The police commission picked three finalists in its search for Los Angeles' new police chief, and the editorial board says each possesses many of the qualities needed to succeed atop the LAPD. Just so there won't be any confusion on that point, the board also describes what those qualities might be. The board also notes that two proposed ballot measures are due to be submitted today to enable and call a state constitutional convention, and it all but endorses them in a near-desperate plea for functional governance in California.

On the Op-Ed page, Raphael J. Sonenshein, former executive director of the city's charter reform commission, accuses rookie City Atty. Carmen Trutanich of not understanding what a city attorney is supposed to do in this town. Columnist Tim Rutten gives a highly nuanced defense of the push to reveal who is contributing to efforts in other states to put Prop. 8-style bans on gay marriage on the ballot. Musing about the Northwest Airlines flight that overshot its destination by 150 miles, Peter Garrison, a pilot and contributing editor to Flying magazine, reveals just how boring it is to fly a modern airline jet. And columnist Doyle McManus dissects the Obama administration's decision-making process on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan:

Credit: Ted Rall / For The Times

-- Jon Healey

After an editorial board discussion about whether the Supreme Court is about to allow unions and corporations to monopolize political campaigns, I logged onto Facebook. There I found several posts from friends (and "friends") linking to a fund-raising site for Rob Miller, the Democrat who is challenging healthcare heckler Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. As one poster put it: "Over 10,000 contributions and $350K for Rob Miller against Joe You Lie Wilson! 400k, here we come."

Barack Obama was exaggerating when he suggested that the large amounts of contributions he raised on the Internet were a form of public financing. Obama also benefited from traditional donors. But the Obama campaign's success is a reminder that Web-driven contributions are changing the equation in political fund raising.

Of course, corporations can use the Internet too. But the more level playing field sought by so many campaign-reform enthusiasts may be smoothed out by technology, whatever the Supreme Court does.

-- Michael McGough

Photo: Democrat Rob Miller in October 2008. Credit: AP.

Threats and intimidation enliven the Op-Ed page, courtesy of two former Los Angeles Times scribes who've gone on to pen books.

Miriam Pawel details how the United Farm Workers switched from backing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to increase Central Valley water supplies to opposing it. Backed by the Change to Win union coalition, Pawel writes, the UFW established a $1 million fund to campaign against Schwarzenegger's water bonds in a "clumsy attempt at political blackmail." And Michael Krikorian recounts how five LAPD officers came to train four handguns and a shotgun at him and his girlfriend's son on a recent night in Hancock Park.

The Opinion Manufacturing Division also offers two takes on President Obama's speech Tuesday to students. Columnist Tim Rutten gushes about the speech and the president's Q&A session with a group of Virginia high-schoolers, then urges Obama to take the same approach and tone -- speaking plainly and personally but without condescension -- tonight in his speech to Congress about healthcare. The editorial board, meanwhile, frames the controversy that led up to the speech in the context of "what historian Richard Hofstadter called the 'paranoid style in American politics,' an ancient, exasperating form of discourse."

The board also urges the state Fair Political Practices Commission to adopt a proposed set of rules limiting how public agencies may use taxpayer funds in support of ballot measures, bond issues and other Election Day causes. And it urges the Los Angeles City Council to settle the dispute over the city controller's power to audit functions within the city attorney's office:

City Controller Wendy Greuel and City Atty. Carmen Trutanich have accomplished something remarkable. They have given new life to a dispute between their predecessors that should have expired when the new term started July 1. Each made a campaign issue of cooperating to resolve the case of City of Los Angeles vs. Laura Chick, but each now claims the other is not cooperating. It's as if the contentious ghosts of termed-out politicians refused to leave and now possess the bodies of the new officeholders.

Credit: William Brown, TMS

-- Jon Healey

It is said that the bandit Juan Flores -- who had a brief but legendary career that included ambushing a sheriff and his posse and temporarily evading arrest by plunging down a granite cliff  face, such a daring feat that the peak was named for him -- was hanged in 1857 at what is now the Beaudry Avenue headquarters of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The event was watched by an angry crowd of 3,000 people, practically the entire population of the pueblo.

The crowd could approach that size today at Beaudry as the school board gets ready to vote on a resolution that would let outside operators such as charters and the mayor's education partnership submit proposals to run 50 schools opening up in the next few years. The new version of the proposal would do the same for the 200 or so existing schools that are considered failing under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Charter and community organizations that favor the proposal have been mobilizing parents to show up as early as an hour and a half before the board even brings up the resolution to let board members know that they will not be happy if the resolution is rejected.  United Teachers Los Angeles, the most high-profile opponent, has also called out its troops to "pack" the board meeting.

In the early days of the summer, the resolution's chances looked iffy at best, but parents groups are pushing hard to send trustees a message that if they don't vote for the resolution, they can expect a political hanging when they face re-election. Conversely, UTLA bankrolled a number of the campaigns that put the current board in power.

The Times' editorial board has enthusiastically endorsed the resolution as one of the most promising, child-centered initiatives to come along in the district over the last several years, as long as it is passed without several poison-pill amendments that also were placed on today's agenda.

The vote could be close. One thing is certain: The search for a parking space around Beaudry today will be tougher than the posse's job tracking down Juan Flores.

-- Karin Klein

A would-be Republican challenger is trying to capitalize on Sen. Barbara Boxer's now infamous reprimand of a general for addressing her at a hearing as "Ma'am" instead of "Senator." According to Chuck DeVore, Boxer's dressing down of Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers reflected liberal contempt toward the armed forces and was just what you'd expect from a Vietnam War protester.

But you don't have to be a Republican to be appalled by Boxer's display of pique, which has become must-gag TV on YouTube. "Do me a favor," Boxer told Walsh at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Could you say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am?' It's just a thing; I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it." To his credit, Walsh didn't reply: "Yeah, you did raise a lot of campaign contributions, Senator." Later, a Boxer aide said she and the general were pals.

Maybe, but Boxer had better forget about a campaign contribution from Miss Manners. As bloggers have pointed out, "Ma'am" is a term of respect comparable to "Sir," which is the way military officers address the president. It's also a contraction of "Madam," as in "Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton." (Walsh began his testimony by addressing Boxer as "Madam Chair.")  If "Ma'am" is good enough for the Queen of England, it ought to be good enough for Boxer. Yet it was the senator, not the monarch, who was not amused.

What's really galling about Boxer's snit is her refusal to give the general the benefit of the doubt. My mother taught her children that if someone knocks you over on a bus, assume it's an accident even if you suspect otherwise. There's no evidence that Walsh was deliberately belittling Boxer, but she flamed him anyway -- before TV cameras. That would be gauche even if Walsh were in the habit of referring to male senators by their proper title but not female senators. But Boxer didn't make that accusation.

Correcting the way someone addresses you almost always makes the other person uncomfortable. Reporters covering the Supreme Court cringed when the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist would correct a nervous lawyer who addressed him as just plain "Justice Rehnquist." Pointing out an error can be awkward even when you're demoting yourself -- which is why I no longer object to being called "Professor" by students who don't realize I'm a lowly adjunct instructor. Cardinal Newman (or maybe it was my mother) said that a gentleman never offends. Neither does a lady senator.

* Photo of Sen. Barbara Boxer by Rich Pedroncelli / AP

In Friday's Letters, more outrage about the proposed -- and rapidly rescinded -- raises for Assembly staffers in Sacramento.  Mary Cifuentes, of Glendale, sums up reader sentiment:

It is becoming more clear each day in California that politicians care only about themselves. It's also nice to know that after the news leaked about the pay raises, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Minority Leader Michael Villines thought they were a "mistake."

What kind of people are we electing? Are Bass and Villines aware that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed and most people feel lucky to even have a job? Everyone I know is worried about the future. Many companies have slashed pay, benefits and expenses.

Don't worry, Speaker Bass, we will suffer while you and your staff work to save this great state from ruin.

More on torture, Rep. Jane Harman's wiretapping scandal, campaign finance and presidential debate history, too.

Photo: Bass and Villines in November, 2008.  Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli.

In Wednesday's letters, Nancy Watkins of Lake Forest joins the chorus of animal lovers disappointed by the First Family's decision to adopt Bo, a purebred Portuguese water dog, instead of a shelter mutt.  She writes:

The Obamas have taken "limousine liberal" to a new level. They promised their daughters a puppy if they moved to the White House and, while they discussed rescuing a mutt, they in fact received a purebred Portuguese water dog from the Kennedy family, pledging instead to make a financial donation to the D.C. Humane Society.

The dog is absolutely adorable and has received worldwide media coverage, which will probably drive up demand for the breed exponentially.

What the Obamas have done is create a boon for breeders, while millions of equally adorable and sweet dogs suffer in shelters. They are role models for parents who recklessly promise pets to their children, creating even more shelter dogs. Shame on them.

In the meantime, others are already e-mailing in their frustration with the Bo backlash.  Bonnie Sloane, of Los Angeles, remarks this morning:

Regarding the kerfuffle over the Obama's family's choice of dog:  What a ridiculous waste of media attention.     

Adopting a dog is a family decision, not a fulfillment of a campaign pledge.   It's fine if the First Family chooses a rescue dog,  but these animals can have serious behavioral or health problems that not everyone is equipped to handle.   I assume the Obamas know their own pet needs better than we do.

I also recall that when our last three Republican Presidents -- Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -- chose purebred dogs, not a single protest was heard from the animal rights community.   Interesting.

Today's page also features three letters about Rosa Brooks' departure from the Opinion pages.  Most, but not all, of the correspondence we received was of the "good riddance" variety, including this note from James B. Davis of Beverly Hills:

I was overcome with tears of joy after reading the first sentence of Rosa Brooks' article last week: "This will be my last column for the L.A. Times." After suffering through her sanctimonious rants for years -- in particular her inability to write a single column without bashing former President George W. Bush -- I felt a great weight rise from my shoulders.

But then I read her second sentence: "After four years, I'll soon be starting a stint at the Pentagon as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy."

The Times will be better; the Pentagon will be worse. I guess we can't have it all.

Correspondence about HUD's dollar house programand Gil Cedillo's over-the-top spending habits, too.

Photo: Bo the dog meets the White House press corps.  Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

The Obama administration has abandoned the "war on terror" -- semantically, that is -- and author Reza Aslan says good riddance. In a pointed Op-Ed, Aslan argues that the phrase was counterproductive:

By lumping together the disparate forces, movements, armies, ideas and grievances of the greater Muslim world, from Morocco to Malaysia; by placing them in a single category ("enemy"), assigning them a single identity ("terrorist"); and by countering them with a single strategy (war), the Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, "a war against Islam."

That is certainly how the conflict has been viewed by a majority in four major Muslim countries -- Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia -- in a worldpublicopinion.org poll in 2007. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to "spread Christianity in the region" of the Middle East.

Also on the Op-Ed page, former Justice Department attorney David B. Rivkin Jr. bemoans the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to examine a West Virginia Supreme Court judge's refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his largest campaign contributor, and columnist Tim Rutten calls on the Los Angeles Unified School District to entrust its over-budget and behind-schedule arts campus downtown to a competent charter-school company.

On the other side of the Opinion divide, the Times editorial board again urges Washington to push Iraqi's Shiite-led government to reconcile with former Sunni insurgents. It shows little sympathy for former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), despite the prosecutorial misconduct that contributed to his defeat at the polls in November. And it calls on Sacramento to scrutinize why medical care costs in the workers' compensation system are rising so rapidly:

...[T]he mechanisms that insurers use to keep a lid on healthcare expenses are becoming increasingly expensive. And no wonder -- in the overhauled workers' comp system, more people are likely to review an injured worker's paperwork than his X-rays.

Credit: Anthony Russo For The Times

A California Supreme Court justice found the idea intriguing. So did the Times editorial board: To ensure equal marriage rights, the state of California could consider getting out of the marriage business altogether, performing and recognizing civil unions for all. People who want marriage could go to the church or other private group of their choice, and those churches or groups would be free to recognize only the marriages that fit within their beliefs.

Practically within moments after Justice Ming W. Chin posed that scenario to lawyers on both sides of the Proposition 8 debate, two college students from Studio City stepped into the fray. They received permission from the Secretary of State to circulate petitions for an initiative to do that very thing: Substitute "domestic partnership" for "marriage" in state law and while we're at it, undo Proposition 8. My first questions were of the more substantive sort, like, shouldn't we talk about this for awhile first? Would we be undoing the marriages of people who opted for a civil ceremony in earlier years and figured they were married good and proper? What would happen to joint tax filings for the federal government? And wouldn't "civil union" be a more acceptable term to voters than "domestic partnership"?

Then I read the proposed initiative in its entirety and realized that my worries might be a little premature. The real questions are, Just how easy is it to get permission to circulate petitions for an initiatives? Shouldn't the wording have to pass some sort of writing test?

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide quality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8."

Ali Shams, one of the two authors and a senior at UC San Diego, told me that he and pal Kaelan Housewright were operating via Facebook, though they would get an Internet page going soon, and were posting copies of the petition online in the hopes that volunteers would print them and collect 1.2 million signatures. The new faces of politics. At least they're involved in the process.

If only the state of California had thought to sell advertising for the Thursday morning screening, imagine the money it could have brought into the state budget. Surely one of the most highly rated shows from 9 a.m. to noon, whether on television or the Internet, will be the state Supreme Court's hearing of oral arguments on Proposition 8.

This is more than legal minds having it out for a few hours. The court might well indicate which way it's already leaning on the ban on same-sex marriage.

We'll be tuned in and logged on. Opinion L.A. will be posting commentary throughout the hearing, and welcoming your ongoing comments.