Yale Law School Prof. Ian Ayres heads up the Op-Ed page with a defense of his report for the ACLU that found that a disparate number of blacks and Latinos stopped and frisked by Los Angeles police officers compared with whites. Ayres stands his ground against police ire, returning a salvo to Police Chief William J. Bratton, who rejected Ayres' findings on the grounds that the study used four-year-old data. The professor concedes the validity of that point but nothing else, writing:

It is particularly telling that neither Bratton nor [police union president Tim] Sands responded to the evidence that the frisks and searches of minorities systematically produced less evidence of crime than the frisks and searches of whites. It is implausible that higher frisk and search rates are justified by higher minority criminality, when these frisks and searches are substantially less likely to uncover weapons.

In her column, Rosa Brooks says the real America is a land of "change and perpetual renewal, not the edited version put forth by John McCain andSarah Palin.

The GOP code isn't hard to crack: There's the America that might vote for Obama (a suspect America populated by people with liberal notions, bit-city ways and, no doubt, dark skin), and then there's the "real" Ameirca, where people live in small downs, believe in God and country, and are...well...white."

Meanwhile, Patt Morrison says that if Disney wants to create a California Adventure draws crowds, unlike the current one, it should ditch its faux excitement and include some of the Golden State qualities that make California fascinating: its hucksterism, innocence and "rascality."

Over in the editorial stack, the Times advises voters not to be misled by Proposition 4, which would require parental notification before a minor could have an abortion, pointing out that girls in states that have them aren't more likely to notify their parents, anyway. The board also has little patience with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert , who late in the day says that peace with Palestinians will require the dismantling of most settlments on the West Bank. But that's too little too late. The settlements never should have been built. Third in the column is the text of a negative McCain campaign robocall being deployed in battleground states. Californians, by virture of their residence in a rock-solid blue state, are missing many of the worst ads on both sides of the race, the board says. So here's a taste.

Recent mail from the fabulous readers of the Los Angeles Times Opinion L.A.:

Robert Greene's blog post on Bo Derek's new horse job with the governor prompted Susan Pizzini to predict the screen legend will do her best work since "Orca."

Why not Bo, she's not stupid, blondes have more fun anyway. 

She's right on the horse slaughter issue, Americans don't eat horse, why let foreign corporations slaughter them to ship overseas.  The foals, the mares, pregnant or even while giving birth are slaughtered.  Stolen horses are not checked to see if they are stolen, young, healthy and gentle horses are slaughtered, ones that were once pets.

Horses are not food, they are companions

A disgruntled (or maybe just gruntled) former employee takes issue with Kenneth Noonan's Blowback "Why algebra testing will work":

As a former techer who used to work under Ken Noonan I would like to point out:

If you take any rational graduation metric and place it along side the "great success" and the "improve...quality of education for all our students" you begin to understand the grand canyon size leap many in the Ca. State Ed. world use to promote their Disney view of our public schools.

Dealing with reality will always be step one in any meaningful school improvement plan.

RE Lowe

Raul A. Reyes' Blowback "Talking back to Alberto Gonzales" sends one reader into a racial and orthographical frenzy:

The way I , a "pancho" sees it: a guy or gal  from whatever country he comes from,legally or illegally,has the right to decide what issue he / she is gonna follow. Personally, I am against the 1966 Cuban Adj. Act under Johnson. Also against any kind of "Amnesty "for illegals or that phony "Dream Act" pushed by that jerk from Illini, Sen Durbirn. Also that stupid "official Day for a National Holiday for M L K. The way I see it is :the whites who voted for it  thought they were gonna "civilize" the scum who commit THE heinous crimes. No such luck,bro !  Now,the way I see it is: that chicano lawyer in yore article thinks, stupidamente. that if one does not think as he does one is a "pancho" and all that garbage! I hate that kind of lidercillo!

Chico Ramos

Curtis Sliwa's "Do more to stop gangs" gets some love:

Thanks, Curtis...

I love your article...and I LOVE your radio show!  Wish you were on every single day!!! 

You are the greatest!

Thanks,

Diane L.

But our biggest response came for Blair Hamilton Taylor's Blowback "Is America ready for Obama?" From the Centennial State comes the answer to the question on everybody's mind: "What does apophasis mean?"

Mr. Taylor is spot on in his article " Is America ready for Obama"  in the LA Times, commenting on the New Yorker cover page cartoon encompassing all Obama stereotypes.   This is not satire, it is a lesson in apophasis.

Apophasis is defined as ‘pretending to deny what is really affirmed’, or basically saying something by not saying it.  So it is with cover of the New Yorker magazine. Intending to be satirical, the cartoon of Barak and Michelle Obama reinforces the caricatures it is intended to dispel, just by sitting on magazine racks as people walk by.  Regardless of how noble inside articles may be, more people saw the cover than read the magazine.  Thus, the very ideas the drawing was supposed to satirize are ingrained in the psyches of the politically un-savvy as they enter the voting booths this fall.

Alaeldin Rachid
Fort Collins, CO.

From Sin City, one reader says spell out the truth in bold letters:

Fairly light correspondence lately. (Send us mail already!)

Amy Payne's Blowback "Porn isn't normal" gets the heave-ho from San Diego's Erich Potruch:

Young Amy Payne may have her opinions about pornography, viewing pornography, etc., but to characterize it as not normal betrays her naivete.  Porn is a huge business -- a multi-billion dollar business, in fact.  More people spend more on pornography than they do on conventional films.  That says it's conventional in and of itself (or "normal," to use Ms. Payne's word).

I don't disagree that power in the business is largely with men over women, but there are plenty of powerful women in the business producing, directing, and distributing adult entertainment, so I don't buy the argument anymore that porn degrades women.  Women can choose to do other things to make money -- they are never left with no choice anymore, otherwise it's rape and kidnapping.

Further, while I certainly understand her moral conviction that the sexual act is sacred, Ms. Payne fails to understand that by porn's very existence, it proves the opposite.  The sex act is not sacred; it is the acting out of a biological impulse as basic as the need to eat.  That humans have the ability to choose the sex act to entertain oneself supports the commonality of the sex act.  It's prudish and moralistic to reserve it for marriage or a committed relationship.

Eric Potruch

And Cy Bolton's Blowback "How does President Bush lie?" is enjoying a longer shelf life than the Downing Street Memo itself. Readers continue to blame the MSM for the Iraq war. From the Hawkeye State comes a smack at media lapdogs:

Plenty of blogospheric blowback and some applause for Jonah Goldberg's column today on Barack Obama's national service proposal. First, from Goldberg's column:

There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States" ....

In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don't make the kids report for duty, he's essentially telling schools and college kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to lose. In short, he'll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.

Wonkette's reaction: "Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb." Continued:

That is one “dumb” for each paragraph of Jonah Goldberg’s Los Angeles Times column today. For the record, we did not expect it to be “good,” in the traditional sense — we didn’t expect to read it at all! But 18 paragraphs of unmitigated “dumb” has a strangely magnetic appeal during this lazy news season. So let’s check out Jonah’s column, in which he argues that Obama’s plan to offer educational aid as a reward for national service is somehow both (a) welfare and (b) slavery....

He adds, many dumb paragraphs later, the following: “No, national service isn’t slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition.” Since when is the “slave mentality” at odds with the American tradition, past or present?

More reaction to Goldberg's June 8 column after the jump.

A mixed bag in the week's Top 10. Kery Howley and Kay Hymowitz dominated the week, with their Dust-Up on The Children placing twice in Top 10 (and twice more in the Top 20), and an end-of-the-week surge by Cy Bolton's Blowback was good for a Place. But it was former L.A. Times editorial board member Jacob Heilbrunn who brought home the gold in a week that contained neither Hillary nor Barack. Thanks for reading, and we'll see you next week.

1.  Big Oil isn't the big problem By Jacob Heilbrunn
2.  How does President Bush lie? By Cy Bolton
3.  The float vote By Frank Luntz
4.  What's in the teen pregnancy pact's fine print? By Kerry Howley and Kay Hymowitz
5.  Resetting Earth's thermostat By Samuel Thernstrom
6.  Ma, ma, where’s my pa? By Kerry Howley and Kay Hymowitz
7.  The patriots who killed Custer By Michael A. Elliott
8.  Canada's thought police By Jonah Goldberg
9.  The George Carlin I knew By Britt Allcroft
10.  Mortgage measure meltdown By the editorial board

Cy Bolton's Blowback "How does President Bush lie?" is getting a big response.

From the Buckeye State comes a note of thanks and a critique of the Times:

Thank you for running "How does President Bush lie? Let Cy Bolton count the memos."

When the Times decided to originally run James Kirchick's piece I was incredulous. I felt it was a serious disservice to your readership, and it has caused me to question every decision the editorial page editor has made since.

Russell leisenheimer
Cuyahoga Falls, Oh

From Fair Harvard, a lengthy chronology of misdeeds and Tribune Company conspiracies:

To the editors:

The LA Times should be congratulated for publishing Cy Bolton’s Op Ed today.  It was overdue.  It is an unfortunate commentary on the editorial standards fostered by the Times under its new leadership at the Tribune Company, however, that Mr. Bolton’s article was required to correct James Kirchick’s offensively patronizing and demonstrably false article published by the Times on June 16.  Mr. Kirchick’s premise, that “Bush Never Lied,” was so egregiously stupid that no respectable newspaper should have considered printing it.  Perhaps the editors at the Times were given false reassurance by Mr. Kirchick’s position as an editor at the New Republic, which sometimes pretends not to be a mouthpiece for neoconservative views.  It should be remembered, however, that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the New Republic that happily published such articles as “Blood Baath” by former CIA director James Woolsey (issue of 9/24/2001, Vol. 225, Issue 13), where we were offered claims like “the attacks--whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others--were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein.”  In recent years, the editors at the New Republic – particularly Peter Beinart -- have publicly recanted their role in fanning the war flames throughout 2002 and 2003.  Because their support for the war was such a devastating embarrassment to the New Republic, and because their later recantation was so cynical and self-serving, it is very difficult to believe anything its editors say, especially when it comes to George Bush and the Iraq war.  Mr. Kirchick’s article of the 16th sounds like a fantasy projected by someone who has spent the last 4 years trying to believe that his attempts to sell the American public on an illegal and disastrous war were the result of an honest mistake.  If you substitute Mr. Kirchick’s own name and those of his fellow editors at the New Republic for that of George Bush, his article has some slight ring of truth.  Otherwise, it’s worthless.

In any case, the Los Angeles Times would do well to heed the warnings contained in Mr. Bolton’s brief summary of the various forms of disinformation the Bush regime disseminated in the run-up to war.  It is worth noting, for example, the close parallels between Rafid Ahmed Alwan (“Curveball”) and the man Italy’s intelligence services claimed was at the origin of the forged documents showing Iraq’s fictitious purchase of uranium from Niger.  Much as the LA Times article of June 18 by John Goetz and Bob Drogin portray Curveball as a compulsive liar and cheat who just happened to fool the CIA, in 2002 Rocco Martino’s handlers at SISMI portrayed him as a “swindler” and “liar” whose bumbling accidentally fooled everyone, including analysts at the CIA.  Reporters and editors at the LA Times would do well to take a page from reporters like Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d’Avanzo, whose work carefully examined the web of falsehoods SISMI used to distance itself from the false information it disseminated through Rocco Martino in order to please the Bush administration. As it turns out, Rocco Martino was not a kooky swindler forging documents on his own, without the collusion of SISMI.  Rocco Martino is a scapegoat, and his role as freelance document-forger was a clumsy piece of disinformation designed to hide the true involvement of the intelligence services of Italy, along with its allies in the Bush administration, in the run-up to war.  The timing of the LA Times article revealing Curveball’s name, along with biographical details of his career as a petty con-man and swindler, should raise doubts in the mind of any informed reader about his alleged role in “fooling” the Bush administration into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  It seems far more likely that “Curveball” is a creature of the Bush administration, a convenient scapegoat designed to hide the campaign of outright lies and manipulation the Bush regime used to sell their war to the American public.

Arriving as they did on the heels of the presentation of articles of impeachment against Bush by Dennis Kucinich, the articles by Mssrs. Kirchick, Goetz, and Drogin have created the unfavorable impression in my mind that the LA Times is now serving as a mouthpiece to the Bush regime’s ongoing campaign of disinformation concerning the lies they told in the run-up to war.

Perhaps I am just imagining things.  But roughly, the plotline goes like this. 

First, Bush lies about the reasons for going to war, in clear violation of international war crimes treaty to which the United States is a party, thereby subverting the Constitution, which easily meets the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors that would justify impeachment. 

From the city formerly known as Dodgertown, a fiery ditto to Pamela Felcher's recent Blowback "It's culture, not just class size."

Dear L.A. Times,

As a parent whose kids recently finished public school at a large high school in a mid size Florida town, I could only smile when I read Pam Felcher's spirited defense of the notion that class "culture" matters more than class size. But she only hints at what all parents and teachers know, but education journalists, administrators and "advocates"  avoid like the plague when writing articles or running their mouths.

It is the homes that children come from that determine to a vast degree their success in school, and again we are not talking about size or money. Education is not a drip bag - have you got that?? No program, no expensive after -school whatever, no technology lab, no visit from Mrs. Clinton or whoever expounding their village, can make up for what a child does not get when their home is minimal in the qualities needed for educational success. A home committed to education with no computer and only a few pieces of furniture, like a Haitian family we know, can produce one successful kid after another, but those where parents are excuse-makers, lazy, absent, unengaged or a whole litany of dysfuctions can and will not. Sadly, children from the latter now make up about half of all public school children.

Only when we agree to stop pretending and demand more of parents and families, will we see more success through high school of other than middle class kids. Gains created by hard working teachers in elementary schools will evaporate by the high school years. And yes, I mean the fatherless black boys, girls with the slovenly mother and her boyfriend slinking into the guidance office, and a whole host of others. The kids drop out, disappear, live with friends, muddle along, and re-pay the lack of nurturing and real interest in their futures learned at home. At least Ms. Felcher takes a shot at addressing the reality that all parents of successful students have observed a zillion times.

Thank you

- Sandra Rawls, Vero Beach, Florida

Will the honeymoon never end? Gay marriage keeps people talking.

Responding to David Benkof's* Blowback "Marriage ban is not a 'wedge issue'," one reader wonders who needs protection:

It's hard to know where to start responding to Benkof's hate screed, disguised as it is in the cloak of reasonable argument.  First, he announces that efforts to ban gay marriage are not a "wedge issue," offering as proof nothing more than that some marriage-equality advocates have said they are.  Then he decides that anyone who has ever cheated on a wife or husband is unqualified to say what marriage is.  The fact that someone does not have a perfect, or even a good, marriage does not invalidate his or her opinion on the subject.

Then Benkof starts in on how marriage-equality supporters are trying to "redefine" marriage.  In actuality, proponents of gay marriage are simply pointing out the inherent inequity of denying basic rights because of sexual orientation.  It is unconstitutional to create two separate classes of law-abiding citizens and grant to one class rights that are denied to the other.

Benkof also hits the usual pandering notes of "traditional" marriage and "marriage protection," never explaining why marriage needs protection from people who want to get married, and pleads for rationality and compromise while advocating writing discrimination into state laws.

Susan Hathaway

Our news coverage draws this response from frequent contributor Jasmyne Cannick:

Re: "For one same-sex couple, marriage was always the goal" (June 16, 2008)

I'd like to challenge the L.A. Times to for once, feature a gay or lesbian couple in a story that isn't white or one half white.  You wouldn't know it from the Times' coverage of gay marriage in California, but there are Black, Latino, and Asian gays too.  And no, we're not all rushing down the aisle to get married either.  By the way---the story you ran on the two Black lesbians abusing their five year-old doesn't count. 

Just a thought.

Jasmyne Cannick
West Adams, Los Angeles

And another reader says heterosexuals are peeved about definitions, not threats to marriage:

Every article and op-ed I read about gay marriage has the same talking points.  I don’t know why proponents of gay marriage feel that we married heterosexuals feel threatened.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Traditionally, men and women marry.  Unions of gay persons should be called something else because it is something else.  Liberal politicians just want your vote…gay, illegal alien, convicted felon, stray cats...

Mike Mancuso

* This spelling of the name Benkof was corrected after this post was published. Thanks to David Benkof for pointing out my error.

Oldest stuff first.

Raoul Lowery Contreras' "Obama's delusional foreign policy" draws a late hit from the ether:

Your delusional.  He has specifically said he will NOT meet with Hamas.  I guess you missed that.  Unfortunately I am stuck at home at the present and see endless cable news programs.  He has said he will NOT MEET with Hamas unless they recognize Israel, etc. several times.  You really should correct this.

Robert Greene's Opinion Daily "The two Henry T. Nicholases" enthralled some and infuriated others, but a reader in San Diego saw it as a call for the Golden State to bring in higher-quality sex scandals:

A lot of men seem incapable of handling women, power, and money.  It's about time that we have a West coast Elliot Spitzer; Kobe was getting lonesome.

Regards,

Roger Newell
San Diego, CA

Kurt Christiansen's Blowback "Start small on climate change" brought in a response arguing that, well... we're not really sure. But we always respect clergy members:

The construction of the Los Angeles Police Department's new headquarters, across Spring Street from the L.A. Times, has been a constant source of argument in downtown circles. Is it moving too slow or too fast? Is it a prime example of runaway costs or a model of smart architecture?

For me, the LAPD's next building has special meaning, because it was instrumental in the creation of our Blowback feature. Though we had used the web once before to get a response to an Opinion piece from the late Jack Valenti (the last true gentleman), it was the brouhaha between L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez and LAPD HQ contractor Ron Tutor that really proved the feature could work. After Lopez penned a column (now disappeared from the site) criticizing the project's leisurely pace, standing-around workers and rising expenses, I figured Tutor — who blew up on the phone with Lopez but seemed to have a coherent critique of the media that he was on the verge of expressing —  would be interested in replying. He delivered, a new feature was born, and you can judge for yourself how well Tutor acquitted himself.

I'm no fan of big, taxpayer-funded buildings under any circumstances, and I've seen a few workers standing around doing nothing (though no more than I see at any workplace, including my own), but I do have to say that for a building that's not scheduled to open until 2009, the LAPD headquarters already looks pretty impressive.

In fact, the only cause for alarm I found while skulking around the project and photographing odds and ends recently was that I briefly got a strong  sense of: "Gee, I'm glad I'm not Greg!"

Then again, don't we all (except for the Gregs among us) get that feeling from time to time?

I'm not sure what the standard of success is when measuring massive public construction projects paid for through our taxes in a city where even the dogs and cats are unionized. I'm not sure there can even be a standard of success in that environment. And I guess anybody would view with dismay a building that will end up blotting out the sun in your second-floor office. But from what I can see, when (or if) the LAPD building gets completed, it will be a pretty nice place to be a cop:

Readers sound off:

Jasmyne Cannick's Blowback on the California Supreme Court ruling got Darian Aaron into an expansive mood:

Why Black Gays & Marriage Is Not An Oxymoron

Lately there has been a lively debate concerning the importance of marriage equality for black gays and lesbians and whether or not we're actually interested in legalizing our relationships. I have to point to a recent post by Jasmyne Cannick where she does an incredibly good job of explaining why she didn't write about the major Supreme Court ruling last week that granted marriage rights to same sex-couples and why she has refused to participate in the fight for marriage equality.

There is this belief that as a gay person of color if you're interested in benefiting from marriage equality or participating in an effort that is clearly spearheaded by white gay organizations then you're somehow out of touch with the black gay community and the "real issues".

I simply reject the idea that as black gay men and women we cannot be concerned or pour our efforts into more than one cause at a time or that gay marriage is simply of interest to only white people. Maybe my position on this issue is a little bias because I'm in a committed relationship and I look forward to the day when my relationship is recognized legally and my family is extended all of the legal protections that are afforded in marriage, versus all of the legal red tape most gay families have to go through in order to protect themselves that in many cases in the end are not enough.

Does the broader gay community have a lot of work to do when it comes to including black gays on important issues? Of course. Is it fair to say that we've felt "pimped out" by the mainstream gay community when they only come to us when they need black faces to support a cause they deem important? Maybe so.

Yet these problems shouldn't dissuade us from openly embracing a civil right that we've been denied for far too long or even participating in the fight for marriage rights despite the collective guilt that is spreading in our community for doing so.

There are hundreds or even thousands of black gay couples who will jump at the chance to be married and just because they're faces aren't seen on the nightly news doesn't mean they don't exist. How many black gay men do you know that are out and willing to say so in front of a camera? If we're ever going to be a driving force in the gay rights movement or change the worlds perception of how gays and lesbians look then we must come out. But that's another topic for another day.

So I'm not buying the idea that gay marriage is not important to the black gay community and I question the motives of anyone who would purport such. Contrary to the growing belief, there are black gay couples who are in committed relationships and who look forward to taking those relationships to the next level. I know because my partner Trey and I are fortunate enough to be one of those couples.

Darian Aaron
Clik Magazine, Staff Writer
Living Out Loud with Darian
Black and SGL with No Apologies
loldarian.blogspot.com

Many readers wanted to comment on Raoul Lowery Contreras' "Obama's delusional foreign policy." Sunnyvale's Martha Blackwell says come out from under that rock:

Former ambassador to the U.N. and current American Enterprise Institute fellow John R. Bolton calls Barack Obama naive in today's Op-Ed pages and predicts a Walter Mondale-style flaming defeat. Why? Because, he argues, Obama missed some key Cold War history lessons, particularly the way seemingly tiny threats can be proxies for the big ones. (Blowbacker Raoul Lowery Contreras made a similar argument, in response to J. Peter Scoblic's contrary claim that negotiation isn't appeasement.)

The piece drew hundreds of reader comments ranging the political spectrum. What did bloggers have to say?

Jason on PoliGazette says:

I am not going to argue that Bolton is completely wrong, but rather that he is overgeneralizing in an equally naive way. Bolton’s read on the origins of the Cuban Missile Crisis are in accord with Khrushchev’s own comments about his impressions of Kennedy, so it is not possible to claim that embracing negotiations will not sometimes be taken as a signal of weakness. But Bolton’s claim that any negotiations will be taken as weakness is going quite a lot further — way too far, in fact.

Michelle Malkin chimes in gleefully: "Bolton pins a great big MONDALE sign on him." She also refers to Bolton as "Stache" and does some anachronistic John Kerry-bashing....

Other Times columnist David Brooks says he wants to play Dr. Doom in his column today, aiming to strike fear in the hearts of both parties. But one of his points on Barack Obama mystified me:

Peter Hart did a focus group for the Annenberg Public Policy Center with independent voters in Virginia that captured reactions you hear all the time. These independent voters were intrigued by Obama’s “change” message, but they knew almost nothing about him except that he used to go to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church. It’s as if they can’t hang Obama’s life onto anything from their own immediate experiences and, as a result, he is an abstraction.

Maybe it speaks more to the limitations of polling (er, focus-grouping, which is of course more limited), but the "change" message relies almost entirely on Obama's life. That is, how can voters appreciate one without relating to the latter? Obama's position as a relative political outsider -- compared to a former First Lady and a long-time senator, both scandal-plagued -- should make him that much less abstract to a typical voter.

And of course, what made him so inspiring earlier in the campaign is his American dreamy story -- the immigrant father, the mixed-race heritage, the poverty, the absentee father, the youthful indiscretions and the rise to the top, with a bullet. Of course, some of what makes him appealing can (and has, and will) also make him downright alienating, rather than abstract. He becomes especially "other" when voters rely on misinformation -- as it seems some in the Annenberg group did.

If I can play devil's (angel's?) advocate to Brooks' Dr. Doom, there's another poll (older, but broader) that suggests independent-voting Virginians once favored Obama over McCain.

Can anyone find Scott McClellan? Following all the Bush administration blowback and media commentary today over the ex-White House press secretary's book on his apparently miserable years serving the president, McClellan and his publisher have responded with a resounding, "No comment." From CNN.com's morning write-up:

In a brief phone conversation with CNN on Tuesday evening, McClellan made clear that he stands behind the accuracy of his book. McClellan said he cannot give on-the-record quotes because of an agreement with his publisher.

The former Bush press secretary "cannot give on-the-record quotes" per his publisher's orders? Sure, writing a tell-all political memoir has become a rite of passage for disgruntled former Bush administration officials, but McClellan was not just another policy-wonk bureaucrat. His job was more or less to make reporters and the public have a positive opinion of the president. Hell, this guy was a hyper-loyal Bushie dating back to the commander-in-chief's days as the likable governor of Texas. Having McClellan out there defending himself against the administration he so vigorously flacked for a few years ago should make any book publisher drool.

Speaking of defending the administration, McClellan had a few words of his own in 2004 for Richard A. Clarke when the former counter-terrorism expert penned his political memoir "Against All Enemies":

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. 

UPDATE: McClellan gave an interview on NBC Thursday morning. Click here to read my observations.

Once again, readers give us the business at opinionla@latimes.com. Philip L. Christenson gets no love for his Blowback "Defending Thabo Mbeki." From Wellington, South Africa, Claire Alexander writes:

How can you possibly produce articles on Mbeki defending his presidency manners and appraoches, especially with respect to Zimbabwe, by an author who ‘knows’ him. I am completely baffled. As a Scot now living in South Africa, Mbeki is one of the most corrupt and selfish presidents in the world. His people are starving and dying. Not a patch on Mandela. He would rather pocket the millions in bribes than actually feed his voters. He claims there is ‘no crisis’ in Zimbabwe…. Oh really. White farmers are continually being slaughtered with their homes set on fire to rid them of the country – to turn it into a ‘black’ country, when actually this was the only source of food for many. Talk about spiting oneself. He will kill anyone who opposes him, his people are also flocking to South Africa for a better life but most end up jobless and suffering disease. A young Zimbabwean was helping us move offices, he was smart and socially intelligent and told of the horrifying events that are REALLY going on in Zimbabwe, why isn’t the media exposing this??? Please, there is nothing positive about Mbeki nor Mugabe, the are as bad as each other and the worsening state of Southern Africa will not improve until these countries are under proper management.

Claire Alexander

B.T. Birkett, no whereabouts given, says Mbeki is responsible for Zimbabwe's troubles:

The shame is that Christenson seems to be exculpating Mbeki, et al for not sending in the troops and ridding Africa and the world of the miscreant Mugabe.

Any headline or request for financial or food aid is a joke when the world allows a dictator and military strong man to destroy a county in the name of 'black rights', etc.

Mbeki clearly abetted and supported all of Mugabe's policies. Otherwise, there would have been South African troops in there to set things right.

Now the world will be looking to the 'West' to resurrect this ravaged country. Mbeki is directly responsible!

Last week's Dust-Up between Judea Pearl and George Bisharat brought this response from that great city to the north:

Judea Pearl's history bookshelf must indeed be "worn and dusty" if a short journey through it leads him to conclude that "Zionists were both aware and respectful of Palestinian aspirations and made persistent attempts to reach reciprocal recognition and accommodation."

Rather than relying on selected quotes by Zionist leaders meant for public consumption, Pearl, should look to more current and iluminating historical works by so-called new Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappe, who draw on more recently released Israeli military archives and private papers of Zionist leaders in order to reach a vastly different conclusion about the motives of Israel's founders.

In his book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," Pappe quotes the following words of Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion from a 1947 speech to senior members of his political party: "There are 40% non-Jews in the areas allocated to the Jewish state.  This composition is not a solid basis for a Jewish state.  And we have to face this new reality with all its severity and distinctness.  Such demographic balance questions our ability to maintain Jewish sovereignty … Only a state with at least 80% Jews is a viable and stable state."

It is this mindset that led to the deliberate expulsion of two thirds of Palestinians from what is now Israel.

Ken Galal
San Francisco

References:
See page 48 of "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," by Ilan Pappe, 2006 for Ben-Gurion quote.

If you're talking wine you've gotta be talking Bordeax, or maybe Bloomfield. Matt DeBord fans in both cities popped their corks in honor of his Blowback "Terroir-izing California wine."

A message to Matthew DeBord

Dear Californian friend

I have just read your article on Californian wine sent to hell by East coast snobs. I find it very amusing, even more so as I come from the old world and more precisely from Bordeaux itself from which i am writing this. Though I love our wines, but not all of them, I also love American wines, some from the finger lakes and more particularly the great Californian names, and notably your zinfandel, unfound here. I also love the Santa Inez productions, zaca mesa and such names
Be reassured, many Europeans also like your western wines.

The debate you are alluding to is less about wine, I find, than about the old rivalry between your 2 coasts and what "class" is supposed to be. It shows that in spite of great progress Californians have not made it yet completely in the eyes of the Eat coast... wine is just a side object. I still get sneers from easterners (and it is worse in London) when I speak about my loving California.

As a great lover of your state where I studied and go regularly, I just wanted to comfort you!!! and tell you I laughed a lot at your puns on how the French made wine... In fact, as you well know the methods are more and more the same on both sides of the atlantic.
Hope you will come to Vinexpo 2009 where we can meet.
Bye and "cheers".
BRC

Bernadette Rigal-Cellard
Professeur
Etudes nord-américaines
Université Michel de Montaigne-Bordeaux
France

And from the Garden State:

Dear Editor:
Sounds to me like the European vinters are jealous of something we Americans are doing well, namely producing first class California wine.  I'm not an oenophile, just a guy who likes good tasting wine.  I know nothing about the art and science of wine making, nor do I need to.  What I need is a wine that enhances my dining experience, is affordable, and tastes good.  California wines haven't let me down yet.

Samuel Monaco
Bloomfield

Keep those cards and letters coming. Thanks for reading Opinion L.A.

The Times reports some bad news from South Africa. Immigrants there, particularly those hailing from Zimbabwe, have been targets of attacks by South Africans (whose grievances sound familiar, though of course they're being expressed more disastrously): 

[H]undreds of Zimbabweans and other foreigners fled their homes in Alexandra, a teeming crime-ridden township, on Sunday and Monday to escape xenophobic attacks. Some hid in the nearby bush or in police compounds.

"They were saying, 'Go back to Zimbabwe, we don't want to see you here, you're taking our jobs,'" [immigrant Isaac] Moyo said Tuesday. "They said, 'Go back to [Zimbabwean President Robert] Mugabe.' They took everything, saying, 'You didn't get this from Mugabe; this is our property.' "...

[S]ome township dwellers who believe that Mugabe is a cruel leader say it is because of something innately cruel in Zimbabwe's society. They tend to blame South Africa's high crime rate on the influx of Zimbabweans.

As the article notes, 100 foreigners were injured and at least two people were killed. Zimbabweans trying to escape economic woes and violence in their country have entered South Africa by the hundreds of thousands. Many of them work for a few dollars a day, and are adding to the burdens of a country which already suffers 40% unemployment.

The mass migration was already creating problems for South African President Thabo Mbeke, who has been attempting to influence Mugabe with a "quiet diplomacy" rather than denouncing outright his human rights abuses and political power grabbing. The violence may make his position more precarious.

For more on the politics between the two countries, and a debate over whether Mbeke is right to be "quiet" on Mugabe, see New Republic assistant editor James Kirchick's Op-Ed, "South Africa's unseemly alliance" and Philip L. Christenson's Blowback response, "Defending Thabo Mbeke."

Some recent mail, courtesy of these newfangled interwebs:

Our favorite letter in a long time comes from Pam Anderson (not that one, the one in Glendale), who uses a David Lazarus column as a departure point for a CAPS-HEAVY critique of sky-is-falling circular logic at the L.A. Times:

TOO MUCH LIBERAL WHINING

This letter is prompted by David Lazarus’ article last Sunday in the LA Times business section, " ‘Smart meters’ Aren’t Up to Speed", in which he whines that the utility meters to be installed by Edison, et al, aren’t broadband enabled.  These meters will cost the consumer about $100 he says; while broadband-enabled meters would cost "five times" as much.

We can be sure that if the utilities were forcing consumers to pay for the fancy ones, David Lazarus would whine that it was too costly for lower-income households, when the cheaper one would do the simple job required.

Which bring me to my main point:  there is WAY TOO MUCH liberal whining in this state in general, particularly by LA Times writers such as Steve Lopez, Sandy Banks and David Lazarus.

They whine when house prices are going up: "Poor people can’t afford them!"

They whine when house prices are going down: "A market FAILURE", said one Times writer breathlessly a couple of weeks ago.

They whine when house prices are stagnant: "Home values are not keeping up with inflation!"

They whine if a Wal-Mart is proposed in a small town: "It will drive mom-and-pop stores out of business!"

They whine while the Wal-Mart is being built: "What about the environmental impact!"

They whine while it is operating: "The big corporation doesn’t care about the workers!"

They whine when it’s shut down: "The loss of jobs, jobs, JOBS!"

They whine if it was never built in the first place: "Economic prosperity has passed the town by!"

They whine for socialized medicine:   "People can't afford medical care!"

They [rightly] whine about how bad Social Security, Medicare and government-run hospitals are [such as VA hospitals and County USC], not realizing that this is EXACTLY the way socialized medicine is going to be:   REALLY BAD!!!

STOP THE WHINING, and GROW UP!!

The purpose of government is not to take care of our every problem and stupid decision [like a surrogate parent.] There will always be poor people, rich people, smart people, dumb people, and people down on their luck. Studies have shown that if we took all the wealth and spread it around today, things would be back to the way they are in about five years, because some people are just better at making and keeping money than others.

Education is good, charities are good, but otherwise, you’re pretty much on your own. Grow up and deal with it. It’s better than having government meddling in every aspect of your life.

Pam Anderson
Glendale

So much for all-purpose shaming. Readers have also been weighing in on more specific topics as well. Our back-and-forth Blowback series on the AIDS vaccine continues to get people exercised:

So we've had all this back-and-forth about the effect of immigrants (legal and otherwise) on the economy, dwindling natural resources and societal well-being, as if it were a one-way street. But what about the economy's effect on immigrants? From NPR:

Fewer immigrants living in the United States are sending money back to their home countries. A survey by the Inter-American Development Bank shows remittances by Hispanic immigrants are flat. But the percentage of immigrants sending money home to Latin America is down dramatically in just two years. The report cites the U.S. economic slowdown and a tougher line on illegal immigrants.

Anti-immigration advocates need not gloat: This isn't doing the home front's economy any good. One undocumented construction worker told NPR he's only saving out of fear that he'll be rounded up: "We're not spending money. What we earn, we save, because we may need it."

So, no silver lining for the U.S. — though there is a catch-22: Restriction of immigration may be fueling the drop in remittances, but if that money doesn't keep supporting families abroad, more people may try to cross into the U.S. to find work. Let's hope Tom Tancredo needs some remodeling done.

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer gave one thumb up to Moody's Investors Service for allowing California and other municipal bond issuers to be rated -- if they ask -- on the same scale as corporate bonds. Lockyer has complained that munis wind up with lower ratings than the AAA he says most should get, ostensibly to let buyers distinguish among them, but with the actual effect of compelling states, cities, school districts -- and taxpayers -- to pay too much in insurance costs or interest.

On Wednesday, Lockyer gave Moody's a shout-out but said the move to assign optional global scale ratings -- in effect rating munis on the same scale as corporate bonds -- alongside traditional ratings does not go far enough.

As I've stated, the goal must be a rating system that provides clarity and consistency. An interim period in which GSRs are assigned alongside municipal scale ratings will create confusion, not clarity. Such confusion will be even greater if some bonds carry GSRs and others do not. Therefore, I urge Moody's to assign a GSR to all municipal bonds, and not simply at the request of the issuer.

Fitch Ratings also has agreed to re-examine the different rating scales for corporate bonds and munis.

The Times editorialized last month that Lockyer was on the right track with his call for rethinking the way state and local government bonds are rated. Not everyone agrees with us, or with Moody's and Fitch. See this week's Blowback by Steve Zimmermann of Standard & Poor's.

Some recent web stuff:

Paul Thornton wants to score some of that $4 billion Uncle Sam is spending to keep real estate prices up.

Standard & Poor's says don't blame us for the tough times in municipal budgeting.

And three Turkey-related bits have commenters hot and bothered:

Assembly of Turkish American Associations says there was no  genocide and there is no Kurdistan.

Robert Ellis says the AKP is corrupting Turkey's secular character.

And Cüneyt M. Serdar says the United States is watching a democracy disintegrate.

Thanks for reading!

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.

Sex, shame and Barack Obama: You just can't get enough. Anything having to do with the Democratic presidential hopeful from Illinois was pure gold, topping even sex-scandal evergreens and girls gone wild. Michael Meyers' fiery Blowback on Sen. Obama's Jeremiah Wright speech drew more than twice as many readers as the second-place finisher, Andrew Klavan's analysis of playwright David Mamet's political migration. Thanks a lot, and keep reading. The winners:

1. Obama blew it, by Michael Meyers
2. Welcome to the right, Mr. Mamet, by Andrew Klavan 
3. Obama's Lincoln moment, by Tim Rutten 
4. Maybe Spitzer just needed time at La Costa, by Joel Stein
5. Why Wright is wrong for Obama, by Jonah Goldberg 
6. Open mouth, insert cohorts' feet, by Tim Rutten
7. Europe does sex scandals better, by Theodore Dalrymple
8. Obama on race, by the editorial board
9. White suspicion, black 'luck' by Gregory Rodriguez
10. Raunch is rebranded as 'confidence' by Meghan Daum

Michael Meyers recent Blowback on Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech continues to draw fire, both friendly and unfriendly. Our letters-to-the-editor mailbag is overflowing. Even Flaubert sent in some mots justes:

Hello,

Talk about missing the point, i think your comments are way off base and insulting to many folks who "herd" a different postive message.

Thank you
Ed Faubert

---

Meyers is right. Obama blew it. As a presidential candidate, his speech did miss the mark and by that measure proves he is a man whose depth is too shallow to be president. He is obviously captured in the socio/political black bigotry exemplied by Wright that seeks crutches and excuses while condeming America. As a "genetic Republican" I believe it will be a great crime if Obama and not Clinton is the Democrats standard barrier. That action places the country at risk considering the possibility that he could be elected.

Otis Page 
Arroyo Grande

---

 

Dear Editor:

Mr. Meyer's opinion that Obama Blew It with his speech on race is correct.  Mr Meyers should be a speech writer for Obama.  But, then Obama doesn't believe in his own message because he never walked the talk.  Our culture is so enamored by speeches and words, and sermons.  But after all the talk and great phrases, I ask, what has this person done to give credence to his/her words. St. Francis never gave sermons, he just gave living examples of what he believed.  He put flesh to the word.  This is my main gripe with Obama and his fine sounding words.  In scripture there's a phrase by Jesus, " Not all those who say Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom, but those who do the will of My Father".

In Obama's speech he attempts to give moral equivalence to his White Grandmother's fear of blacks and of her saying some inflammatory remarks about Blacks, He goes on to say, should I then renounce my Grandmother.

To try and make his Grandmother's remarks the moral equivalent with Pastor's Wright is false.  The Pastor was speaking in church publicly to many people. His Grandmother was speaking to him privately.  This is typical of a man with no experience to back up his fine words, and then resorts to weak arguments to make his point.

So, Mr Meyer, you wished he could have said the things you offered in your column. But Obama could never do that because he doesn't believe it.  Does it strike anyone that the two themes of Obama's message -- 1. Time for a Change, and 2. Coming together as One -- have been used time and time again as political rhetoric. Every new administration runs on Change. The coming together as One is nothing but a slogan. All that is needed is bipartisanship and/or a veto congress to get things done.

Obama's one claim of experience is as a Community Organizer. You have to hand it to him, he's taken this one experience and his oratory and will almost become President of the U.S.  One last thing Senator Kerry made a brilliant statement today.  He said, I'm paraphrasing now, Obama can unite the country because he is Black and will encourage the moderate muslims because he is black.  Talk about playing the Race Card and why Senator Kerry has endorsed Obama.  This alone should make the uncommitted Super Delegates think twice before endorsing Obama.

Yes, Mr Meyers,  Obama Blew it. 

John L Cerrato
Rockville Centre, NY

---

Not since Niall Ferguson's response to Harold Pinter's Nobel Acceptance Speech, that you published in December 2005 (you published the response, not the speech), have I read a more gross misrepresentation and misinterpretaion of a person's words. Meyers cherry-picks the speech Obama delivered, and seems to intentionally miscontrue Obama's words in an apparent attempt to mislead and misinform the newspaper-reading public.  As I did in 2005 in regard to the Ferguson article, I plead with your readers to go straight to the source - read or view the speech before judging it, do not rely on a misleading criticism.  And I request that the latimes editorial staff make some effort to hold their guest writers to at least a minimal degree of accountability.  Even op-ed pieces need to be held accountable or else they become mere propaganda.

joe stanford
venice

---

Letter to the editor;

Michael Meyers writes (“Obama blew it,” Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2008), “We and our leaders -- especially our candidates for the highest office in the land -- must repudiate all forms of racial idiocy and sexism, and be judged by whether we still belong to exclusionary or hateful groups.”  Barack Obama did, but apparently it was not forecuflle enough to suit Meyers---Obama neither being black enough, nor forceful enough, not Uncle Tom enough?

On NPR “Talk of the Nation” Meyers criticized Obama, suggesting that he nuanced the displays of bigotry made by his minister.  I did not think that Obama did---at least not as much as Myers has nuanced his brave new attacks of racial bigotry---Meyers ignores the blatantly bigoted comments on right-wing talk radio  and Fox, and finds fault with a guy the is struggling to make a difference. 

“In my considered judgment,” when all is said in done, Barack Obama will have made more of a difference in advancing better race relations by simply running for the presidency than Michael Meyers will do by shooting off his “considerate” mouth for the rest of his life.  Who the hell needs nuance when bigots have someone like Meyers giving them cover from which to spread their attacks on Obama or “racial idiocy?”

Although Meyers divulged that he is black and that he had heroically canceled his membership in 100 Black Men of America Inc., I have no reason to nuance my own position by divulging the color of my skin.  Does Meyers know when he will appear on Bill O'Reilly’s no spin zone?

Sam Osborne
West Branch

---

Regarding your "Obama blew It" article.  I believe that Obama was saying what you profess, but he understands that unless we acknowledge the history first we cannot understand the present, and then move on to the future.  I have heard so many say he should have just disowned his pastor.  Had he always just run away, or if he had disassociated himself with everyone who carries the baggage his pastor does, he could never have been in the position of understanding he is now to be able to lead us forward.  His speech was just the first step...together we will get where you are.  It is a journey worth the pain...and as I have emailed to Bill Press, Peter King, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, I would like you to read it too.  Thank you.

Regarding your call for Barack Obama to disown his pastor.  I refer you to Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive and ye shall be forgiven:"  Perhaps Obama is following those words from Jesus!  John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.  Perhaps you missed the sermons where these words were spoken? 

Jim and Ginny

It's not just the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. It's also the fifth anniversary of misleading or plain wrong statements about it and the war on terror. Here's a few.

"This long-term struggle [against terror] became urgent on the morning of September 11th, 2001. That day we saw clearly that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home.... Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends, or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans."
--Vice President Dick Cheney
(Making the 9/11 connection is a more delicate dance than it was five years ago, but Cheney keeps finding ways to make the leap.)

"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you...in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
--President George Bush
(Warfare as romantic? No one's bought this line in five years, or for that matter, five decades.)

"Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate."
--John McCain
(Iran certainly trains extremists and ships 'em to Iraq, but they're not affiliated with Al Qaeda.)

"The surge is working. And as a return on our success in Iraq, we've begun bringing some of our troops home. The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror."
--George Bush
(Salon does it better than I could.)

For a few bloviator blasts from the past, see Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky's Op-Ed.

And of course, not everyone was off....

Can you shoot spitballs in home school? If so, Walter P. Coombs and Ralph E. Shaffer had better watch out, because home schoolers are fuming about their recent Blowback "Regulating home schoolers."  Commenters are all over the story — you can add your own two cents in the message board — and several readers were motivated to break out the old stone table and send an old-fashioned letter to the editor. Some samples:

Homeschooling Works Well Without State Oversight

As a homeschooling mom I am so encouraged by the many who choose to show their support for homeschooling and  those of us who choose to do so. However, I am surprised by how many of those who think that a proven method of teaching would be "improved" by state oversight.

If one does not wish to to consider the successful people both in history as well as those who are walking among us in workplaces and colleges that were homeschooled, perhaps you might want to consider your pocketbook. 

Regulating Homeschools would cost you big money in taxes that this state cannot afford right now. Do we really need a new section in the department of education to fund?

Wouldn't it make more sense to use all available money on the children currently in public schools?

In January, Education Week's comprehensive report card gave California a grade of "D+" when it comes to funding our schools, a "C-" on the teaching profession, and a "D" on K-12 achievement. Taken along with the California high school drop-out rate I find it odd that so many are calling for homeschoolers to be regulated now.

Do your research! Homeschooling works best without heavy regulation!

Angie Weaver
Garberville

---

Editors,

What a shame authors Walter P. Coombs and Ralph E. Shaffer hadn't yet shared their self-professed insights into the motives and intentions of home schoolers some 20 years ago when I began homeschooling for a number of years.  Maybe if they had my homeschooled kid would have been able to know some academic success in her life instead of graduating from UCLA.

Dana Strunk
U.H.S.P. (Uncredentialed Home Schooling Parent) Redlands

---

Dear Editor,

In reference to “Regulating Homeschoolers,” Op-Ed page, 3/13/08: To borrow a phrase, “there has always been something decidedly…anti-democratic in” traditional schooling. What could possibly be less democratic than top-down curriculum aimed almost wholly at raising test scores to keep the funds coming in? Ask any public school teacher who has a principal or district curriculum heavy breathing down her neck to make sure that she is on the right page in the language arts text book or is reading from the script in her teacher’s manual. In terms of the students, public school classrooms are at best benevolent dictatorships. With state standards and benchmarks to keep time with how could you possibly let students choose their own course of study? I imagine that the authors would also say that the bullying and teasing that goes on in traditional schools is character building and homeschooled children are missing out on that important part of growing up in a democracy. The fact is, state regulations have put a stranglehold on the public schools. The result is a disaffected populace. I think that Coombs and Shaffer would do well to check with their colleagues, college professors who look forward to having homeschooled students in their classes because those students have not had their passion bulldozed out of them, still can think for themselves, and are self-directed learners. Those, in my opinion, are the kinds of citizens we want in a democracy.

-Susie Stonefield Miller
Sebastopol,

---

It seems to me that Coombs and Shaffer protest too much. Although our older child was public schooled, we chose to educate our younger child at home. We have been able to teach him at the rate and level that fits him. He is ahead of his peers in all subjects, but one, where he we are taking extra time with him.

When my older child with similar abilities was in second grade the teacher told us that she was sorry he was bored; we should provide advanced work for him ourselves at home. We provide a secular education, sans TV, and are both scientists. There are many like us. Just as credentialed public school teachers regularly make the news for various abuses, there are abuses that occur and make the news among all groups of people. This cannot be defended, but neither can it be regulated away.

Our tax dollars pay do not support the schooling of our younger child - they go to the public schools. These same California public schools provide a popular program, abbreviated CAVA, which provides school at home. The children learn from a computer program and their parents.

Please do not promote misunderstanding through stereotypes, professors. There are many, many secular home schoolers who provide top-notch educations to their children. Studies conclude that home schooled children are better educated than their public schooled peers. Public schools admit they are having trouble teaching the children they already have. What would they do with over 166,000 more?

Lisa Whelan
Goleta

---

As a secular homeschooler I strongly resent Professors Coombs & Shafffer's attempt to pigeonhole all homeschoolers as some kind of religious nut cases who leave the education of their children to television. My six year-old daughter is studying American history, geography, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, cursive handwriting, literature, mathematics, and science. In addition she takes ballet and art lessons and has more friends than I am able to keep track of. A child's education, like a child's upbringing ought to be a parent's responsibility and prerogative. In the absence of specific evidence of abuse or neglect the state has no right to interfere.

Gideon Reich
Aliso Viejo

Dr. Seuss must be turning in his grave. Pro-lifers are claiming there's an anti-abortion message in Horton Hears a Who, a movie based on his second book featuring the lovably loyal elephant. From NPR:

"I meant what I said and I said what I meant. And an elephant's faithful, 100 percent."

That's one of Horton the elephant's best-known mottoes. But with a movie version of Dr. Seuss' much-loved children's book opening Friday, another Horton saying has drawn attention from activists who see a message in the movie — a message that suits their purpose.

That message: "A person's a person, no matter how small."

"Exactly," say abortion foes.

Using Horton's innocent words to support the personhood-at-conception argument? It's a world gone mad. Frankly, I like it better when they protest popular lit (à la witchcraft in Harry Potter), because an angry social conservative is a lot less irritating than a self-satisfied one. Observe:

In Horton Hears a Who, Horton discovers that there's a whole town (Whoville) full of tiny people (the Whos) on a tiny speck of dust that's come floating his way. His neighbors think he's lost his mind. But Horton decides it's his calling to protect the life on the speck: "A person's a person no matter how small," he insists.

When Jim Carrey, the film's Horton, said those words during the Los Angeles premiere of the film last week, demonstrators who'd slipped into the theater started to yell. It was a surprise, to say the least, for the premiere audience.

"I thought maybe there was a nut loose in the theater or something," says Karl ZoBell.

Just the one? Just checking.

Audrey Geisel, Dr. Seuss' widow, has objected to the demonstrations because the Geisels didn't want to see Seuss characters used to advance any political purpose.

But that argument is a little misleading, because Dr. Seuss has always been about politics. Seuss, né Theodor Geisel, previously tapped his illustrative genius as a left-leaning editorial cartoonist with a razor-sharp pen. And many of his most enduring children's books slip in very liberal political messages. The Butter Battle Book gave grim commentary on mutual deterrence during the Cold War, and The Lorax was a rallying cry for tree-huggers everywhere. Yertle the Turtle, meanwhile, provided a rather proletarian critique of monarchy, or capitalism, or something.

Given the history, you could just as easily argue that Horton Hears a Who is about valuing people who are less economically well-off, who are of a different race, who live in a different part of the world — or who may just be vertically challenged. In short, pun intended, people who are easier to ignore, neglect or even persecute.

The problem isn't that pro-lifers are politicizing children's literature. That happens all the time. It's that they really need to do their homework. Out of ignorance, they're disregarding Seuss' rich liberal legacy  — and in the case of Horton, what could be a very different political message.

University of Chicago law professor and whilom Op-Ed page contributor Cass R. Sunstein had some words with his former colleague Barack Obama:

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

Sunstein goes on to praise Obama's intellectual independence -- and his many Republican fans in Chicago -- and offers an image contrary to the one most hold of the candidate, including former Blowbacker Sarah M. Miller:

Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is able to inspire large crowds?

The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, creativity and attention to detail.

The rest of the Op-Ed is mostly recaps Obama's policies, and offers only one real concern (and one that Sunstein quickly dismisses) about a future Obama administration -- that cultish reverence of the candidate could lead to an administration of yes men. To commenters weary (and wary) of Obama hype -- does Sunstein make you feel better? Or not? Leave your comments below.

*Photo courtesy AFP

Becoming the second cute ad girl apostate in this campaign, the sleeping child from Hillary Clinton's much-maligned TV spot says she supports Barack Obama. It turns out that the Clinton camp bought old stock footage for the ad (probably a common enough practice) and that adorably endangered little girl is now of voting age:

[Casey] Knowles, a senior at Bonney Lake High School who turns 18 next month, has been campaigning for Obama.... If she plays her cards right, she could go to the national convention.

Not to mention that she could be in another ad. After her identity became known, Obama's campaign contacted her.

Until the Knowles turnaround, the phone call ad seemed like an almost fortunate distraction from Jack Nicholson's endorsement for Hillary, released at about the same time. Getting a plug from a definitively cool actor (even if he's starting to show his age) seems like pure gravy, unless, of course, the plug strings together clips of said actor's best-known roles, like The Joker, Jack Torrance (as in, all work and no play make...), and Col. Nathan R. Jessup.

Does Clinton really want Jack Torrance saying "things could be better," and suggesting she's the one to make them so? (By the way, that line's referring to a problem with his wife, whom he refers to later in that scene as "the ol' sperm bank".) And what about Jessup's quip that there's nothing hotter than saluting a chick? Way to alienate those uptight Clinton-loving feminists, Jack! Using two homocidal maniacs and one cruel Gitmo-stationed officer in an endorsement doesn't seem so smart, especially when Obama has will.i.am stringing together pretty young celebs.

The Clinton campaign could use a better ad-star/candidate match, like that cutest of campaigning couples, Chuck and Huck. Oh wait, Norris screwed up too. And though the troops in Iraq may love him, there's one Norris fact that probably rubs war supporters slightly the wrong way: "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Oklahoma."

Heather Mac Donald's lightning-rod piece on campus rape takes the top spot this week, with Dallas Weaver's Blowback on copyright a very close second. Readers didn't make this another mostly-Obama week, opting instead for conscience-stricken paparazzi and stubborn sadness. Here they are:

1. What campus rape crisis? by Heather Mac Donald
2. Copyright this, by Dallas Weaver
3. Surge doesn't equal success, by Michael Kinsley
4. The snapper snapped, by Nick Stern
5. Too good to win, by Joel Stein
6. White like us, by Gregory Rodriguez
7. What a little bird told us, by Jonathan Rosen
8. The miracle of melancholia, by Eric G. Wilson
9. Stonehenges all around us, by Craig Childs
10. Food or fuel? by the editorial board

Can anything or anybody replace Barack Obama in readers' hearts? Not this week: Despite a selection of hot topics from Scientology to gun control to torture to the Christian Oscars, and even a surprise return by perennial favorite Stonehenge, Sarah M. Miller's Obama Blowback drew more traffic than the rest of the Top 10 combined. Hats off to Obama for continuing to draw readers and voters, and to you for reading the L.A. Times Opinion pages.

1. Open letter to Barack Obama, by Sarah M. Miller
2. The invasion of America, by Andrew P. Napolitano
3. A leap beyond faith, by Michael Shermer
4. 'Prayers' just won't do, by Tim Rutten
5. Hola, Obama, by the editorial board
6. Stonehenges all around us, by Craig Childs
7. Peter Principle of award shows, by Joel Stein
8. Political surge in Iraq, by the editorial board
9. Fidel's slow fade, by Jon Lee Anderson
10. Shame, Sen. McCain, by the editorial board

Go ahead and write angry letters about how much you can't stand Jonah Goldberg or his book Liberal Fascism. From the New York Times bestseller list to the always hotly contested Opinion L.A. Top 10, America has spoken. Goldberg's tale of his Daily Show appearance is number one with a bullet, and the columnist makes it into the list a second time with his column on new nanny state outrages. Columnist Rosa Brooks places with her Billary takedown, and the editorial board finishes with an ominous view of the Tata Nano. Brian Doherty scores one for libertarianism and Jonah Lehrer apparently draws in both the artistic and the scientific factions of the brain debate. Michael Shermer does an encore after last week's impressive performance. Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman mark an important abortion anniversary, and all the rest is about some election that is rumored to be happening...

1. What The Daily Show cut out, by Jonah Goldberg
2. A Clinton twofer's high price, by Rosa Brooks
3. Super delegates may sink the Democrats, by Joshua Spivak
4. 'The better angels' side with Obama, by Joseph Ellis
5. Why people believe weird things about money, by Michael Shermer
6. Abortion's battle of messages, by Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman
7. Tiny Tata Nano, big threat, by the editorial board
8. Taking liberties, by Jonah Goldberg
9. Misreading the mind, Jonah Lehrer   
10. Real libertarianism, by Brian Doherty 

You read in doubt this week: Michael Shermer earned the week's top spot not only at Opinion but for all of latimes.com with his piece on the class jealousies of the economically ignorant. Speaking of which, Hillary Clinton also proved a strong draw. Southern Californians were willing to give the old hip hip to the folks at JPL, while the governor cleaned up. Hanging in for encore Top 10 performances were Robert J. Spitzer and the man guild writers love to hate, John Ridley. Thanks for reading Opinion L.A.:

1. Why people believe weird things about money, by Michael Shermer
2. Hillary's gotta have it, by Meghan Daum
3. The correct Hillary Clinton stereotype, by Susan Faludi
4. The 'pocket veto' peril, by Robert J. Spitzer
5. Inquisition at JPL, by Tim Rutten
6. Change: the empty word, by Timothy Noah
7. A black president? Seen a few, by Joel Stein
8. Conservatism's buzz-kill, by Jonah Goldberg
9. John Ridley goes fi-core, by John Ridley
10. Reform term limits, by Arnold Schwarzenegger

Malakkar Vohryzek's recent Blowback on the L.A. Trade Tech raid inspired Jack Cole of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition to sit right down and write the L.A. Times a letter. We spoke with Cole a few months ago, and he's still fighting to bring the war on drugs to a peaceful conclusion:

As a retired police officer, I want to congratulate Malakkar Vohryzek on his superb analysis of the failed war on drugs (see "drug prohibition doesn't work," Los Angeles times, January 11, 2008).

For years our children have reported it is easier to buy illegal drugs than to buy beer and cigarettes because people selling illegal drugs don't them ask for age identification.

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt wrote for us recently, and the impassioned replies are still dropping like the gentle rain from heaven. Mitchell Bard says the special relationship is all about shared values here, and Reps. Artur Davis (D-Alabama) and Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) discuss their own true friendship here. Dig our Primary Source and this extra snippet for the ed board's own conversations with the controversial authors. And here are two more replies.

Grant F. Smith, director of research at an organization called IRmep, says look to the perils of trade:

Trade is a great example of the "benefits" of Israel to the US. But Texas exports prove nothing.

In the late 80's, US-Israel trade was roughly in balance.  In 1984 the US and Israel signed a "free trade agreement" and between 1989 and 2006 the US cumulative trade ballooned to almost a $50 billion deficit with Israel.

The FBI investigated AIPAC in 1984 because it had acquired confidential International Trade Organization documents on the US negotiating position.  Presumably, AIPAC then used that information against the United States.

This unfavorable trade relationship is more symbolic of the huge cost of this relationship to the US and how the lobby does business than Texas exports.

But from San Francisco, Stephen A. Silver says remember the vicious calumny:

Editor:

Thank you for publishing Mitchell Bard's opinion piece "Israel's ties that bind" (Jan. 10), noting that it is shared values, not lobbies and conspiracies, that are at the heart of American support for Israel. However, Bard missed the opportunity to rebut John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's vicious calumny in their Jan. 6 Op-Ed that Israel is to blame for its "control" of Gaza and the West Bank ("Israel's false friends," Op-Ed, Jan. 6).

Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 as a result of a war of self-defense after being besieged and blockaded by its Arab neighbors. During the monthlong siege that triggered the war, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser publicly stated: "our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." Nine days after winning the Six-Day War, Israel offered to exchange captured territories for peace, but the Arabs rejected the offer.

In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians a state born in peace encompassing all of Gaza and virtually all of the West Bank. Mearsheimer and Walt laud the proposal, but fail to mention that it was the Palestinians who rejected it and instead launched a war of terror consisting of blowing up Israeli children in schools, buses, discos and pizzerias.

They also fail to mention that in 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. Gaza is now controlled not by Israel, but by Hamas. During the past year alone, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza launched more than 2,000 missiles at Israeli cities.

John Ridley took home our top score for the week with his fiery fi-core fussilade. Strike stuff dominated the top 10, in fact, while Patt Morrison's modest proposal and Elizabeth Larsen's adoption article prove that everybody loves a mom in trouble. (Look for former WGA head Frank Pierson to give Ridley whatfor in Blowback, and keep reading for the previous week's top 10, by the way.) Here are the details:

1. John Ridley goes fi-core, by John Ridley
2. Leno writes a wrong, by Meghan Daum
3. Democracy: inevitable no more, by Madeleine K. Albright
4. Britney's law? Not so crazy, by Patt Morrison
5. Writers strike is war, by the editorial board
6. Israel's false friends, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
7. The 'pocket veto' peril, by Robert J. Spitzer
8. How to remember 1968, by Todd Gitlin
9. A sequel with the same ending, by Thom Taylor
10. The adoption quandary, by Elizabeth Larsen

Much more fiber in our previous-week results, with foreign policy, the real estate bust, immigration and even a 2007 know-it-all test dominating. As always, thanks for reading Opinion L.A. and we hope to keep on pleasin'...

1. The great fall of China, by Walter Russell Mead
2. Aunt Benazir’s false promises, by Fatima Bhutto
3. George Allen’s curse, by Dan Schnur
4. A dynasty isn’t a democracy, by Rosa Brooks
5. How to survive the bust, by various writers
6. Beyond Benazir, by the editorial board
7. A year of living dangerously, by Paul Slansky
8. Is anyone listening? by Tamar Jacoby
9. The Benazir I knew, by Amy Wilentz
10. And you don’t want to know what’s going to happen to Britney, by Joel Stein

The media takes on itself after Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire. Who does it best?

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has the most comprehensive take, calling this a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment before listing what all the major papers said before polls closed:

As the evening dragged on, the commentators had to consider the possibility that Hillary's "showing of vulnerability," as Tom Brokaw put it, might have helped her, and that Bill Clinton might have boosted her chances after all. In other words, that the coverage had missed the point.

This was delicious. The coverage had been so out of control there was speculation about when Hillary might have to drop out.

Brian Williams on MSNBC says pundits missed all the pro-Clinton clues, and that doesn't stop him from doing some more predicting: 

There will be numerous deconstructions over the days to come. Theories about how African-American candidates for office have confounded pollsters (see: Bradley, Wilder, Gant, Jackson) will receive a thorough airing, and deservedly so.  We in the media will beat ourselves (and deservedly so) for reaching conclusions before the voters have spoken. A further prediction?  Give us a few weeks — we will promptly forget the lessons of this debacle in polling, predictions and primary politics. We will all live to screw up another day, though our performance in New Hampshire will be hard to beat.

John Podhoretz had harsh words:

The next day, Obama compared himself to Martin Luther King — and nobody batted an eye. But when Hillary sought to use his analogy to her advantage by pointing out that it took an experienced politician named Lyndon Johnson to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act — thus making her case that there is a place for words and a place for actions — she was deemed desperate, even possibly racist.

A bizarre double standard had emerged in the media, under which Obama could say anything while Hillary could say nothing. Her efforts to get herself a victory in New Hampshire were interfering in the most blatant media effort I can remember to impose a coronation on the body politic.

Tommy Christopher on AOL turns the MSM's favorite phrase for Hillary's emotive episode against it by asking "Is this the media's Muskie moment?"

But who needs the media to question itself when Bill Clinton does it so well?

Today was the day one of my journalistic chicken-littles came home to roost. After years of me sticking up for one of baseball's biggest all-time jerks -- bashing his tormentors the San Francisco Chronicle, lamenting the ritual shaming of athletes, serially mocking and scare-quoting the "House Committee on Government Reform," urging Congress to get out of the urine-testing business, and even writing a piece entitled (in all seriousness) "George Bush vs. Barry Bonds" -- baseball's all-time home run king has been indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. If convicted, the seven-time MVP faces up to 30 years in the slammer.

So do I come here for forgiveness? Oh hell no! To see why, read on.

Today's Blowback by Robert E. Doud, "Why a liberal Catholic is embarrassed," is making some of his fellow Catholic's heartily sorry...that they ever read the thing.

From Hamilton, in the great Canadian province of Ontario, Paul Kokoski says spare us your apologies:

The Catholic church doesn’t need any apologies from modernist Catholics like Robert E. Doud who illegitimately claim to be speaking on behalf of the church. Doud is simply incorrect in claiming that "The church should not behave as a pressure group or political lobby". In coining the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1801, Thomas Jefferson never intended that social and political issues be divorced from codes of morality. He merely meant that the U.S. government be prevented from establishing one or another church as the "official" religion. All governments and religions worthy of their name concur with the Ten Commandments and their prohibition against murder.

Contrary to Doud, morality and faith are not things that can be restricted exclusively to the private sphere. In fact, no politician in any society or government can, in good conscience, rule coherently in the service of the common good apart from one’s own faith or values. The conscience being one and indivisible does not permit the acting out of parallel lives.

The Catholic church thus teaches that those who publically support abortion are already excommunicated and therefore should not, under penalty of grave sin, receive Holy Communion. Those in positions of authority like  Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles who act apart from the pope and do not publically enforce this law are accomplices in the same sin of the communicant. These are the people that especially need our prayers.

Sincerely,

Paul Kokoski.

Hamilton, Ontario. Canada.

From Pasadena, Marc Seanassey chuckles and rejoices:

As a 30-something, "John Paul II" Roman Catholic, I can only chuckle at the Robert E. Doud's of our Church who just don't seem to get that their time has passed, and their schismatic view of the Catholic Church will never come to be.

Instead of "chagrin" Pope Benedict XVI was elected, serious Catholics of my generation rejoiced. The conclave of 2005 solidified the reality that the fuzzy days of "post Vatican II" are mostly behind us. Our prayer is that our Church will return to solid orthodoxy, with a serious liturgy and teaching on a life in Christ. Mr Doud's generation spent it's formative and professional years trying to abolish this orthodoxy. With nonsense like "liturgical dance", woman "priests", watered-down Catechism tailored to the 60's sexual revolution, and the abandonment of important Church doctrines and teachings in the "spirit of ecumenism" - all of which instead of breathing "new life" into the Church, ultimately led to the pervert-priest abuse scandal where thousands of mostly young boys were preyed upon by their less-than chaste clergy.

My generation is far from perfect. However, unlike Mr. Doud's generation who never grew out of their infantile need to "challenge authority", we seek to fully embrace our Church and a life in Christ. We seek not to denigrate our Church but to lift it up as a light to all people's and nations as Jesus intended.

Marc Seanassey

Not everybody's anti-Doud, however. From somewhere on the interwebs, priest educator and retreat director "Gdfc" completely concurs:

Subject: I completely concur

As a priest, educator, retreat director  of 35 years I share these sentiments.  John Paul II and Benedict are an embarrassment to thinking, reasonable, open-minded, dialogical human beings.  They were and are repressive dictators....who preach equality to Muslim nations and yet practice discrimination in their own demoninations by not ordaining women or validating same sex couples.

For a lengthy fisking of Doud's article, check out Robert Kumpel's Valdosta blog. Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

Here's what we've had at Opinion L.A. over the past few days:

Pakistan's and the stock market's unhappy upheavals prompt some digging through the old archives.

Past boards on healthy international relationships:

It comes hard to blame the Pakistanis for breaking off their affair with the United States.

Pakistan has given the United States whole-hearted support from Korea on, siding with us in hot and cold crises.

We have failed to back Pakistan as stoutly in the dispute with India over Kashmir. India's Nehru has broken his pledged word to allow a decision by plebiscite in Kashmir. He has temporized, brushed off the recommendations of neutral commissions, and still hangs on to the province.

On nationwide money woes:

This country has withstood graver dangers than the present, and when it was not half as strong. Stand fast! The Republic lives! Long live the Republic!

Catholic author Gregory Popcak objects to Garry Wills' argument that religion has nothing to say about abortion:

Scripturally, the basis of Christian condemnation of abortion comes not only from the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as Wills asserts, but from the fact that the Bible considers children a supreme gift and blessing from God. One does not reject a gift from God lightly. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knew us in the womb, and Exodus 21:22-23 imposes a penalty for those who cause the miscarriage of a fetus.

Web editor Tim Cavanaugh, in a Swift turn of logic, argues for restrictions on problem-breeders like himself. Editorial researcher Paul Thornton, meanwhile, bonds with Stalin over their shared atheism.

Finally, LAPD superstar Chief William Bratton joins the editorial board to chat about overtime, drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and, or course, crime. Some candid remarks on that last topic:

I don't think it has anything to do with warmer weather, it has nothing to do with lead poisoning, it has nothing to do with abortions, and if it does those are very minor influences on the crime rate. What does influence crime is people deciding to break the law, or unintentionally finding themselves in violation of the law.

Tell it like it is, Chief.

Rick Perlstein did not much care for my column of yesterday criticizing people like him and Naomi Klein for bemoaning the existence of private, supplemental fire protection. He brings up some interesting viewpoints worth further discussion.

First, a refresher on my Perlstein citation:

You would think that the cheap availability of potent fire retardant, and the creation of supplementary firefighting capability -- with costs borne entirely by the homeowners who choose to live in fire zones, instead of everyday taxpayers -- would be a cause for at least mild enthusiasm. Instead, it was greeted with howls of class warfare.

Liberal journalist/historian Rick Perlstein called it "a sickening indication about how the conservative mania for privatization is beginning to create two Americas: One that is protected from fires, and one that is not." (Never mind that no one within shouting distance of power or influence is calling for the privatization of fire departments.)

Now, a sampling from Perlstein's counter-argument, which comes under the headline "Solidarity in Flames":

Libertarian Matt Welch doesn't get it. He really doesn't get it. [...]

In so doing, he reveals how far down conservative ideology has fallen in grasping the most basic facts of collective security. In case Welch hasn't noticed, fires spread. Laying down fire-proof rings around islands of individual private properties does not stop fires from spreading; they'll just go around the island. Now, if every house was provided with Phos-Check (sic), the fires would not be able to spread. Everyone (and not just those with an extra $995 lying around, which is not "paltry" to someone living paycheck to paycheck) benefits. There would be no wildfire.

Before getting to the second half of Perlstein's complaint, I'll jump in and make a few relevant points:
1) Yes indeed, fires do spread (pretty rich for an east coaster to give a SoCal native a lecture on the local ecology, BTW), but the majority of homes that burn do so because of stray individual embers carried by the wind, not a raging wall of fire. In part, that's because firefighters Phos-Chek the hell out of endangered neighborhoods. During mandatory evacuations, the only people who can defend against embers are the limited number of available firefighters (the ranks of whom do not, for dumb bureaucratic reasons, include all the available firefighting talent from nearby military bases), homeowners who refuse to evacuate ... and a handful of AIG firefighting crews. AIG adds to the net firefighting capacity, and saved non-covered houses during the recent fires. If Perlstein indeed wants to provide every fire-zone home with $1,000 worth of Phos-Chek, well, good on him. Though something tells me that the same people who object to the rich having extra fire protection will squawk even louder when millionaire hillside dwellers get tens of millions in subsidized fire retardant every year.

Also, there is no fire-retardant valhalla in which "there would be no wildfire."

2) While I appreciate the "paycheck to paycheck" sentiment, that really, truly does not accurately describe the vast majority of people who live in Southern California's most fire-vulnerable areas. Recall that AIG's hated insurance, according to the L.A. Times, "is offered only to homeowners in California's most affluent ZIP Codes." (This itself is technically inaccurate -- the insurance is not available at such tony addresses as Palos Verdes Peninsula [90274], Manhattan Beach [90266], San Francisco [94123] and San Jose [95120].) It's a neat trick to begrudge the rich in one breath, and then imagine in the next that their next-door neighbors are living paycheck to paycheck. Recall, too, that one of Mike Davis' great critiques about letting Malibu burn was that the city had way too many fire stations compared to the poor folk in the flats. So if we don't want the rich to get more public assistance, and we don't want the rich to get more private assistance, what is it that we really want here?

Also, I said "lousy," not "paltry," though either can fairly describe the comparative and available cost for a SoCal canyon dweller to provide his/her own personal protection against certain catastrophe. For more disproportionate response, read on!

From Lompoc, Mathew Andresen sends in a reaction to Shawn Brown's Blowback "Katrina vs. The Witch" ...

I think Shawn Brown needs a bit of a reality check.  Most of Southern California response to the fire was due to proficient local and state agencies, and had nothing to do with the federal system.  Quallcom Stadium didn't dissolve into the ghetto because local agencies had their act together, and local people chose to act right when put into an emergency situation.   Both San Diego, and it's citizens worked together to make the most out of a horrible fire storm.  Could the federal government have done more, of course.  But in the end it boils down to local governments, and local citizens stepping up and doing the right thing.  Stop trying to turn everything into some type of class or race war.  Don't wait for someone else to come rescue you, do it yourself.

PS. Raise the character limits for responses on your website.  It's hard to make a well reasoned response with so few characters.

Keep those cards and letters coming to opinionla@latimes.com.

In our latest Blowback, New Orleans resident Marie Gould takes exception to Jonah Goldberg's column about media malpractice during Hurrican Katrina. Excerpt:

Many of the nation's foremost engineers long ago decided the corps had become technically stagnant and have called for the feds to allow nongovernment engineering firms bid on much of the work now being controlled by the corps -- a very conservative point of view.

Mr. Goldberg could have added some thought to the debate by pursuing that claim. Instead he choose the lazy way out with a column everyone has read a million times: Attacking the liberal media for attacking President Bush.

Gould's not the only one who reacted strongly Goldberg. To see more, both negative and positive read after the jump.

AB 8 does nothing to rein in rising insurance premiums -- up 87% nationally this decade -- or rising co-pays, deductibles and other health fees. Which means that costs, already unaffordable for far too many, would continue to spin out of control.

The bill fails to limit rising prescription drug costs, especially notable at a time when Schwarzenegger has just eliminated funding for his "voluntary" drug price restraints that were so ballyhooed last year by the governor and the authors of AB 8.

It is not universal, as many of the currently uninsured would remain without access to care. It fails to assure uniform, comprehensive benefits, and therefore perpetuates an increasingly multi-tiered health system based on the ability to pay.

It fails even to require insurance companies to provide insurance.

Our relatively newish Blowback feature -- or, as Jeff Jarvis describes it, a "lame" and "very controlling effort to add just a little bit of interactivity" to L.A. Times content -- has its latest installment up now: Rocket Boys author Homer Hickam giving our beleaguered Paul Thornton a what-for about the wisdom of NASA re-conquering the moon. This Hickam passage is well worth the price of admission:

When I was a West Virginia lad of 17, I met a Massachusetts lad of 42 by the name of John F. Kennedy. At the time, I was in a bright orange suit that I had just purchased to wear to the 1960 National Science Fair, where I hoped my home-built rockets would win a medal. Kennedy was in West Virginia trying to win the state's presidential primary. We met just as he finished a speech designed to convince a crowd of less-than-enthusiastic coal miners to give him their vote. When he asked for questions, I raised my hand and, for some reason, he noticed me right off. Because I was a rocket boy, I asked him what he thought we should do in space. He turned it around and asked me what I thought we should do, and I said we should go to the moon. When he asked me why, I looked around at all those coal miners and said, well, we ought to go up there and just mine the blamed thing! The miners all laughed, and so did Kennedy, and when he agreed with me, he secured all their votes that day. For the longest time, I took credit for the Apollo moon program and, though I'd been shipped off to Vietnam when we got there, I followed the moon flights with a certain personal pride.

Other recent highlights from the Blowback archive -- Diane von Furstenberg disagrees with our editorial against fashion copyrights, Riverside professor R. Stephen White rebuts our "No to nukes" editorial, and dog-lover Robert Hotckiss challenges Joel Stein to pistols at dawn.

The Department of Homeland Security to exception to my gloomy column of earlier this week whining about how U.S. citizens are suddenly being required to show their passports all over the damned place, except if they are deemed to owe $2,500 in child support, in which case they can't have one. Let's print the letter in full:

Dear Editor,

In an August 21 editorial, Matt Welch misstates the implementation date for new travel document requirements under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Passport requirements at our land and sea borders do not take immediate effect in January 2008. Initially, a government-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship will be required. Requirements for passports or other approved documents will take full effect next summer.

Even more problematic, Mr. Welch fails to grasp the fundamental reason why our nation is taking steps to strengthen travel document security at our borders and why we are working with states to create secure driver's licenses under the REAL ID Act.

Identification documents are as important as weapons for terrorists. They enable terrorist travel and plotting. Shutting down this known vulnerability was a core recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and it was mandated by Congress.

Admittedly, these measures involve some modest individual inconvenience. But, that far outweighs increases in identity theft, or having to explain to a future 9/11 commission why terrorists were able to use fraudulent identification to enter the United States and carry out an attack.

Sincerely,
Russ Knocke
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Department of Homeland Security

There's a clarification now on the original piece.

There was also plenty of feedback from that minority-within-a-minority of the population aware of how the wheels of the System can overrun men falsely accused by the government of fathering a child. Click on the link to read a whole lot more.

As mentioned here previously, journalism professor Michael Skube's Aug. 19 op-ed on how blogs can't replace journalism has generated a torrent of negative feedback. Add to the list journalism professor Jay Rosen, who has penned an example-laden Blowback in response. An excerpt:

Dan Gillmor, a former newspaper man, calls it "journalistic malpractice." And it is that. Also pedagogical buffoonery. In Skube's columns, there's a teacher who doesn't believe in doing his homework - any homework.

So I did it for him.

On the same topic, Editorial Page Editor Jim Newton has written a note to readers that includes this Skube statement over the controversial editing of the piece:

Before my Aug. 19 Opinion piece on bloggers was printed, an editor asked if it would be helpful to include the names of the bloggers in my piece as active participants in political debate. I agreed.

Whole thing here.

Thoughts on Skube, Rosen, Newton, or the L.A. Times? Leave 'em in the comments.

Some initial responses to Michael Skube's Blogs: All the Noise That Fits from this Sunday's Opinion, starting first with the bloggers he name-checks in his piece:

Joshua Micah Marshall:

I sent Skube an email telling him that I found it hard to believe he was very familiar with TPM if he was including us as examples in a column about the dearth of original reporting in the blogosphere. [...]

Not long after I wrote I got a reply: "I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ..." [...]

This seemed more than a little odd since, as I said, he certainly does use me as an example -- along with Sullivan, Matt Yglesias and Kos. So I followed up noting my surprise that he didn't seem to remember what he'd written in his own opinion column on the very day it appeared and that in any case it cut against his credibility somewhat that he wrote about sites he admits he'd never read.

To which I got this response: "I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ... "

And this is from someone who teaches journalism?

Matthew Yglesias:

The widespread availability of a vast sea of armchair analysis and commentary on the internet will, over time, force large, professionalized news organizations to focus on their core, hard-to-duplicate competencies -- and spend less time on the sort of fact-averse punditry Skube's doing right here.

Kagro X of The Daily Kos:

The Grand Inquisitor of Serious Journalism deigned to speak to us about the evils of the blogosphere but... had no examples in his article? Or at least, not enough to satisfy his editors?

And this is the great advantage of Serious Journalism? That it has an editing, vetting and fact checking process?

You spoke up; we heard...

I get clawed up like a fieldmouse for my daily "Let the mighty liberal hawks soar"...

From Concordia, MO, Penelope Kuhn delivers a Show-me State dose of skepticism about my terms:

What's the score?

In your article about "liberal hawks" you are STILL talking about victory and defeat, win and lose, as though Iraq and the U.S. were high-school football teams.  They are not.  They are places whose inhabitants' lives -- physical and/or economic and/or moral and/or emotional and/or spiritual lives -- are endangered by this goal-less, show-off war.  Shock and awe, indeed!

To me, "win" is a transitive verb.  Win what?  A medal?  a nice bouquet of flowers to take home to wifey?  a round of applause from everyone who stayed safe at home? 

As long as writers like you insist on throwing around nebulous terms like "victory", there is a danger that people will believe that "victory" is a goal.  Then the carousel stops and we all live happily ever after?  "Stability" would serve us a bit better if anyone could describe, clearly, what it entails.

Penelope Kuhn

From Eugene, Oregon  Patrick G. Gardner says make the madness stop:

You can speak of win and lose in Iraq all you want but it means little to those of us who just want the trillion dollar boondoggle to stop...The best way to stop the mess is to just do that...There was no honor going into this fiasco so why is it so important getting out...If the Iraqis want to find resolution they will...one way or the other...with or without us.

Patrick G. Gardner

On the other hand, Jim Murray writes all the way from La Jolla, the jewel of the Pacific, to give a thumbs up:

Tim, thanks for your great editorial about the mighty liberal hawks. Keep pinching the bloviaters.

Jim Murray

Anne-Marie Slaughter also takes a drubbing for her Blowback item "Bipartisanship is good for both sides." From the city of brotherly love, Paul Lukasiak calls a word-count violation

Dear Editors

Imagine my surprise after reading that the “Blowback Guidelines” required responses to be no more than 700 words, only to find that Ann Marie Slaughter’s response to Matt Yglesias’s column was 879 words.

Now, if Slaughter had actually provided viable solutions and ideas in those 879 words, the exception to the Blowback rules would be understandable.  But Slaughter does nothing of the sort;  she simply repeats the same failed mantra of “bipartisanship” that got us into this war that she supported, and which results in continued bloodshed.

Slaughter needs to spend some time outside of academia, and in the real world, because we are not talking about a theoretical out-of-control executive and a theoretical GOP Congressional minority that marches in lockstep with that President.  We are talking about a very real crisis in this country that has cost us the lives of thousands of Americans, half a trillion dollars, and our reputation on the international stage.    Slaughter wants us to believe that there are actually 11 Republican Senators that are willing to defy George W. Bush, and force his hand on Iraq policy. 

But Slaughter can’t name them.  She lives in an academic fantasy world, rather than the very real world of domestic politics.   Unfortunately, Slaughter’s fantasy world continues to create torrents of very real blood being shed by Iraqis and Americans on a daily basis. 

Ultimately, Slaughter is completely unable to offer anything but bland generalities about the way forward through “bipartisanship”.   And its rather annoying that the Blowback rules were broken because she has an impressive resume, but offered nothing of substance despite being allow to blather on for 179 more words than the rest of us are allowed.   

And that’s all I have to say…and I said it in under 300 words.

Cordially

Paul Lukasiak

Philadelphia, PA

From the Gulf of Mexico, Mike Sweet says stay out the Bushes:

Opinion L.A. gets people talking...

My recent daily "Funny-book funk briefly brightens" draws a Shakespearian zounds!:

Regarding Tim Cavanaugh's bitter, cynical "Funny-book funk briefly brightens" on July 17: Mr. Cavanaugh regards comic books, newspapers, movies and bound books as all breathing their last gasp.  Are there any media that AREN'T dying in his grim estimation?

David Moran
Shakespeare & Co. Booksellers
NYC

Our "Subprime players" has readers hopping mad. From the Grand Canyon State, Jenny Celli says out, damn spot:

So the president of the Mortgage Banker's Association wants to assure us that they are committed to homeowners and eliminating mortgage fraud... it's rather like asking the wolf to monitor the hen house.  The fact is, since the Association lobbied nationwide realtors to help repeal the 10% government rate ceiling on mortgage interest rates in 1979, they have been gouging the public willfully.

First, was the complete decimation of the market with home loans sporting interest rates in the high teens and early 20s in 1980.  Anyone remember that?  I do.  Then came the elimination of the fully assumable loan so if you wanted to buy a home, you would have to pay the new rates. 

Wait, it gets better... Realtors, that ever creative breed of commission paid enterpreneurs, begins to find the loop holes, so we get AITDs and contracts, even the swapping of properties and use of promissory notes for down payments.  The Assoication fires back, now they want proof of money down and they filed documents to ensure that if there was an AITD or a Contract, they'd be notified so they could call the loan.

By the time the reality would strike home that the market had killed itself- 1983, the rates came slowly back down; short term gains were no replacement for steady commissions.  The industry gets back on it's feet and dusts itself off and the realtors, like sharks smelling blood in the water after the stagnation, start selling at ever inflated values requesting that apprasiers meet the price - 1985.  They do.  The market inflates irrationally and by 1990, the market again bottoms out - time ot pay the piper. After all, what goes up artificially must come down.  No sales, no commissions; everyone suffers.  Updisde down borrowers walk away from the black hole that is sucking the life out them: home ownership. 

By the time the correction starts again, there needs to be new product and a way to qualify those that can no longer afford the American dream: enter the mortgage industry with a solution.  Their solution once again amounts to lining their own pockets at the expense of the average home owner.  Now they're asking for another opportunity to fix it.  It wasn't broken in 1979.  Their fixes have made owning a home almost impossible to the average American.

How do I know all this?  I worked in the industry.  I quit when it became apparent that although lawyers could be abhorrant, realtors/mortgage bokers were a sleaze that I couldn't wash off.

La Mirada's own Pete Alberini says Beshrew me much, MLM:

The amount of people who profit from Sub-prime loans is relatively small. The amount of people who will be hurt if the Sub-prime mortgages fail is very large. It is more then just the borrower and lender. Sub-prime lenders practice risk mitigation by utilizing Wall Street investment money in which loans are bought by Wall Street and then peddled to investors, i.e. the public. Maybe even your company’s retirement fund.

Sub-prime mortgages business is simply a legalized ponzi scheme. It is one of the reasons Corporate America had to have the Bankruptcy laws changed to mitigate risk. Many of the organization are institutions with taking in federally insured money. If the ripple effect falls that far back all America pays. As it is now only those with homes will pay when the housing mark collapse and your equity value fads away. Few winner and lots of losers, it doesn’t make sense to operate the way even if it makes a few people very rich.

Pete Alberini
La Mirada CA

They're still talking about Sonni Efron's "Dead reporters and the information gap." Reader Dana Victoria seems to be recollecting the death of Steven Vincent:

Determined to lose no chance to infiltrate the mighty lot of Paramount Pictures, I caught a screening the other day of the Michael Winterbottom joint A Mighty Heart, with Angelina Jolie playing Mariane Pearl and a guy named Dan Futterman playing murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (with juicy supporting roles for Irfan Khan and Will Patton). This is not a review, but for the record: The movie was much better than I had expected, with the caveat that I was expecting it to be terrible. The computer and cellphone procedural stuff was mercifully free of OVERRIDE-SECURITY-SYSTEM-type flapdoodle; the post-Sodergodardantino jump-cut/time-shift hokum was unobtrusive though regrettably not absent; and the depiction of police torture (a practical example of the mostly theoretical ticking-time-bomb dilemma, by the way) was bracingly ambiguous.

This is one of those movies where they regularly flash timestamps and datelines up on the screen, so my blazing glimpse of the obvious came in the constant reminders that the events depicted occured in January and February of 2002, barely a year into the Bush Administration, and more than a year before the invasion of Iraq supposedly created a zillion jihadists. I'm not defending the invasion of Iraq, which I knew was a bad idea even back when it was just a government-mandated inevitability. But something bears repeating: Big bad President Bush didn't create the jihad. Long before he grew into his historic role, cunning people were willing and able to kidnap and behead a cautious, well connected reporter and broil 3,000 Americans (and others) to death, all for the crime of being Americans. (Someday Allah will explain to me the irony that these same people are so ignorant of their enemies' culture it's possible they didn't even know Daniel Pearl was Jewish before they grabbed him.)

The anti-dhimmitude zealots, who always seem to think I'm against them, deserve credit for remembering this truth. (Why haven't these guys discovered Samuel Johnson's Rasselas, with its description of Sunnis as people who have "carried on, through all ages, an hereditary war with all mankind, though they neither covet nor envy their possessions?") One of the by-products of super-euphemized diplomatic speech (using words like engage, disarm or intervene to mean inflict violence upon, for example) is that people start to treat the metaphors and euphemisms literally. It's easy enough to believe the invasion of Iraq has given new life to the international jihad, but listen to enough OBL stemwinders about Andalusia and you start to realize the stuff we think will infuriate Islamists is often different from what actually infuriates them. (As for the hypothetical fence-sitter, who was just about to become a notary public when the invasion of Iraq drove him into the arms of al Qaeda, well, there may be many of those people, but just how many is something former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would have called an "unknown unknown.") At some level, violence and suppression are tools that need to be used against violent fanatics, and the question is how well you use those tools. That Bush so far seems to have failed at this test (or has he?) doesn't mean the test has gone away.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg has a not-so-modest proposal to get rid of public schools:

[O]ne of the surest ways to leave a kid "behind" is to hand him over to the government. Americans want universal education, just as they want universally safe food. But nobody believes that the government should run 90% of the restaurants, farms and supermarkets. Why should it run 90% of the schools — particularly when it gets terrible results?

Dickinson College's Crispin Sartwell remembers Richard Rorty, while the U.S. Naval War College's Christopher J. Fettweis declares the Iraq war lost, and lays out what that means. Erika Schickel reminds the South Coast Air Quality Management District that humans have a "prehistoric jones" for fire.

The editorial board calls for immediate peace talks in Iraq, serious energy reform in the Senate, and a payroll system that actually works for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Letter writers respond to Sally Denton's assessment of how Mitt Romney's Mormonism will impact his campaign. See why Robert P. Sechler of Seal Beach thinks "an analogy between Romney and John F. Kennedy is a bucket with some big holes."

Online, in this week's dust-up, publisher Kurt Hanson and attorney Jay Rosenthal discuss the economics of online music. Today they ask if webcasting should be open to hobbyists, or just those who can make money for labels and artists.

Magazine editor Michael Patrick Leahy writes this week's blowback, critiquing coverage of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Writer John Kenney pens the Paris Hilton prison diaries in today's op-ed pages:

Gandhi went to prison. So did Martin Luther King Jr. So did Robert Downey Jr. and Martha Stewart Jr. and I think Nelson Mandela Jr. Mandela was imprisoned for, like, 50 years or something for being black and also for driving an uninsured vehicle, if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly. Nicky often mentions me and Gandhi and how incredibly thin we both are and how she wonders if he used bronzer.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg sticks up for anti-illegal-immigration stalwarts, and author Meir Shalev reflects on the forty years since the Six Day War.

The editorial board doesn't think child rapists (or anyone else) deserves the death penalty. It also asks the City Council to back open police disciplinary hearings and asks the state Assembly to support a strong customer protection bill against credit card information theft.

On the letters page, see what three Southern Californians think of regional officials' plan to ban wood-burning fireplaces. Jeff Camp, for one, asks, "What's next? Banning barbecues in the summer?"

This week's dust-up on police disciplinary hearings continues as lawyers Kelli L. Sager and Alison Berry Wilkinson debate state Sen. Gloria Romero's bill to open hearings.

And two blowbacks respond to a previous blowback: Lou Cannon writes in response to what he calls a "compendium of falsehoods and innuendos," and former Santa Barbara News-Press editor Jerry Roberts laments his old paper's declining sense of ethics.

Former secretary of State Henry Kissinger remembers lessons from Vietnam:

A point was reached during the Vietnam War when the domestic debate became so bitter as to preclude rational discussion of hard choices. Administrations of both political parties perceived the survival of South Vietnam as a significant national interest. They were opposed by a protest movement that coalesced behind the conviction that the war reflected an amorality that had to be purged by confrontational methods. This impasse doomed the U.S. effort in Vietnam; it must not be repeated over Iraq.

And, for the sake of Lindsay Lohan, writer Eric Lucas remembers lessons he learned when he was a "booze-and-drug-addled lunatic." Contributing editor Max Boot explains what's behind a recent string of firings in the Navy.

The editorial board weighs in on Bush's nomination of Robert B. Zoellick for the World Bank presidency, and asks the Supreme Court to be more realistic in its discrimination rulings. The board also wants more marijuana for medical research.

On the letters page, Brea's Jack Jansen sums up why Iran needs oil: "[A]s the world's oil runs out and international order deteriorates, small nations with oil will be put in peril by big nations attempting to secure their supply of oil."

Online, editorial writer Michael McGough claims we're all Alberto Gonzales, and Wendy McCaw, owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press, answers an op-ed that attacked her and her publication. This week's dust-up continues with Tom Tanton and Judy Dugan debating whether government should step in to regulate gas prices and profits.

Fox News Channel's no-spinmeister Bill O'Reilly continues his Diana Ross-level hissy fit over Rosa Brooks' recent column "Sweet Jesus I love Bill O'Reilly!" You'll recall that we generously afforded Wild Bill's producer an opportunity to respond to Brooks' column, but the powerful elite-media insider fumed that our forum was too small to contain the kind of Rumpelstiltskin rages that have made him a superstar. Now O'Reilly puts the ad in ad nauseam by, um, raging about it again:

Most Ridiculous Item: No Fairness in L.A. Times

I don't want to belabor this L.A. Times thing. But you should all know what's going on out there. The Times pays a columnist, Rosa Brooks, who is actually a lawyer representing George Soros's Open Society Institute.

But the L.A. Times has not told its readers that. That's amazing.

Now, Ms. Brooks, obviously a far-left person, used a bogus Indiana University study to attack me. Not fair, not good. So we contacted the L.A. Times with the facts, asking them to run a column explaining the dopey study. The Times agreed. Instead of putting it in the paper, the column wound up on their Internet site. By the way, BillOReilly.com, our web site, has that if you want to check it out.

The bottom line, all we want is fairness from the L.A. Times and every other media organization. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, in L.A. it is. And it's ridiculous. All over the country, these people, they hire people, and they don't tell you who they are. It's just dishonest.

I'm guessing O'Reilly read our response to his previous Ridiculous Item—even though that too only appeared on these here Interwebs—because he's now backpedaled from his earlier, false characterization of Mitchell's column as a "correction," and now lamely (but more accurately) refers to it as "a column explaining the dopey study." But his acquaintance with truth remains doubtful: Here's the L.A. Times not telling its readers about Brooks' affiliation with the Open Society Institute.

And for good measure, here's the Karl Popper-influenced, anti-communist, pro-market, pro-democracy Soros being called not only a leftist but a rightist, a shill for President Bush's forward strategy of freedom and a few things not fit for a family newspaper. And because not enough O'Reilly is always too much, we'll have a response to Mitchell's article coming up shortly, by the authors of the study that started the current round of name-calling. And of course we welcome any response from O'Reilly's camp, confident that the readers will tire of this matter long before we do. Watch this space! 

Update: Here's the response from the professors.

Many of you enjoyed Ron Mitchell's Blowback column "Stop calling O'Reilly names," a rebuttal to Rosa Brooks' column on Bill O'Reilly's name-calling. We figured O'Reilly would also appreciate our giving a soapbox to one of his producers. Alas, it turns out the post-modern hothead is also an internet snob. Here's how he characterized Mitchell's article in his "Most Ridiculous Item" yesterday:

L.A. Times Flubs Correction

I was all set to compliment the Los Angeles Times, and they hosed us, in the end. Last week their far-left columnist, Rosa Brooks—who works for George Soros, if you can believe it, but The Times doesn't tell its readers that—harpooned me about this bogus Indiana University study that says I insult people once every 6.8 seconds.Well, Factor producer Ron Mitchell has blown the lid off that study, and you can see it on BillOReilly.com. I mean, we just destroyed it.

So we called the Los Angeles Times and said this is a bogus study. You've got to print Mitchell's article. They said they would, and they put it on their Internet site. Not good, you guys. You guys have really got to be more honest.

The Los Angeles Times strikes again.

Just when I think I've arrived in the MSM, I get a reminder of how many layers there are above me: At some level of media privilege, you can actually have one of your staffers send in a column about a column—not even bothering to sign it yourself—and expect that a newspaper is going to hop to and make room for it in the tiny news hole it has in its print edition? Bill, I just wish I lived in your world!

For the record, Mitchell's rebuttal would never have run in the paper under any circumstances as it was too long for a letter to the editor and cited no factual errors in Rosa Brooks' column (even if it had cited errors, those would have been handled through our corrections process, not by giving the subject space for an Op-Ed-length reply). We never told Mitchell, O'Reilly or anybody else that "Stop calling O'Reilly names" would appear in the print edition, and in fact I specifically told Mitchell, well ahead of publication, that it would not be appearing in the paper for the reasons cited above.

Happily, the world wide web (a wonderful new medium that Bill O'Reilly should look into one of these days) allowed us to print Mitchell's rebuttal in full, and we were happy to do so. (Regular readers of Opinion L.A. will recall our examination of rejectedletterstotheeditor.com, which touched on some of these matters.)

Again, you can read Mitchell's piece here, and you may also enjoy checking out more of Rosa's columns—there's a new one today.

On Sunday, the Editorial Board devoted its entire space to a heave on U.S. troops in Iraq, entitled "Bring Them Home." So, how'd that go over, then?

Matthew Yglesias: "Well-put."

Say Anything: "[A] rather predictable editorial (coming as it does from one of the most liberal newspapers in America)."

Later On:

on March 12, 2007, the LA Times took one editorial position, including a harsh indictment of "Gen. Pelosi" (their phrase) and her efforts to get through a bill that includes timelines for withdrawal.

Now, today, May 7, 2007—less than two months later (specifically, 56 days)—they have an editorial taking the completely opposite position. That's fine. But what's not so good is apparently they have no recognition whatsoever that they have switched positions, and no acknowledgment that they need to eat some crow and apologize to Speaker Pelosi, who saw the situation more clearly than did the editors of the Times.

Flopping Aces: "Good grief! Read their Sunday editorial and tell me that they are not subscribing on to the Harry Reid-brand of defeatism naïveté."

Todd Beeton: "Don't ya love when the Times issues these strong declarative statements about what the U.S. SHOULD do in times of war as though a. they're the first to even consider such a thing and b. they have any credibility left?"

Penraker: "I suspect that Democrats had suggested that such an editorial be written. You see, if the U.S. wins this war, the Democrats are dead meat. They may not recover for years."

Ron Beasley: "Along with the American people the LA Times editorial board has seen the light."

"Meteor Blades" at The Daily Kos: "But hey, who am I to refuse my old employers a welcome to the reality-based world, even if they've only arrived at the outskirts?"

Another ex-LATer, Ken Reich: "[T]he L.A. Times joins those who pray for American defeat."

The floor is open to further comment.

Readers give us the business for recent online articles. All in Original Spelling:

About John Yoo and Bruce Ackerman's Dust-Up on war powers, Tony Green of Gualala writes:

I join Yoo and Ackerman in debating the war making powers issue.  Ackerman is right to point out that the War Powers Resolution of 1973, “maintains the (founding) father’s commitment to checks and balances” with respect to the President’s power to make war.   However, both Ackerman and Yoo find fault with the War Powers Resolution.  Yoo considers the Resolution unconstitutional.  Ackerman acknowledges “deficiencies” in the Resolution, but says “this is not the moment” to correct those “deficiencies.”  Why not?  The Resolution was written in response to President Nixon’s abuse of power in the Viet Nam War.  Why not correct the “deficiencies” now, in response to President Bush’s abuse of power during the current war in Iraq? To negate the Constitutionality issue, we should amend the Constitution to incorporate provisions of an updated War Powers Resolution.  This will take considerable time and effort, but what could be more important? 

On Robert Greene's "Frivolous balloteering?" San Diego's Bill Decker writes:

The issue, while well explained in Robert Greene's editorial, can be cast in simpler terms: our so-called representatives are too busy either going on overseas junkets or tirelessly working to get re-elected, so they have abdicated their true responsibilities back to the voters. But why bother spending money on representative salaries if every issue comes back to us anyway? How about this – every ballot resolution results in a step-down in representative salaries. Pass that rule and you can bet these important issues will start to be debated by the people who are supposed to do just that.

Plenty of readers responded to Martha Lauzen's Blowback feature about Jonah Goldberg and Rosie O'Donnell. Says John Johnson of Encino:

There have been many outrages uttered during the past few days around and about these parts, but for my money (literally speaking) the cruelest blow of all came within this dog-bites-tennis-ball story about how former mayor Richard Riordan, in light of the recent Spring Street tumult, still doesn't care for these L.A. Times. The offending (to me) bit:

Riordan once fancied himself as a newspaper publisher. He toyed with the idea of creating a paper that could compete with the Los Angeles Times. Eventually, Riordan determined that the project wasn't viable and dropped it.

"The smartest thing I ever did was not following through," he said. "I was in over my head."

He walked away lighter by a few hundred thousand dollars, but much wiser. "I lost a quarter-million bucks, which is nothing."

Italics mine, to emphasize the fact that WHERE THE HELL WAS MY CUT, HIZZONER? Barely four figures for basically four months' solid work on my part, during which time I was literally begging pathetically for scratch, while the consultants peddling last century's business models just kept the meter running? The rich are different from you and me ... they think we don't need money.

L.A. Examiner prototype editor Ken Layne (disclosure: Layne is reportedly my bandmate) comments:

It was fun to make a pretend paper with Dick Riordan. My only real regret is that I didn't take at least $100,000 of that $250,000 for myself. When Antonio Villaraigosa wants to start his pretend paper, my fee is $50,000 per month.

Our former editor's Daffy Duck routine has brought with it one benefit: We've been getting some better-than-usual traffic on this blog. So while we still have some eyeballs on us, I'd like to let all-y'all know about the many fabtrabulous new features we've been introducing at Opinion L.A. We have rolled out a variety of new online-only features, which we hope will begin to bridge the gap between "print" stuff and "online" stuff as the newsprint medium continues to wither and these here internets allow for even more and better news coverage.

You can start with our few-months-old Opinion Daily, a column that comes out each weekday, written by alternating members of the editorial board. Recent dailies of interest include Michael McGough's disambiguation of the political bedfellows in the Bong Hits For Jesus case; Andrés Martinez' moving tribute to Hal Rothman; Robert Greene's fascinating study of the future of direct democracy in the cellphone-voting age; and Sonni Efron's defense of economic sanctions.

Straight outta 1995, we've also brought online chat roaring back to life. Dig our recent chats with columnist Rosa Brooks and assistant editor Matt Welch, as well as the SRO blowout with columnist Jonah Goldberg. Look for more of the Opinion L.A. Chat in the weeks to come. 

Dust-up is our almost-newest feature, a weeklong debate between experts, wonks, politicians, blowhards and other luminaries, on topics in the news and/or in our region. This week's dust-up focused on best ways to solve L.A.'s traffic crisis. In recent weeks, we've had debaters go at it on performance-enhancing drugs in sports; the Scooter Libby trial; and Gov. Schwarzenegger's health care initiative.

That health-care debate, by the way, brought a spirited rejoinder from Pacific Research Institute's John R. Graham, which we were happy to run.  This brings us to yet another exciting new feature: Blowback, an opportunity for concerned readers to publish oped-length rebuttals to features that have appeared in the Times. Recent responses have come from the Venezuelan ambassador, a senior State Department official, and others. (Sorry, I just realized as I'm typing this that we don't have a Blowback archive: Will get to that asap!)

In old-fashioned "push" media, we'll be rolling out a daily email newsletter, within the next week I hope, that will keep you informed of what new stuff we've got going on at Opinion L.A.—including old media stuff, new media stuff, and an exciting blend of the two. Signup instructions will show up in this blog and at the Opinion front page, but if you'd like to get in early, email us at opinionla@latimes.com, and we'll set you up.

And of course, we still have all the old print stalwarts: editorials (those unsigned thingees that run on the left page of the print version and speak—more or less—for the board as an institution); opeds (signed columns written by people from oustide the Times opinion section); letters from our readers; the Sunday Current section; and our murderers' row of regular columnists.

I'd like to thank Andrés Martinez for his steadfast and enthusiastic support in guiding our new features and innovations through a work environment where change is frequently less than welcome. If not for Andrés, you would be looking at a much smaller catalogue of new features. I wish him the best, and hope that we can continue his ambition of making maximum use of new media to produce a better and more exciting Los Angeles Times. *

* I made a change to this last graf to eliminate some accurate but stylistically extraneous material. For the original version, see L.A. Observed and Patterico.

Last week we hosted a debate over Gov. Schwarzenegger's health care reform. But no exchange is complete until we hear from you, the fabulous little people. Dig some of the responses. And if you haven't checked it out already, get your recommended daily allowance of John R. Graham's malediction on both "MariaCare" and "SheilaCare."

Says Richard Ralston, executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine:

The week-long "dust-up" between Daniel Zingale and Anthony Wright on Governor Schwarzenegger's health care proposals was really remarkable (Feb 26- Mar. 2).  In spite of many references to a "broken" health care system there was no discussion whatever of what broke it.  It was essentially a debate between State Capitalism and Socialism.  The only options presented were a choice between more mandates, regulations, government subsidies, rules, administrators, agencies, and taxes on the one hand, versus medical Socialism and a complete government take-over of health care on the other.  Concepts such as individual freedom, markets, personal choice, privacy of medical records, competition or deregulation were completely alien to the discussion.   The idea that the government might stop doing even one of the many things it now does that drive up the cost of health care and insurance is clearly not possible in the world these debaters live in.  The thought that physicians might also have rights which must be considered was irrelevant to both parties.

Last week's column by Venezuelan ambassador Bernardo Alvarez was part of our new "Blowback" feature, allowing for longer replies to our coverage than is typically afforded in the Letters page. To the extent that we can do so without vanishing into interminable orifices of self-reference, we'd like to keep up the discussion of Blowbackable items. And Hugo Chavez always draws a crowd. So without further ado, here's what  Hicksville, NY's Bret P. Wallach had to say about Alvarez' column:

Why do you allow a puppet of Venezuela's dictator, Hugo Chavez, to write an editorial in your paper? You have just lowered your paper to their standards.