasing in volume in recent years, and the alarm was sounded again over the weekend in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Sample of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. Sample cites egregious instances of jurists from Illinois and Wisconsin refusing to recuse themselves from cases involving companies that helped put them on the bench. Then there's the current case from West Virginia that sounds like something from a John Grisham novel.

in fact, Grisham was quoted as saying he didn't have to look any further than the Charleston Gazette for an idea from his latest novel. Now "The Appeal" is being cited as an outrageous not not outlandish illustration of the corrupting influence of campaign cash in the courtroom. In the book, a chemical company goes after a favorable ruling by