They aren't the infamous Tango's dads (we'll get to that later) but the forces opposing same-sex marriage see vindication in nature--or at least in the San Francisco Zoo, where a couple of male penguins who formed a long partnership have split.

Harry and Pepper shared a burrow together for six years, even hatching a surrogate chick, until Linda the widow came along, newly bereaved by her (male) partner Fig's death and Harry decided to, uh, chase some tail. The two burrowed in together and Linda laid two eggs.

A sign that gay couples are doomed, as the Proposition 8 supporters claim? Let's check 3,000 miles acorss the continent where a much more famous pair of male penguins live at the Central Park Zoo. Roy and Silo not only hatched an egg together, and raised baby Tango, but they all became characters, alternately celebrated and maligned, in the children's book "And Tango Makes Three." The zoo never got back to me with official word about the ornithological literary figures, but an employee told me informally that the two are still alive and well and together. But their book has been banned in numerous schools.

So this makes what of the whole argument about same-sex marriage for humans? Perhaps only a reminder that penguins do not seem as inclined to judge their peers' preferences as humans are.

Photo of two king penguins who are cute but not Harry, Pepper, Roy or Silo by Martin Meissner/AP 

Some reaction in today's Los Angeles Times editorial pages to the coming deeper cuts to the state's higher education system, and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's assertions about welfare cheats.

Start with the University of California. UC Berkeley professors Robert Cooter and Aaron Edlin say it makes more sense to fire people (presumably their colleagues, not them) than to impose across-the-board salary cuts. Why?

Growth has led to bloat at UC. The bloat and bureaucracy stifle creativity and productivity. The bloat is in unproductive workers and unproductive jobs.Many jobs have little to do with our core missions of teaching and research.

Next, the Cal State system. CSU Long Beach geography professor and department chairman Vincent J. Del Casino Jr. says cuts to his schools are necessary, too, but beware the consequences:

So what is the cost of gutting the Cal State system? Fewer nurses. Fewer teachers. Fewer engineers. Fewer poets and artists. Fewer film and electronic arts experts. Fewer MBAs. Fewer people to drive the future of California, including fewer geographers trained in my department. These reductions in educated human capital will hit California at a time when the state needs 2 million additional college graduates by the year 2020.

Also on op-ed, Douglas MacKinnon shows why he's one of those conservatives that liberals love, when it's convenient, and that conservatives love to hate. He takes on the GOP for hypocrisy and calls on the party to shed the "morally bankrupt leaders who have violated the trust of their families and constituents" (think Appalachians and Argentina) and to embrace a wider base. Read more about MacKinnon here and here, and more from him here.

You've noticed those billboards about your right to have a pet? So has columnist Meghan Daum.

On the virtual pages, like this one, check out a response from Los Angeles County welfare chief Philip L. Browning to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attack, a couple weeks ago in the Times, on the CalWorks welfare-to-work program.

On the editorial page, the Times continues its Rehabilitating Healthcare series with a thumbs-down on the portion of the House bill that would fund reform with tax increases on the rich. Better, the page says, to roll back the tax exemption on health benefits.

The exemption is worth $3.5 trillion over 10 years, so even a modest reduction could raise a significant amount. Trimming the exemption would also discourage gold-plated insurance plans that promote excessive consumption of healthcare services. Such a move would face stiff resistance from unions and President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But it would send the valuable message that everyone pays for this reform because everyone benefits.

The editorial page also remembers the Apollo 11 moonshot and offers that clean and efficient energy is just as far away, and ultimately just as achievable. And we observe President Obama's brave willingness to acknowledge that he is a White Sox fan.

 Photo: Alex Gallardo / LAT

Oh, countries listen to the International Whaling Commission all right -- as long as they want to. Most nations observe the international ban on whale hunting because they agree with it. As for the rest -- well, of the big three that continue to kill whales, Iceland and Norway simply ignore the ban. And for years, Japan has operated under an exemption allowing it to take whales for scientific research. But with each whale worth tens of thousands of dollars in meat and other products, you can bet a lot more than research is going on, like whale dinners served in upscale restaurants. And does it really take close to 1,000 whales to conduct this research, which is the quota that Japan sets for itself? 

The whales that the Japanese hunt, mostly minke, are considered to be at "lower risk" of extinction. Now Greenland wants to hunt 50 endangered humpback whales over the next few years, saying this would be subsistence hunting for its indigenous people. There's certainly precedence for this: The Inuit have been allowed to take several dozen bowhead whales for years. This kind of subsistence hunting is an ancient part of their tradition. But there's more to it. Under the Inuits' tightly managed hunt, the bowhead comeback in the eastern Arctic has been a conservation success story. Adding an endangered species like the humpback whale to the list, though, raises a new set of complications -- which the International Whaling Commission put off dealing with at its recent meeting.

Another issue that has to be addressed is which individual whales are selected out for hunting by the Japanese whalers. A study presented at the IWC meeting found that nearly a third of the whales killed were pregnant. Assuming those whale calves would otherwise have been born and survived, this means a lot more whales are being killed than the number being counted as part of Japan's research.

* Photo of humpback whale by Greenpeace

An international poll comes along showing that although Americans are fairly knowledgeable about Charles Darwin, they don't hold much truck with this whole theory-of-evolution business.

Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.

But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution." Where were the believers in evolution most likely to live? India, with 77%. And we wonder why that country is renowned for its good education, especially in the sciences--and why this country historically tests in the mediocre realm.

Photo by Darko Vojinovic/AP
 

Finally police are cracking down on criminals! Unfortunately, the offenders in question are our furry four-legged friends, and their crime is wanting to burn some excess calories. In recent months, police at certain parks in West Hollywood have taken to ticketing residents who allow their dogs to run or fraternize with fellow canines while off-leash. Residents have responded by complaining about the lack of parks that allow dogs to cavort sans leash and what they feel is a pick-and-choose enforcement of the law.

Simply telling these residents to bring their pets to Los Angeles parks that allow dogs to roam unshackled might not be the best solution either. Frequenters of those parks are undertaking their own battles with The Man. A December law restricting the number of dogs a person may walk at one time is at the center of the dispute. The dog walking community is upset with the law, but seems undeterred by the threat of getting cited for a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. (If I had $180,000 business walking dogs, I might not be trembling, either.) Local dog owners enjoying the leash-free park find the dog walkers, who sometimes bring in dogs by the van-load, to be a nuisance. They claim the dog walkers can't keep track of all the pets they bring and many times don't clean up after them properly.

If I'm understanding this correctly, at one park local residents are being ticketed for letting a lone dog off its leash, while another allows whole packs of dogs to amble around freely? The explanation offered by city park police, by the way, is that they're hesitant to enforce the three-dog restriction before signs displaying the new rule are posted.

To recap:

1. Don't let your dog run around free at a park that doesn't allow off-leash pets or you will be ticketed. 
2. If you have more than three dogs you walk, its OK to ignore laws because there are no signs posted.
3. It takes more than 6 months for the city to make signs.

Is it fair to ticket pet owners for trying to make sure their dog stays healthy?  Should they be forced to drive miles out of their way, passing park after park, just to let their dog off the leash?  Does the enforcement of the laws actually keep people safe?  Should dog walkers be allowed to continue their business without the restriction?  Is the ticketing just another way for the city to try and squeeze more revenue from its citizens?  How many signs does the city actually make a year that it takes 6 months to get one that reads:  "Three Dogs or Less Per Visitor"?   I've got a million questions, but what are your thoughts?

Photo: Dogs enjoy the leash-free luxury of the Santa Monica Airport Park dog park. Credit: Karen Tapia-Andersen, Los Angeles Times.

Obviously, some California public services will have to be cut, the editorial board observes, but what sense does it make to eliminate CalWorks, a program funded mostly by the federal dollars that enables people to get jobs and pay the rent? The board also notes that this is the big day for switching to digital TV, and it calls on the Federal Communications Commission to define the broadcasters' public-service obligations for digital channels.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta might be right in saying that he can't possibly make public a single paragraph within 65 documents describing his agency's interrogation techniques, the board says, but that doesn't mean the federal judge in the case should take his word for it. The judge should review the documents personally before making a decision, the board advises.

 On the other side of the fold. a teacher of history and education says the use of the term "Hispanic" to denote an ethnic group is a relatively recent phenomenon in the nation's history, and one that has served to make those of Latin American descent feel more "other" than they used to. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor should be seen as the first person of Puerto Rican descent who might be appointed to the high court, Jonathan Zimmerman argues, rather than as Hispanic. And Bill Maher has had enough with the puppies and the hamburgers; he wishes President Obama were less visible and barking more orders over the phone. The man is in serious danger of cute media overexposure, Maher huffs:

We like you, we really like you! You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so's Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something.

Illustration: Pedro X. Molina

What could be more touching than the story of the heroic dog that defended its owners Tuesday from a marauding mountain lion in Cleveland National Forest? The tale is repeated all over the web, and in a brief in today's Times. If only the cougar hadn't been slandered.

"There's no question the dog saved [the owner's] life," said Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. Adding to the "awww" factor, the owner had saved the dog from euthanasia.

Actually, there's quite a bit of question. According to the state Department of Fish and Game, the story was a little different on second telling. The owners said they were walking at Blue Jay Campground, a camping spot popular with families but closed at the time of this incident, when they and their dog, a labrador mix, spotted the mountain lion by a restroom. The mountain lion ran away, the dog took off after it and attacked, and the mountain lion injured the dog in the ensuing fight.

That sounds a little more typical of mountain lion behavior; they're not usually given to attacking humans, especially when two or more people are together, and especially when there's a dog around. 

But who knows what really happened? Investigators could find no cougar pawprints, no hairs, no signs of a mountain lion at all. That's odd, considering that the location was well known and this wasn't just a lion in flight, but one in a fight. Confusion between mountain lions and bobcats is pretty common among casual hikers. Fish and Game has called off its search for a mountain lion. Call me a puma-hugger, but some innocent animal out there was in grave danger of losing its life to the story of the heroic dog (although the dog might have had every intention of protecting its owners). The dog underwent surgery, and a veterinarian's report might shed light on whether this was or wasn't a lion.

By the way, what was the dog doing off the leash to start with? That's prohibited in the forest; dogs can do a lot of harm to wildlife. No one seems to be pursuing the question -- it's more romantic when the story is about renegade cougars instead of leash laws.

* Photo by Associated Press

Continuing its series of editorials parsing the six measures on the May 19 ballot, the Times looks at Proposition 1B, a measure intended to restore $9.3 billion to public schools and community colleges. But it finds more cons than pros and opposes 1B. It's main beef is that the measure also could force the state to increase its funding guarantees in the long term. That would require increased spending regardless of the state of California's finances

The board, however, throws its support behind SB 399, a bill sponsored by state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) that would give some youths, imprisoned for life without parole, a glimmer of hope after they had served 25 years. It's a travesty that the United States is the only country in the world that permits life without parole for children, and Yee's bill is a small step toward a saner and more humane policy.  Rounding out the stack, the board neither supports nor opposes Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's departure from the Republican party, but it laments the shrinking number of moderate denizens on the right.

Over in Op-Ed, Joseph Margulies of Northwestern University details the suffering of Abu Zubaydah, the man President George W. Bush described as "one of the top three leaders" in Al Qaeda, when subsequent information determined he was little more than a "personnel clerk."

First, they beat him. As authorized by the Justice Department and confirmed by the Red Cross, they wrapped a collar around his neck and smashed him over and over against a wall. They forced his body into a tiny, pitch-dark box and left him for hours. They stripped him naked and suspended him from hooks in the ceiling. They kept him awake for days. And they strapped him to an inverted board and poured water over his covered nose and mouth to "produce the sensation of suffocation and incipient panic.' Eighty-three times."

 

Olivia Gentile calls for more funding and a renewed effort to save birds from extinction. She notes that a recent report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with conservation organizations found that while many birds once in danger of extinction are now fine -- such as the bald eagle and the brown pelican--about one-third face the possibility of dying out. And finally, Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Assn., spanks the Legislature and the governor for giving corporations a tax break he says will give the state little in return.

This is money for nothing--companies do not have to provide a single new job to receive a huge tax cut, which benefits their worldwide shareholders.

Photo: Susan Tibbles for The Times

In Thursday's letters, readers speak out about the Los Angeles Police Department's new headquarters in the wake of a statement by former police chief and current city councilman Bernard C. Parks that the new facility should retain the name Parker Center in memory of legendary (but racially divisive) chief William H. Parker. 

Stanford Nelson, of Irvine, agrees that the name should stay but questions Parks' reasons why:

I worked under Chief Parker; he swore me in at my academy graduation. It was a proud moment. A few years later, he passed away. His funeral service was attended by thousands from around the world. Every ethnicity and religion was represented.

Parker was anything but a racist. What he was a chief of police who brought ethics to the Los Angeles Police Department. He established parameters, discipline and professionalism at the department that were mirrored and revered across the nation.

Parker Center should not keep its name for continuity's sake, as Parks suggests. Parker's name should continue for the ethical impact he created in establishing the finest police department in the United States.

But Ben Miles, of Huntington Beach, agrees with Tim Rutten's assessment that naming HQ after Parker doesn't work in 2009:

Bernard C. Parks' assertion that naming the still-under-construction police building after long-gone LAPD Chief William H. Parker would "assure continuity" betrays the City Council member's mind-set.

Parks is clearly more concerned about the superficial aspects of order and continuity than the actual message that would be sent by lending Parker's moniker to the new headquarters. The issue calls to mind the debates over flying the Confederate states' flag in South Carolina. 

Steve Freedman, of Venice, agrees:

Giving the new LAPD headquarters a name more suggestive of the reforms undertaken in recent years would offer the people of Los Angeles greater assurance of a police force we can depend on for fairness and justice than would retaining a name associated with a long-past era in order to "assure continuity."

Letters about possible fraud in California's home-care program, banks in Sioux Falls and animal rights activists, too.

Photo: LAPD's old Parker Center, in a photograph from 1955, when it was still known as the Los Angeles Police Department Police Faciliites Building.  Credit: Herbert Bruce Cross Photography.

The Times' editorial board notes the latest bit of change President Obama is bringing to Washington: He's blowing off this weekend's annual Gridiron Club dinner for the capital's media mavens -- the first president to do so since the 19th century -- but appearing this evening on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" -- the first sitting president to do so, period. The more important message of the president's swing through California, however, is that green growth is a win-win:

While conservatives grumble about the high cost of weaning the nation off fossil fuels, California demonstrates that doing so can pay off. The fact that the state led the nation in energy-efficiency regulation, for example, means that Californians pay lower residential power bills, on average, than residents of most states, even though power here is more expensive. A 2008 UC Berkeley study estimated that this efficiency has created more than 1 million jobs since 1972. Meanwhile, the state's green technology business is booming.

The board also notes a few hopeful signs for increased political stability in Pakistan. And it says state officials made the right decision in letting erstwhile domestic terrorist Sarah Jane Olson return home to Minnesota while on parole....