Tomorrow's May Day march may not draw record-setting numbers, but it could see the first large-scale deployment of the LAPD's newest psi-ops gadgets. Captain Dennis H. Kato of the 77th Street Area explains that the police will be keeping in multilingual communication with crowds through the department's new Critical Incident Utility Vehicle, or "Polaris," a sort of souped-up golf cart that will patrol the streets dispensing helpful phrases.

Even more intriguing is the handheld "Phraselator," which will provide English, Spanish, Korean and Mandarin broadcasts of more than 100 useful phrases, with a range of about half a mile. That includes not only old favorites like "Hands behind your back" but some of the following:

Welcome to this event. We are here to help facilitate your First Amendment rights.

If you need medical attention see a police officer.

Please stay up on sidewalk. Please stay off streets.

Please stay out of the trees.

Please do not climb on the poles.

You are on private property. Please move back into this area.

All the phraselators are in the field at the moment, but I'm hoping to get a complete list of the phrases after the march is over. Meanwhile, if you really start trouble tomorrow you may get to hear the full Dispersal Order (text available on Page 53 of this PDF), which combines the urgent, the ominous and the legalistic in a frothy brew of police power. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Further reading:

"You're under arrest you have the right to make one phone call or remain silent so you better shut up," arguably the worst Miles Davis album of all time.

Photos and information about the universal translator from the Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki.

Otherwise, I'd be undergoing the trauma associated with discovering that your man-of-steel childhood hero is really a blathering hack. First, there was his light-hearted TV spot endorsing Republican Mike Huckabee that played on Norris' martial arts cred. Now we have his most recent rambling column on illegal immigration, which reads as if Norris were a guest on Art Bell's paranormal-themed radio show (for a real treat, skip down to his assertion that the federal government's shoot-to-kill security for Area 51 provides a decent model for patrolling the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border).

Finding an excerpt from Norris' column that best encapsulates the paranoid wing of the restrictionist movement is a tall order, as every paragraph is a pretty good candidate. This one, however, needs no summary:

Unfortunately, illegal transport of immigrants, terrorists and other contraband is only going to worsen, especially with the possible creation of a North American Union (with Canada and Mexico) and the so-called NAFTA Superhighways. Unless of course we stop it! (How is it that we can militarily overthrow a government like Iraq, yet we can't militarily keep illegalities from crossing our borders?) As Mike Huckabee still says, "If the government can't track illegals, then let's outsource the job to UPS or Fed-Ex."

You couldn't write a better caricature of the anti-immigrant Chicken Littles. Of course, Norris is dead serious.

Does Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo have too many non-lawyers on staff? The question is at the center of a verbal and email budget squabble between the city attorney and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office, which is backing the mayor's proposed 60-person reduction of Delgadillo's non-attorney staff of 497 (the office has 556 lawyers). That amounts to a budget reduction of close to 5%.

After releasing his proposed 2008-09 budget last week, Villaraigosa visited the Times Editorial Board and had this to say about Delgadillo's office:

By the way, just so you know, they're about a 1,000-member department; only 500 are lawyers. What we're proposing to cut is administrative staff. They have administrative staff ratios, you do the research on it to confirm it, but as I understand it, they have administrative staff ratios that are greater than Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, O'Melveny & Myers, and some of the biggest law firms, which are basically three lawyers for each administrative position.

Well — not quite. Not even close, actually. Law firms have become notoriously tight with what many call proprietary figures, but several of the largest firms confirmed that the numbers published in an annual survey by the Downtown News are just about right. If you take a look at the survey and do a little simple math, you'll see that the ratio generally is the other way around: most large firms have at least twice as many non-lawyer staff as attorneys.

Delgadillo's office jumped on the Downtown News figures and argued that in fact, he's quite thinly staffed in comparison with law firms in the private sector. On Monday, Delgadillo's budget chief, Jennifer Roth Krieger, sent an email to the mayor's budget chief, Sally Choi, asking for the "source data for the information your office has put out (which shows that our office has a higher percentage of support staff than law offices in the public or private sector)." Choi responded by email that the only information the mayor's office put out was the 1:1 ratio of attorneys to non-attorneys; both emails were attached to a letter to the City Council's budget committee from top Delgadillo deputy Richard H. Llewellyn Jr.

Time to pull over and figure out what "staff" means. Law firms have in fact moved to a ratio of about three lawyers for every secretary, in part because lawyers with computers on their desks now do much of the document drafting that they used to dictate, and that their secretaries used to type up back, say, in the 1980s. But the mayor wasn't talking about the city attorney's lawyer-secretary ratio, but rather lawyers to staff.

Private firms have bulked up on paralegals, tech support, billing, marketing, and even complementary professional services like accounting. They are all administrative or support staff, and most large L.A. firms have two or three such non-lawyers for every lawyer. Delgadillo may not need a lot of that work done in-house, but he does need people to back up misdemeanor prosecutions and other functions that private firms don't have to worry about.

The comparison of city attorney and private firm staffing figures actually tells us very little, except that Villaraigosa and Delgadillo are spoiling for a fight. The city attorney told the budget committee that his staff is needed to make the mayor's LAPD build-up work. "But, without prosecution and resulting jail time," Delgadillo said, "an arrest is meaningless."

To interpret: Moving money from the city attorney to the police doesn't accomplish much.

Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said the staffing ratio was a "tangential issue." "We actually have to make real cuts to save real dollars," Szabo said.

By the way, here's something else Villaraigosa told the Editorial Board about Delgadillo:

"One council member said that if he doesn't agree to a 5% cut, maybe we ought to make it 10."

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is a politician after LAPD Chief William Bratton's heart. The  governor vetoed a bill Monday that would have required police departments to, as the NY Times put it, "join the federal immigration posse." The governor's merciless pen has received mixed reviews, but it's no surprise. The two-term governor holds her state's record for most vetoes issued.

As noted here a few weeks ago, the bill had an interesting parallel to Los Angeles' current drama over Special Order 40, the LAPD directive that bars officers from stopping people "for the sole purpose of asking about immigration status." The order came under fire when high school football star Jamiel Shaw was gunned down, allegedly by an illegal immigrant, but Bratton has defended the policy to the hilt — and rightly so, according to The Times:

The order was adopted in the late 1970s by then-Chief Daryl F. Gates, hardly a soft-on-crime liberal, who knew that the LAPD would be more effective if undocumented witnesses and victims felt free to speak with officers without fearing deportation.... It was good policy then and remains so today.

The governor didn't actually pull the "crimefighting" card herself when she vetoed it:

Napolitano, a Democrat, had been urged to reject House Bill 2807 by Latino activists who feared the measure would lead to racial profiling and further alienate the Latino community. But Napolitano cited neither of those issues in vetoing the measure. Instead, she relied on fiscal concerns, noting a provision that would have required the state to pay for the training of local officers in immigration enforcement if federal funds were unavailable.

In fact, Napolitano has been very clear that this ain't no sanctuary state. In an Op-Ed for the Washington Post urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform last year, she wrote:

Don't label me soft on illegal immigration. As a U.S. attorney (predating the Gonzales Justice Department), I supervised the prosecution of more than 6,000 immigration felonies. I govern a state where, in 2005, there were 550,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants. I declared a state of emergency at our border that year, and I was the first governor in the nation to call for assistance from the National Guard.

Okay then. In any case, go Janet!

Time to turn the page on April, which means no more gazing at the standout photo in this year's Tom LaBonge calendar.

You know LaBonge, of course, the Los Angeles city councilman for portions of Hollywood, North Hollywood, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, Hancock Park and Toluca Lake. And Griffith Park, of course, where the councilman took this photo of the Observatory, with downtown's two tallest buildings poking through the low cloud layer. LaBonge is a veritable Mr. Los Angeles, so he would probably bristle at this notion, but you could almost mistake this photo for something in San Francisco.

Now get ready to flip your Tom LaBonge calendars to May, where you will be greeted with a very different photo of Griffith Park — one with flames from last year's fire climbing the ridge and consuming Dante's View.

The June 3 stealth primary actually starts Monday. That's when voters can pick up (and mark and send in) vote-by-mail ballots. They're often are still called "absentee" ballots, but unlike the old days, you can take care of business early without having to pretend that you won't be around on election day. True "absentee" ballots, for people who can't vote in the regular mail voting because of military or other commitments, began April 4. So hurry up.

Click here to apply for a mail-in ballot if you live in Los Angeles County. Of course, there are other ways to go; you could apply at the registrar-recorder's office in Norwalk, or you could send in one of those applications that you may get in the mail this weekend, courtesy of one of the campaigns with skin in the game.

Campaigns are counting on mailbox voters and will try to reach them with glossy slate cards and brochures starting -- well, it's every campaign's closely-guarded secret, but probably Saturday, with big spurts planned for every weekend in May. Very few people are expected to actually go to the polls next month, so the mailbox is where the action is -- and now is the time the action starts.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. This election was going to be the presidential primary, when a record number of Californians would go to the voting booth to very likely have the final say in whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee. But last year the Legislature decided to strip out the presidential portion of this election and put it on the earlier February 5 ballot -- so our vote would have more impact. Ironic, huh?

The rest of the June ballot goes forward: Proposition 98 to curb eminent domain and phase out rent control, Proposition 99 just on eminent domain, party primaries for state Assembly and Senate, and in Los Angeles county, elections for Superior Court judge, district attorney and county supervisor.

Click here to see the Times endorsements for Superior Court, and here to see our endorsements for district attorney and two of the three supervisorial contests. Endorsements in the other races are coming soon, and of course you shouldn't even dream of voting early until you get the benefit of our guidance. But suit yourself.

And click here for the latest on the June 3 election, the November 4 election, and every election in between.

...I fell in love with a Mexican girl right before she got busted coming to work in a citrus farm.

From the Star of the Southwest comes an interesting comment on immigration reform from the area's chief Border Patrol agent. Victor M. Manjarrez Jr. tells the Associated Press that the Patrol is being forced to divert attention from catching criminals and potential terrorists to the pursuit of people who are jumping the border in search of work:

"Most of these people are economic migrants but we have to deal with them between the ports of entry because we have not, in terms of a legislative fix, determined what we do with these people," Manjarrez said. "I think it's pretty obvious that the country has a need for economic migrants. To what degree, I don't know. That's for the country to decide and for the politicians to decide."

Full story here.  Manjarrez estimates that of the 75,000 border crossers arrested in the 268-mile El Paso sector in 2007, at least 87% were coming for work. Without this "clutter," he says, agents would be better able to focus on securing the border against actual threats.

This was essentially my point a few years back, when I made the case for visaless exchange among the NAFTA countries. That's a bit more ambitious than the kind of "comprehensive reform" that usually amounts to issuing more guest worker visas. But I don't see the downside in ensuring that all non-criminal traffic into the United States (and out of it: read the story for details about how historically visaless entry has actually encouraged out-migration) is routed through legitimate border crossings where the feds can know who's who.

If you do know of a downside, the comments are wide open.

Tim Rutten marvels at the questionable artistic value of "Grand Theft Auto IV," and writer Gary Ferguson laments the senseless violence that hunters are unleashing on the gray wolf, just released from the endangered species list. New York University professor Stephen F. Cohen says hold the baloney: It's the U.S., not Russia, that's responsible for the heightened tensions of late:

During the last eight years, Putin's foreign policies have been largely a reaction to Washington's winner-take-all approach to Moscow since the early 1990s, which resulted from a revised U.S. view of how the Cold War ended. In that new, triumphalist narrative, the U.S. won the 40-year conflict and post-Soviet Russia was a defeated nation analogous to post-World War II Germany and Japan -- a nation without full sovereignty at home or autonomous national interests abroad.

The editorial board also worries about the gray wolf, and calls on Mexico's politicians not to fuel the debate over the future of the nation's oil industry with hot air. The board also gives Obama a thumbs-up for not falling victim to easy political gimmicks as gas prices rise:

High gas prices can prompt political hysteria in the best of times, but when they soar during an election year, the fumes rising from candidate stump speeches can make a person sick. Of the three candidates and the president they're out to replace, only one is telling the truth about oil -- and he may suffer for his political courage.

Readers rip into an editorial commending McCain for not indulging in political pandering. Fred Sokolow asks:

In your editorial, you characterize McCain as boldly preaching an unpopular message, but it's the same old, tired, free-market deregulation dogma.

There's nothing contrarian about it -- it's the Bush line, which has put America in the terrible spot we're in today.

Won't you begin to assess this guy for what he really is? He's no maverick; he's a throwback, and more of the same poison that's been killing America (and Americans, and Iraqis) for seven years.

...to the techorati tag below:

Technorati Profile

Follow the link if you want to be truly bored. This is just to get our technorati profile up and running...

... and soars on hot air from the blogosphere.

After more than a month of studied silence, the reverend has stepped into the public spotlight to defend his controversial remarks on race in America -- and make veiled criticisms of Sen. Barack Obama in the process. On Obama's repudiation of his incendiary statements, the minister had this to say: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician."

Obama reacted angrily to his former pastor's comments, calling them "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." Jonah Goldberg gleefully celebrated Wright's coming-out as "every bit as radical as his detractors claimed."

They're not the only ones with choice words about Wright's recent performances:

The Times' own Top of the Ticket blog asks, "Was Jeremiah Wright's speech set up by a Clinton supporter?"

... we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at ... who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds ... an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Jeffrey Weiss over at the Dallas Morning News' religion blog wonders why pundits can't take Obama out of the equation:

After the NAACP speech, the all-news networks talking heads were mostly falling all over themselves to do political analysis about whether or not the speech would help or hurt Barack Obama, rather than attempt even a moment of thought about the meaning of what Wright actually said.

The Caucus over at the NY Times does a roundup of its own, observing:

Voices around the blogosphere say they’re tired of the media kerfuffle surrounding Barack Obama and his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., but they certainly keep writing about it.

They also say they’re sick of the expression “thrown under the bus,” but they keep using it.

For some Wright-Obama commentary with both local and international flavor, Ha'aretz's Shmuel Rosner invokes the "Bradley Effect," but also snarks at the minister's comments about Israel:

At moments he came off as mocking and somewhat vain, but made an effort to soften the hardliner perception his speech had left behind. He was also asked about his views on Israel. "Apartheid?" he asked, adding that Jimmy Carter used this term, not him.

Israel, Wright said, "has a right to exist". His only desire was that the Israelis and Palestinians live in peace. He made no reference to the sermon in which he connected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the September 11th attacks, but he did make sure to emphasize his "Jewish friends". As it turns out, Jeremiah Wright also has a couple of those.

Daniel Nichanian at the Huffington Post compares Wright's position to one of the 2000 presidential election's most beleaguered political players:

Wright has no obligation to put Obama's interest above his own; dragged through the mud for news, the pastor has an opening to make people listen to him and hear the full context of his theology. Those who today profess themselves appalled that Wright would throw Obama under the bus miss the point that Wright does not think of himself as having any allegiance to Obama or to his election, just as Ralph Nader had no any allegiance to the Democratic Party making it hard to understand why 2004 was "a betrayal."

Wonkette agrees, in an offbeat sort of way:

He's blowing open the racial politics that Obama wants to close and claiming that Obama is insincere when he rejects Wright's "extreme sermons"; he's trying to balance a deserved self-defense with the collateral damage that that brings on Obama. He has an ego. Most importantly, he's just some old preacher and not Obama's surrogate father. He can say whatever he wants and Barry will just have to deal with it. Individual people have a right to defend themselves, and politicians have a right to disown them. That's all, goodnight.

While Sen. McCain had the plug pulled on the North Carolina Republican Party's ad highlighting the Obama-Wright connection, it seems the state party leaders will be getting the airtime they wanted for free.