Barack Obama isn't even president yet, and he's already committed his first "gaffe."  At his proto-presidential news conference on Friday, Obama was asked which former presidents he had consulted about how to discharge his new duties. The puckish president-elect replied: "I have spoken to all of them who are living. I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances." Later, Obama apologized to Nancy Reagan for the allusion to her practice of consulting astrologers (not mediums) in planning her husband's schedule.

The apology may have been a political imperative, but I loved Obama's original comment. It showed that he has a smartass streak, which high office tends to suppress. Only rarely do figures of the magnitude of Obama let their inner wisguy escape.

It happened a couple of times at the Senate confirmation of hearings of John G. Roberts as chief justice.  Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah (in the self-referential habit of senators) told Roberts: "I read an interesting book over the weekend, Cass Sunstein's recent book published by Basic Books. Now, he discussed various philosophies with regard to judging. And I just would like to ask you this question: Some of the philosophies he discussed were whether a judge should be an originalist, a strict constructionist, a fundamentalist, perfectionist, a majoritarian or minimalist -- which of those categories do you fit in?" Roberts replied: "I didn't have a chance to read Professor Sunstein's book. He writes a different one every week; it's hard to keep up with him."

Speaking of the Supreme Court, when I was covering the court, schoolkids on pilgrimage to the nation's capital were often dragooned into watching oral arguments before the justices. At the end of one particulary soporific session, a group of junior high schoolers was taking a shortcut out of the courtoom through the press gallery. I asked their teacher if her students had enjoyed the argument. One boy piped up: "Yeah, I was riveted to my seat." Ah, I thought, a kindred spirit! At his age I also was a smartass. (It runs in the family.)

Life is tough for little smartasses -- or mavericks, as John McCain and Sarah Palin might describe them. McCain, by the way, fought smartassery with smartassery while campaigning in New Hampshire. When a high school student asked McCain if at 71 he was too old to be president, the candidate shot back: "Thanks for the question, you little jerk.  You're drafted.'' That moment was the closest I came to supporting McCain.

It's a good thing there won't be time for small talk when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stands up on Jan. 20 to administer the oath of office to President Barack Obama. Ordinarily one might think that the two alumni of the Harvard Law Review -- Obama was president, Roberts managing editor -- would glide easily into a reminiscent groove, cheerily comparing notes about professors and pizza parlors in Cambridge. But any conversation might be awkward, because Obama, unlike 22 other Democrats, voted against Roberts' confirmation.

Worse, if The Washington Post is to be believed, Obama stiffed his fellow Ivy Leaguer by flip-flopping from support to opposition.

The Post reported:

"It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

"And then [Pete] Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no."  (Ironically, political calculations may have inclined Obama to condemn a recent decision in which Roberts was in the minority -- the court's ruling that child rapists can't be sentenced to death.)

It's well known that Roberts was surprised when senators he thought were going to support him switched sides. That he was confirmed anyway, with votes from half the Senate's Democrats, may have softened the blow. And Roberts has the comfort that he is likely to hold on to high office a lot longer than Obama will. Still, it's just as well that the two men won't have to chit-chat before Roberts exercises a privilege Obama didn't want him to have in the first place.

Like a lot of journalists (I suspect), I spent Friday evening in a movie theater watching "W," the President Bush biopic. Like Times reviewer Kenneth Turan, I found the Oliver Stone take on Bush suprisingly complex, not the unsubtle screed I had expected. My one disagreement with Turan is with this portion of his review: "It also helps that 'W' is exceptionally well cast with actors who are not only gifted but who also actually look like the people they portray. Richard Dreyfuss makes a fine scheming Dick Cheney, Scott Glenn is a confident Donald  'I don't do nuance' Rumsfeld. And Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice are also on target. First among acting equals is the always involving Jeffrey Wright as Gen. Colin L. Powell, a man torn between an instinct for loyalty and what he sees happening around him."

As the friends who accompanied me to "W" can attest, I found jarring the fact that some of the characters -- particularly Wright as Colin Powell and Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld -- looked not at all like the people they were portraying. The problem was aggravated by the fact that other actors in the film -- especially Brolin as W, Dreyfuss as  Cheney and Bruce McGill as CIA Director George Tenet -- were  the spittin' image of the real people. The inconsistent casting made it difficult for me to suspend disbelief across the board, which wouldn't have been the case with a film that wasn't as intent on verismilitude. For example, "RFK,"  a 2002 cable move starred  British actor Linus Roache (the  prosecutor on "Law & Order") as Bobby Kennedy, even though Roache didn't look the part. (The actor playing Lyndon Johnson in "RFK," by the way, was James Cromwell, who unconvincingly plays George H.W. Bush in "W.")

The casting of Wright is especially annoying, because it seems to reflect the Hollywood belief that one black actor is as good as another. Wright doesn't  resemble Powell, any more than Sidney Poitier looks like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall -- yet Poitier played Marshall in a 1991 television film. Though not a clone of George W. Bush, Brolin's resemblance to Bush is close enough to complement the character's mannerisms. The film wouldn't have worked as well if Stone has cast another white actor -- Paul Giamatti, say -- in the role. But it isn't only whites who take a simplistic attitude toward racial casting: There were murmurs of disapproval when "Saturday Night Live" first cast Fred Armisen, who is of  South American and Asian ancestry, to play Barack Obama. Yet Armisen, with the aid of makeup, looks at least as much like Obama as Brolin does George W. Bush.

Obviously there's more to capturing the personality of a real-life figure than physical resemblance. But in a film that strives to replicate the face as well as the name, everyone should look like the original -- or no one should.

Like the medieval church, modern-day activists use the calendar to commemorate the dead and inspire the living. So the fact that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month means that people otherwise unmindful of the disease and the need for a cure will focus in a special way on breast cancer. Unless, of course,  their attention is captured by the fact that October is also Disability Awareness Month. And Domestic Violence Awareness Month. And Energy Awareness Month. And Down Syndrome Awareness Month. And Cyber Security Awareness Month. And while no one has declared October Financial Insecurity Awareness month, we're all celebrating it unofficially.

In the welter of awareness-worthy causes, it's easy to think that all of them are important but none of them is paramount. That, of course, is the way we feel year-round about a multiplicity of good causes. So why designate October, or any other month, as (Fill in the blank) Awareness Month? The concept would click only if some Awareness Traffic Controller were able to even things out by reassigning some observances to different months.  But even that might not work, because every month is already an awareness month. Moving Disability Month to November might seem like a good idea, until you realize that it's already pretty booked. November, as you probably don't know, is National Adoption Awareness Month, Lung Cancer Awareness Month,  American Diabetes Awareness Month and National Alzheimers Awareness Month.

Maybe it's time for a Cluttered Calendar Awareness Month.

Heck hath no fury like a talk-show host scorned. So it wasn't surprising that David Letterman threw a hilarious hissy fit after John McCain canceled on him as part of McCain's return to Washington to solve the financial crisis. Except, of course, as Letterman revealed, McCain was still in New York  getting made up for an interview with Katy Couric.

McCain defenders say Letterman's tantrum proves that he's part of the MSM anti-McCain lynch mob. But Letterman has treated McCain respectfully in the past, and his jokes about McCain's age have been good-natured. Clearly, however, Letterman was stung by the snub. So is this proof that entertainers have placed themselves above their station, as they say in Britain?

I don't think so. Politicians have admitted comedians and actors into their charmed circle, with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton making cameos and "Saturday Night Live" and McCain himself announcing his candidacy on Letterman's show. So why wouldn't a talk-show host stiffed by a candidate be just as aggrieved as a ward heeler on learning that a presidential candidate was a no-show?

I admit it: I was among the throng that helped "Tropic Thunder" supplant "The Dark Night" as the highest-grossing film over the weekend. For what it's worth, I found it amusing but overlong and derivative. The premise -- actors are mistaken for the roles they play -- was the same as "Galaxy Quest," and Tom Cruise's producer character was a raunchier version of Rick Moranis' Larry Siegel from SCTV. I, however, had a (ahem!) professional reason for attending: the movie is making waves on op-ed pages as well as at cineplexes because of its use of the word "retard" and Robert Downey's appearance in amazingly convincing blackface as a Russell Crowe-like Aussie actor whose insistence on verisimilitude leads him to undergo pigment augmentation and to affect a "street" accent even when he's not on camera.

As even some African-Americans admit, Downey's "blackface" act -- which itself is an object of ridicule in the film -- is far removed from the offensiveness of minstrelsy and even from the practice of actors playing people of a different race. The "retard" jokes are a harder case, and I don't quite buy the rationalization that Ben Stiller's performance as "Simple Jack" derives all its laughs from its lampooning of Hollywood's naive lionization of the mentally challenged. Yet it's funny in a sophomoric, guilt-inducing way. I confess that I laughed both at "Simple Jack" and the Downey character's advice to Stiller's character never to "go full retard" if he wanted an Oscar. (An aside: The word "retarded," originally a euphemism for slow-witted, has morphed into an insulting epithet, proving that all politically correct terminology has a short half-life.)

The question, raised in a Washington Post op-ed piece by the mother of a girl with Down Syndrome, is whether black humor about retardation somehow decreases the audience's empathy for real-life retarded persons. I don't think so, but I don't have any retarded relatives. If I did, my enjoyment of "Tropic Thunder" probably would have been a guiltier pleasure -- or no pleasure at all. Then again, if I had just buried a family member, I wouldn't find "Weekend at Bernie's" a laugh riot.

The photo of protesters demonstrating at the Los Angeles premiere of "Tropic Thunder" Aug. 11, 2008, is by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

The Taco Bell Chihuahua and Beverly Hills Chihuahua: Separated at birth?

Disney, which has brought the world more talking dogs than right-wing talk radio, is pinning its box-office hopes this year on not one, but two mouthy mutts: "Bolt," a showbiz German Shepherd, and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua," whose trailer is a Bollywood-style extravaganza of singing and dancing lapdogs. Disney, it seems, has made an educated guess that people cannot get enough of Chihuahuas who talk with funny Mexican accents.

It may be right. The Taco Bell Chihuahua was one of the most popular advertising campaigns of all time. But bringing talking Chihuahuas to the screen doesn't come without hazards. To begin with, it's not the most original of concepts; Taco Bell was forced to pay $30 million in 2003 to a pair of MIchigan marketing executives who claimed the fast-food chain's ad agency -- Marina del Rey-based TBWA/Chiat/Day -- stole the idea from them. Not that anybody who ever watched Saturday-morning cartoons would think a talking Chihuahua was a blazingly new idea. What's more, many Latinos see such portrayals as a slur, and animal-control officials worry that Chihuahuas are already adorable enough without promotional help from Disney. The Chihuahua is the most popular breed in Los Angeles, with many ending up in local shelters, and Department of Animal Services chief Ed Boks fears the upcoming release will just encourage people to breed more.

Disney may still end up with a hit on its hands, but the obsession with chatty Chihuahuas is driving Hollywood to ignore the potential of other breeds. Personally, I'd like to see more miniature Dachshunds that talk with funny German accents. And maybe that wear little monocles.

Glamour got to sit down with Barack Obama yesterday, and the conversation inevitably veered toward Michelle. Not her fabulous style or her apparently expensive tastes, but — as usual — Michelle's political presence. And, in a comment reminiscent of Obama's admonishing the GOP to "lay off my wife" — a quote that Times columnist Jonah Goldberg gleefully seized upon — the candidate told the fashion mag, "I don't have a thick skin when it comes to criticism of my wife":

What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way.... spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll....

Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know.... And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her.

"They should debate me, not her"? Now, I like and respect Obama. I'm also a huge fan of Michelle, and it's clear to me that certain pundits have sunk their teeth into her and just won't let go.

But the "lay off my wife" line of thought is a load of bunk. Hillary Clinton didn't shy away from politics while she lived in the White House. Eleanor Roosevelt, one of America's (and the world)'s most beloved first ladies, had a political life that far outlasted her husband's untimely death. Edith Wilson took on "stewardship" of daily presidential duties while her fascist dictator husband lay incapacitated. Abigail Adams, second only to Martha Washington, had some pretty definite opinions about women's suffrage. What's more, she was an active participant in the politics of her day:

After touring a New Jersey Army encampment, she reviewed the troops stationed there as "proxy" for the President. Often mentioned in the press, her opinions were even quoted at a New England town hall meeting. A highly partisan Federalist, Mrs. Adams helped forward the interests of the Administration by writing editorial letters to family and acquaintances, encouraging the publication of the information and viewpoint presented in them. She was sarcastically attacked in the opposition press... One anti-Federalist derided her as "Mrs. President" for her partisanship.

Loudmouthed first ladies are a fine American tradition. Obama should embrace that — and relax a little. The Times' James Rainey put it this way, regarding the New Yorker cartoon controversy:

Instead of his terse no comment, he should have played one of his strongest cards — his cool — responding something like: "Hey, I thought Michelle looked pretty good in camouflage."

Michelle Obama Watch, however, defends Barack Obama's position, asking, "Who could blame him?"

No one would want to see their spouse being publicly humiliated and distorted for no reason at all. Michelle is not running for office. She should not be treated as such. Anyone with half a brain would realize that the right feels the need to tear her down because doing so tears Barack Obama down by proxy — after all, why would a man with supposedly judgement sound enough to be Commander-in-Chief marry a reverse-racist, unpatriotic, “uppity” woman? 

National Review spends most of its time picking on Michelle in its response, but offers this point:

It is always nice to see a husband defend his wife or daughters — when they are truly "civilians" in the political wars. When, as in this case, the wife has the professional skills and the power to act for herself, that defense seems a bit condescending — and like wanting it both ways. As we learned from Team Clinton, a wife with with real power does better defending herself. 

Michelle Malkin, as usual, provides her own translation: "BO: Damn you conservatives for taking my wife seriously!"

And now (cue drumroll):

Tell us why below.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to sign a bill today to add a veterans' bond to the growing Nov. 4 ballot. The measure to extend the Cal-Vet program (to help veterans buy homes and farms) would be the 12th statewide proposition to come before voters, with more sure to follow. It's encapsulated in Senate Bill 1572 by Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad).

The June 26 deadline for placing legislative and initiative measures on the ballot has come and gone, but then, so has the July 1 deadline for adopting a 2008-2009 state budget, and that doesn't seem to have phased anyone in Sacramento. The Legislature can, and often does, waive the statutory deadline for its own measures. Lawmakers will do that for this one, and in the coming weeks will also consider sending voters measures to squeeze up-front money from the lottery, expand or at least reform prisons, update (or just mess with; you pick) the state's water system, and perhaps more.

But they'd better hurry. Ballot materials go to the printer in August.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen has already numbered Propositions 1 through 11, so the Cal-Vet bond will be Proposition 12? Not necessarily. Under Elections Code Sec. 13115, legislative bond measures go first. A high-speed passenger train bond already is Proposition 1, and there's already a Proposition 2, so the Cal-Vet bond will be Proposition 1a? *Sigh.* Not necessarily. The Legislature and governor can rewrite the Elections Code whenever it suits them to assign a particular number.

In theory, extending the Cal-Vet program would cost taxpayers little. Veterans' payments historically have covered the cost of servicing the state bonds, but if they don't, lenders are repaid from the state's general fund; that's why this measure must go to the ballot. The Cal-Vet program began in 1921 and currently is available only to veterans who served before 1977. If voters pass Proposition Whatever, the program would be open for the first time to Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq conflict veterans.

By the way, putting the measure on the ballot isn't free. It will cost at least $64,000 and as much as $94,000 -- per page! -- for the secretary of state to print and mail the measure and accompanying materials as part of the ballot pamphlet.

UPDATE: The governor signed the bill, which will now go the ballot as Proposition 12. See the Schwarzenegger's statement on signing the bill here. Even better, watch video here.

The Times ed board pats Barack Obama on the back today for bucking the stodgy-Republican stereotype and courting those voters in Orange County:

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee gathering $2,300-a-ticket support at the once-Republican bastion where Barry Goldwater and family spent their summers? The African American candidate coming to a city where decades ago the police were known for their "NIN" stops, an acronym that referred to stopping black motorists for questioning simply because they were black and in Newport Beach?

Proof that TV shows about rich, trendy teenagers really can change the world.

But forget that two-grand-a-head soiree. If he's truly the people's candidate, if he's not just eyeing Southern California's wallet — and if he's missing the fried fare from his Iowa campaign days — he should head down to the Orange County fair. See the sights, chow down on some fried frog legs and meet a wider cross-section of O.C. and So-Cal than he'll find at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach.

Where do you think the Democratic hopeful should visit to reach out to So-Cal voters? Post your thoughts below.

*Photo: M. Spencer Green / Associated Press

Is Antonio Villaraigosa really fundraising for the governor’s race instead of his mayoral re-election? Are gay Republicans really trying to get the California Supreme Court to remove the same-sex marriage ban from the November ballot? Did Zev Yaroslavsky actually demand to know whether Dean Logan and the other candidates to be county registrar underwent criminal background checks? Who is Joe Canciamilla and why should you care? When does Jamiel’s law go to voters?

The summer is moving quickly and there has been a lot of election news — not just for November 9, but for next year's mayoral election and the 2010 race for governor (already?) as well. Find it all here, and keep up to date on the facts — with an opinionated twist — on Los Angeles' (and California's) perpetual election at Vote-O-Rama.

First things first. November 4: There’s a chance that your roster of 11 California propositions will get shorter, and you may have a gay Republican research attorney to thank.

Legal experts call it a long-shot, but on June 20, several petitioners asked the state Supreme Court to toss Proposition 8, the initiative to restrict marriage to a man and a woman (find a the one-line text of the initiative in pdf, plus the attorney general documents, here). The justices, fresh from their 4-3 ruling that same-sex couples in this state have an equal right to marry (see a pdf of the opinion here), will now have to decide whether their decision turns the ballot measure from a constitutional amendment into a constitutional revision.

Huh?

Just a day after the week's first installment aired, Obama seems to think so. MSNBC reports that the candidate all but called the sit-down with his wife and two daughters, Malia and Sasha, a lapse in judgment:

Barack Obama said it was a mistake to allow his daughters to be interviewed extensively by "Access Hollywood," and he will not allow it to happen again.

"I think that we got carried away in the moment," the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told TODAY's Matt Lauer Wednesday. "We were having a birthday party, and everybody was laughing. And suddenly this thing cropped up. I didn’t catch it quickly enough. I was surprised by the attention it received."

Which is odd, because most of the reaction has been pretty positive, particularly about his daughters. Some of the revelations:

• Obama on his choice of mint chewing gum, never bubble: "I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my gum."
• Sasha on her dad's oratorical skills: "Blah blah blah blah blah."
• Malia on her parents' love life: "It also makes me feel good when [my parents],  you know. Kids like it when their parents, you know, are all ... except sometimes when you get to be teenager-like. Sometimes people think it's embarrassing. I like it, though."

Now there's a supportive daughter. Two parts left to the weeklong interview series, and you can view them all, eventually, at Access Hollywood. While you're waiting for episodes three and four: 

Tell us why below.

*Photo: Jae C. Hong / Associated Press

California, meet San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. From today's Times:

Newsom, who built a national reputation pushing cutting-edge -- and controversial -- policies on same-sex marriage, healthcare and other issues, launched an exploratory bid for governor Tuesday.

His move placed the 40-year-old, two-term mayor out in front of a large Democratic field eyeing the race to succeed Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is barred by term limits from running again in 2010. Newsom said he expected to decide by year's end whether to proceed with a full-fledged candidacy

The City by the Bay's golden boy isn't shining as brightly as he was just a few years ago, though, having admitted to an affair and claimed to have alcohol problems. Then again, neither is our very own Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose gubernatorial hopes have also been tarnished by an extramarital relationship. The Times also points out,

The first open-seat governor's race in 12 years is expected to draw a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls, including former governor and current Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and former Controller Steve Westly, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 2006.

Since it's anyone's race, I have to ask:

Got another candidate in mind? Post your suggestions below.

It's official: Same-sex couples in select counties across California can now tie the knot, The Times reports.

Some counties have embraced the ruling -- L.A.'s first couple to get hitched filed the original lawsuit that took the issue to the California Supreme Court.

But not everyone has been so enthusiastic: Officials in Kern, Calaveras and Butte counties have said they'll hold off on weddings for all couples. See Patt Morrison's column and Rick Wartzman's Op-Ed on the subject, and check out The Times' editorial condemning public employees who refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

All the hullabaloo has raised interest in the question: What makes you gay? The Times explores the issue through science, and reports that gay men's brains look a lot like straight women's. (Shocking.) On the relationship level, NPR has an interesting interview discussing how same-sex couples' dynamics shed light on their heterosexual counterparts:

We have this mentality of "men are from Mars and women are from Venus," so you throw up your hands and say, "oh, he's avoiding, that's just what men do," or "my wife is nagging again, that's just what women do," and it's really not like that. Some of these roles might flow from other factors ... it's not that there's something essential or fundamental about being a man or a woman that's leading them to these positions -- as you see from watching gay and lesbian couples fall into exactly the same types of patterns.

Not to ruin this joyous occasion, but Cardinal Roger M. Mahony took the opportunity today to condemn gay marriage -- and it's unclear how many couples are going to jump on the bandwagon until the issue is finalized in the Nov. 4 election. The Opinion desk's Robin Rauzi gives a more personal explanation why here.

Some also took the opportunity to reflect on precedent. CNN takes a look at gay marriage in Massachusetts, four years after it was legalized, and Dick Gordon of The Story recently discussed the legal difficulties surrounding the right to gay divorce.

On a lighter note, the Travel & Deal blog already has some advice for same-sex honeymooners. For full Times coverage of same-sex marriage issues, click here.

*Photo by Luis Sinco, Los Angeles Times

The California Supreme Court got a lot of love at this weekend's Pride Parade in West Hollywood, but UCLA deserves at least a peck on the cheek, too. As The Times' Alana Semuels recently reported, the university released a study last week (pdf) that shows, "Same-sex unions could provide a $370-million shot in the arm to the state economy over the next three years." (Guess Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't kidding, after all.) But BusinessWeek warns:

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years -- so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

That's a pretty sizable caveat -- and that's assuming that many same-sex couples themselves will sign on. Take the Opinion section's own Robin Rauzi, who's not so sure that "until death do us part" will last this time:

It may seem surprising that we'd hesitate at all. But would you want your marriage put to a statewide popular vote?

You can't be a gay person in America, even in California, and be a complete stranger to discrimination. But this is different. This is the state -- my state, my government -- throwing open one arm to us, yet holding the other poised to slap us hard.

After all, as Rick Wartzman points out in today's Op-Ed section, California is a land of ideological extremes -- and some more conservative counties are taking matters into their own hands. Besides, some Californians may already be shooting themselves in the financial foot. While business is booming in West Hollywood, says NPR, it could be partly because other areas are rejecting gay couples:

[Boutique bakery] Cake and Art has also gotten business from couples who encountered problems with companies closer to home. [Employee Cody Christensen] cites a lesbian couple who drove more than an hour to order a cake from the bakery.

"They went to bakeries in their area, and they were actually turned away. So they drove two hours to here, from San Bernardino, and we were happy to help them."

Time to pull out your Magic-8 Ball:

*Photo: David McNew / Getty Images

More than half the vote is in, but Mark Ridley-Thomas has less than half of it. That means he and Bernard C. Parks are in for five more months of campaigning as they head toward a Nov. 4 runoff in their battle to become the newest member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Hey, you members of the campaign donor class -- open your wallets. Again.

It's bad news for the county, as its government prepares to deal with Martin Luther King Medical Center and other health issues in South Los Angeles; and state budget cuts; and a host of other problems -- with a long period of uncertainty about the future.

It also throws a wrench into the works of special elections to fill either Ridley-Thomas' Senate seat or Parks' Los Angeles City Council seat. Which seat will open up? When will the special election be?

There likely will be several runoffs for Los Angeles Superior Court judicial seats. With more than 60% of the vote counted, these runoffs appear likely:

Office No. 72: Hilleri Merritt and Steven Simons

Office No. 82 Cynthia Loo and Thomas Rubinson

Office No. 84 Pat Connolly and Lori-Ann Jones

Office No. 94 Michael O'Gara and C. Edward Mack

Office No. 154 Michael Jesic and Rocky Crabb

Things could change as more votes come in. But don't hold your breath.

Somebody -- anybody -- please just get 50% plus one tonight. Otherwise, like the folktale of the political consultant who comes out of his hole on election day but doesn't see his shadow (that's how the story goes, right?) we have five more months of campaigning.

But it's looking grim in these early hours. With a still-paltry 1.35% of precincts reporting, Mark Ridley-Thomas has a comfortable lead over Bernard C. Parks in the race for Los Angeles county supervisor in the Second District. But it's not comfortable enough. Ridley-Thomas has 47.12% of the vote to Parks' 35.57%, but he needs 50% to avoid a runoff.

That might be tough. There are seven other candidates in this race, and even if none of them captures more than a few thousand votes, it could be enough to prevent anyone getting a majority. As it stands now, even Morris "Big Money" Griffin, the man who came up with the idea of an "ethnic lottery" so that winnings would only go to people of the same ethnic group as those who bought tickets, has 2% of the early vote.

So if the campaign ending now was all about Ridley-Thomas and Parks, the next five months will be, well, more Ridley-Thomas and Parks.

It's that way in any non-partisan race with more than two candidates. There will likely be at least a couple judicial runoffs in November.

It's a good opportunity for the New America Foundation to move forward with its plan for instant runoff voting, in which the runoff takes place simultaneously with the election. San Francisco currently uses IRV, as the insiders call it. Hear KPCC's Frank Stoltze report on New America's presentation yesterday at Los Angeles City Hall.

By the way, this 50% plus one issue doesn't apply to partisan primaries, like state Senate and Assembly. A Democrat just needs one more vote than his or her competitors -- same for Republicans -- to win the primary. There is a general election between party winners in November, but most districts are virtually owned by one party or the other, so it's really all being decided today.

The Hispanic Journal asks, can fences be built without undocumented laborers? The not-so-shocking conclusion:

The irony is not lost on businesses that have come to rely heavily on foreign-born and Hispanic workers to fill vacancies left by a shrinking domestic labor pool.

"Is it possible to construct a wall without undocumented workers?" asked Perry Vaughn, executive director of the Rio Grande Valley Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America. "It's probably borderline impossible to be honest with you."

In recent years, the construction industry has seen a dramatic increase in undocumented foreign-born Hispanic workers, according to a Pew Hispanic report published in 2007.

Based on information collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, the report also found that foreign-born workers held one in five construction jobs in 2006.

Is this good news for immigrants and fuel for immigration reform activists? Maybe not. The real-estate slump means the construction business itself has been crumbling, so those skilled workers, American citizens or not, are probably hurting as well. Business Intelligence points out that for construction companies — especially small ones — it's far cheaper to hire "independent contractors" than it is to deal with full-time employees with salaries and healthcare.

Scott Morrisey owns Red Line Walls Systems, a commercial drywall and metal-stud installer in Leominster, Mass. "Our company has prided itself on its ability to provide good jobs at good wages and a generous benefits package," he said. But that policy comes with a price. Morrisey estimates that providing those benefits, plus paying Social Security, Medicare, and workman's compensation and unemployment insurance adds 48 cents to every dollar of a contract bid.

Could the border wall itself become part of the fight over American jobs and immigrant laborers' rights? It may not be ironic, but it's apt.

You will be propositioned at least eight times on November 4, so you might want to carry a can of mace. Oh, and you'll be needing your wallet, as well.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today that she has certified four new ballot measures for the presidential ballot. There's one (number five) to revamp sentencing for drug and other nonviolent offenders; it would cost more than $1 billion a year. Ah, but it would also save more than $1 billion a year. Or so the attorney general speculates.

And there's measure number six, state Sen. George Runner's anti-gang initiative. It would increase penalties for some crimes, and deny bail to illegal immigrants who also are members of gangs. This one would run the state about half a billion dollars a year, not including the extra costs for county jails, prosecutors, etc. Just a quick reminder: the state will likely have to add $7 billion to the $17.2 billion deficit that (today, anyway) already is going to mean deep cuts and/or tax increases. Why? We already can't manage our overcrowded prisons, and an overseer appointed by the federal court is empowered to take that $7 billion off the top of the state treasury. So how are we going to pay up? A bond -- a ballot measure -- is expected to come before voters. In November. So make that nine propositions. Now where were we?

Oh, yeah, number seven: A renewable energy mandate. It would require utilities to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. And 40% by 2020. And 50% by 2025. This one would cost a relatively paltry $3.4 million a year, paid for by fees. But rate payers would get off cheap, because it would require all the costs to be borne by fat-cat utility executives! OK, just kidding about that last part.

Number eight: You were expecting this one -- it would amend the state constitution to provide that the only kind of "marriage" recognized in California is one between a man and a woman. Cost: nothing! Except our humanity. Come to think of it, both sides will probably make that argument.

Did I say nine? Make that 10. In addition to the likely prison bond, there is also a very likely redistricting revamp. Also bubbling under: a victims' rights initiative and an alternative fuels bond. So make that 12 ballot measures.

In case you forgot, measures one through four deal with a high-speed rail bond, a humane treatment of farm animals law, a children's hospital bond, and parental notification for minors' abortions.

But that's just State of California. The City of Los Angeles may have a parcel tax for anti-gang programs and an instant-runoff voting measure. The county and/or the city may have a transportation tax. The deadline for the city to act is July 2, so in theory we could get even more.

If you're keeping track -- and of course you are -- you'll find conflicting theories about What It All Means. Democrats will come out in droves to vote for president, so now is the time to get a new tax on the ballot. Or, Republicans and John McCain have an outside shot at California's electoral vote, so now is the time for a law-and-order measure, abortion notification and anti-gay-marriage to keep their interest up.

Get ready for fund-raising pitches. Wealthy Republicans, expect to be asked to pay out for those three conservative measures just mentioned. High-flying Democrats, plan to be called to help fund the sentencing, renewable energy and farm animals initiatives.

If campaign consulting firms and the companies that produce political mail were publicly traded, brokers would be recommending a strong "buy" order right about now. Alas, they're not publicly traded. Yet.

It's a California phenomenon more predictable than earthquake, drought or wildfire: a ballot measure to require parental notification, or some kind of emergency waiver, or both, before a minor girl can get an abortion.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced today that she has certified a parental notification initiative for the Nov. 4 presidential ballot. Here it is:

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY.  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse reported, an adult family member.  Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.  Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.  Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.  Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.  Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.  Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced.  Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst  and  Director  of  Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

So -- is the parental notification measure, together with a (likely) referendum asking Californians to overturn the state Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage, going to draw enough voters to give John McCain a good shot at the state's electoral vote? Or will enthusiasm over Barack Obama -- OK, or Hillary Clinton, it's still technically possible -- be enough to help kill both ballot measures? Things are getting interesting.

Californians defeated parental consent or notification for abortion measures in 2005 (Proposition 73) and 2006 (Proposition 85). I guess we had last year off for good behavior.

Already on the November ballot are a bond measure for a high-speed rail system, a children's hospital bond, and an initiative to require better treatment of farm animals. Others you can expect: The same-sex marriage referendum; at least one redistricting reform; a prison bond; perhaps a legislative foster-care funding measure; and those are just the state measures. Check Bowen's office for details. Oh, yeah, we're also electing a president that day.

Get up to date on all things election -- for November, for next Tuesday, for next March -- at Vote-o-rama.

Last week's Dust-Up on the future of gay marriage drew many comments from three groups of objectors to the California Supreme Court's ending of the ban on same-sex marriage: Those who quoted Bible passages, those who suggested people start marrying their pets, and those outraged that the court had subverted "the will of the people." Glen Lavy made the case for the people's will on Day 1 of the weeklong debate, though many commenters brought up the counterexample of Jim Crow.

But opponents of gay marriage could be finding themselves on the wrong side of vox populi. According to a Field Poll released yesterday, a majority of Californians now favor giving rights to same-sex couples — and oppose a ban on gay marriage. A Times/KTLA survey conducted earlier this month suggested a somewhat different political climate, but if the will of these "people" we keep hearing about is in fact shifting, that would be bad news for opponents, who are looking to put another ban on the November ballot.

The Sacramento Bee points to explanations for this dramatic shift in opinion, and an LA Times profile on conservative Chief Justice Ronald M. George helps explain what swayed the court:

... as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

Tim Rutten cites the rising tide of the youth vote, drawn away from their iPods by the baritone of Barack Obama. Perhaps, in a very race-conscious political season, the comparisons to the state court's ruling 60 years ago striking down laws banning interracial marriage — a decision in direct conflict with popular opinion — had a hand in it.

What do you think caused the shift? Post your thoughts below. And, just to see how Opinion L.A. readers break down:

Top of the Ticket is scratching its head today at John McCain's appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and it's no surprise. In one of the more counterintuitive TV interviews of the political race thus far — including Hillary Clinton's tete-a-tete with FOX News' Bill O'Reilly — the two discussed President Bush's political radioactivity, McCain's reaction to the California Supreme Court ruling striking down the statewide ban on gay marriage, and Ellen's own nuptials to Portia de Rossi this summer. It was a cordial conversation, but at the end of it you've still got to wonder, what was going on in McCain's brain? You tell us:

You be the judge. Got another theory? Post it below. And for more lively debate about the future of same-sex marriage, check out this week's Dust-Up and join in the discussion.

Joel Stein gets insider tips from paparazzo Garry Sun on how to avoid celebrity snappers, and "About Alice" author Calvin Trillin extolls the virtues of governing with eloquence. Ronald Brownstein examines John McCain's healthcare plans, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom celebrates the California Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage:

The court's ruling affirms the very best of what California represents: our long-standing commitment to equality and justice.

It was 60 years ago that the state Supreme Court ruled in Perez vs. Sharp that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional -- 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court would come to the same conclusion in Loving vs. Virginia. So in February 2004, when I ordered San Francisco's county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it was with full recognition that as goes California, so goes the nation.

This is a historic moment for California and our country. We have taken an irrevocable step toward resolving one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation.

The editorial board also cheers on the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, and batters Broadcom over its deceptive tactics in backdating stock options. The board also mourns for the revamped GI Bill, caught in congressional cross-fire:

College is the essential ticket to upward mobility, and who more deserves a chance at that than the young men and women who volunteered for military service in wartime? The post-World War II experience shows that educating them is good public policy as well. First, it would boost military morale and the quality of recruits -- even though the military worries that it could hurt retention. Second, the investment in education is likely to pay for itself many times over as veterans join the workforce at higher pay rates.

Readers react to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plans to balance the budget. Patrick Veesart writes:

The governor wants to close the deficit by borrowing against the lottery -- the stupid tax -- or increasing the sales tax. Either way, the budget is balanced on the backs of those who can least afford it. Why am I not surprised?

*Photo: Liz Mangelsdorf / San Francisco Chronicle

Not white and black, or red and blue ... Given how well their campaign slogans mesh together, it's no wonder John Edwards put his defunct catchphrase to good use and backed Barack Obama for president.

The Obama campaign has turned big-name endorsements into an art, revealing a few key supporters every time Hillary Clinton's fortunes seem to be on the rise. Edwards' announcement is no exception — Clinton just swept the West Virginia primary, and according to ABC's Political Radar, had been planning some key fundraisers over the next few days. In addition to hitting her debt-ridden pocketbook, the votes Obama will likely receive from Edwards delegates more than offset the pledged delegates she won last night.

It's not just delegates: As the Radar points out, the move was "a dramatic attempt by the Obama campaign to answer concerns regarding Obama's appeal to working-class voters." The Wall Street Journal's Political Wire sneers:

Edwards could give a boost to Obama’s candidacy by attracting the exact sort of voter that has been Clinton’s strength — white, working-class voters from rust-belt states who are drawn to a populist political philosophy. ...

People close to Edwards have said that he sees deep flaws in both Clinton and Obama. He thinks Obama lacks the fire to wage war against special interests in Washington, and objects that Clinton takes money from lobbyists and is part of the inside-the-beltway aristocracy, which he considers to be the problem with American politics.

If you're looking for hard numbers, NPR points out that 7% of the West Virginia vote went to the former vice presidential candidate, even though he's no longer running. And, at a point when Obama is campaigning against John McCain rather than against Clinton, Edwards might help him finally close the deal — or end the agony, as The Washington Post's The Fix observes:

Edwards is widely seen as one of the major party figures who had remained on the sidelines in the race between Clinton and Obama. That he has stepped in to the fray in hopes of, perhaps, bringing this race to an end should send a powerful signal to undecided superdelegates about the direction of the contest. 

Edwards is the picture of modesty about the power of his endorsement in this MSNBC interview, but you have to wonder about the timing on his end: Is he late to the party or the crucial tiebreaker? Is this a bid for the vice presidency? They'd certainly make a cute ticket.

The Moderate Voice isn't enamored, though. They have a thing or two to say about unifying the party:

If the endorsement is meant to show solidarity by one party member toward one of the candidates, that is a fait acoompli. Unifying the party at this point is likely premature. Unifying isnt done by one person saying ‘unify now.’ It is a far more many layered process that includes more meeting and greeting with many groups and people. That would be later. Not now.

Slate's Trailhead blog, however, says Edward's swing Obama-ward "isn’t the last round of battle; it’s the first round of cleanup":

Enter John Edwards. By endorsing Obama now, Edwards isn’t handing him the nomination. He’s minimizing the damage wrought upon the all-but-inevitable nominee. Clinton insists a drawn-out election isn’t hurting the party. But it is clearly exposing huge holes in each candidate’s armor. By weighing in now, Edwards is reassuring Democrats—and perhaps telegraphing to Kentucky voters—that Obama is a safe choice.

John Edwards: Kingmaker? Deal-closer? Irrelevant? VP material? Post your take below. Also, check out Google's quotes page to judge if Edwards let the cat out of the bag days ago.

Incoming University of California President Mark Yudof hasn't even settled into his office yet, and already the university's 2006 pay scandal is coming back to haunt him. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote yesterday about costly repairs for the university's presidential residence, and Contra Costa Times columnist Daniel Boreinstein pointed out last month that the university lowballed Yudof's compensation (a mere $828,000). The real figure, he said, would catapault Yudof to the top of the best paid university leaders:

The more accurate numbers: During his first year at UC, Yudof will receive $924,642 in salary, contributions to his retirement plans and car allowance, compared with his $832,560 in compensation at Texas.

University officials knew that the price for Yudof would raise concerns, especially considering he will receive about 76 percent more than ... outgoing President Robert Dynes.

UC Board of Regents chair Richard Blum (and the Los Angeles Times editorial board) call it a bargain, however. The departing University of Texas head is open to bonding with Gov. Schwarzenegger over a smoke in the governor's cigar tent, according to an interview with the Austin American-Statesman. He also hits the major talking points in today's clearly charmed San Francisco Chronicle:

He chews on a fat cigar and makes jokes about his sparse hair. He sports the burnt orange ties of his employer, the University of Texas, during trips to UC's Oakland headquarters and sucks down Coca-Cola Zero like he's in the Texas heat.

But behind his down-home manner is a man brought in to change the 10-campus university system to its very core.

Cue dramatic music!

Granted, state officials and the media are probably just happy to kick Dynes out the door, but it'll be interesting to see whether Yudof takes advantage all the good karma they're lavishing on him. Let's hope he means what he says about improving state support for the university -- and doesn't mention tuition deregulation.

Immigration reform may be down and out, but it doesn't mean Congress can't agree on important immigration issues — such as ensuring that supermodels, singers and athletes have an easier time getting into the United States. From Sunday's L.A. Times:

Even in polarized Washington, Democrats and Republicans can appreciate immigrants who throw a fast pitch, have a beautiful face or sing a catchy song. Bills to make it easier for athletes, fashion models and performers, such as British singer Amy Winehouse, to work in the United States have enthusiastic support, even from some of the most hard-nosed immigration critics.

Yep, this is what immigration legislation has been reduced to in the name of progress. Not that I'm complaining — a little reform is better than none at all, right?

The legislation does deal with a more pressing problem: Many models have to apply for an H-1B skilled worker visa. This further limits the number of those priceless documents available to tech companies, which face a desperate annual scramble for international talent. But there is a solution in the making:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) proposed a solution that could address Silicon Valley's hunger for skilled foreigners and benefit his city's fashion industry. His bill would create a new category for those models, probably limited to about 1,000 five-year visas, and would free up H-1B visas for more engineers. 

Ranking subcommittee member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) had something to say about that:

He said he could picture Weiner (who is single, handsome and 43) "in a posh downtown New York City hotel celebrating the passage of this bill surrounded by hundreds of energized, wildly ecstatic fashion models. And you know for a fact he's going to have an annual celebration. It's almost too much to bear."

Smith paused. "But not too much to oppose the bill."

Here's one encouraging development I came across while looking into the Vermont/Manchester project: There is in fact some fine dining coming to the area, albeit not at the corner in question and not as part of any government-guided project. On the site of the legendary Kite Restaurant on the 9100 block of South Vermont Ave., a Waffle Factory restaurant is set to open within the next two weeks. 

Waffle Factory is the brainchild of Robert Whitfield and Cassie Lowe.* Lowe is seen here on a Saturday evening spent getting the place into final order. I followed this development at a distance as Lowe and his partner Robert Whitfield came close to abandoning the deal for lack of funding. They ended up closing the financing gap and, based on the work going on in the interior, it looks like the heavy lifting is already done.

The Waffle Factory, a prime example of the kind of retail that is at the center of South L.A. foment, is located on unincorporated county land and thus is not the kind of project that would involve an organization like the Community Redevelopment Agency. In fact, if you're looking to make a case against public subsidies for development, this is a pretty good one: The founders sought money from various sources but ended up paying for it out of pocket. That may cast some uncertainty on the business: Lowe expects to pay off all his loans on the place within 10 days of opening, while Whitfield jokes that his car's about to be repossessed.

The bottom line is that this project is actually being completed, in contrast to visionary projects that involve buy-in from multiple parties, public funding or tax breaks, alphabet-soup agencies, and so on. If even 25% of the people who have told me the Vermont corridor lacks decent sit-down dining are willing to back that claim up with their disposable dollars, the Waffle Factory could make a fortune.

There's a paradox in South L.A. retail campaigning: On the one hand, proponents of better businesses say the neighborhood has more disposable income than squeamish retail chains and shy lending institutions believe, but on the other, the default belief seems to be that anybody who builds in the area needs all manner of breaks, subsidies and guarantees because they're building in a distressed area. Whitfield and Lowe are betting on the former claim. The menu includes both quick takes ($7.99 for an everything burger)* to more luxurious eat-in stuff (a red-meat dinner for less than $16*). Following are some pictures of the place:   

Both liberal and conservative Catholics are spinning Pope Benedict XVI’s  visit to America and he hasn’t even landed.

The website of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good offers a pre-visit briefing for journalists (listen for my question) featuring several liberal Catholic luminaries, including Father Thomas Reese, the deposed editor of the Jesuit magazine America. Commonweal magazine on its Website recycles a golden oldie, an analysis of Joseph Ratzinger's theological evolution.

On the right side of the nave, the conservative  Cardinal Newman Society — "dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America’s 224 Catholic colleges and universities" — offers a series of essays looking forward to the pope’s speech on Catholic education, which, depending on whom you believe, will either be an anathema against Catholic colleges that play host to pro-choice speakers and "The Vagina Monologues" or a gentle reminder that colleges should retain their Catholic identity.

A non-ideological but indispensable source for followers of the pope’s visit is Rocco Palmo’s Whispers in the Loggia. And  those who share my eccentric  interest in the pope as a fashion trend-setter can keep up with the pope’s wardrobe at the site of the New Liturgical Movement, which also offers (with disapproval) a snippet from a song you’re not likely to hear the U.S. Marine Corps Band play when the pope visits President Bush:

Long live the Pope His praises sound again and yet again
His rule is over space and time His throne the hearts of men
All hail the Shepherd King of Rome The theme of loving song
Let all the earth in glory sing And heav’n the strain prolong.

I think even the pope would prefer "Kumbaya."

This just in: The White House website has provided the textof the Vatican National Anthem.

Responding to my Sunday Opinion piece about Pope Benedict's predilection for super-tall miters and elaborate pre-Vatican II vestments, a liturgy buff questions whether Americans will see many of the pope's new clothes during his visit here. "I wouldn't expect to see anything in terms of the USA," he wrote, "as the vestment selection is typically picked by those hosting the pope. Often times as well, these are specially commissioned by the host country for the larger masses as well."

We'll see whether Benedict's new tradition-minded fashion guru allows local practice to trump the pope's preferences. It will be interesting to see if the pope reverts to the short Gothic miter favored by the archbishop of Washington. Meanwhile, the pope seems to have swapped the modernistic pastoral staff showing Jesus' Crucifixion for a more robust model.

Long before he was identified as a mouthpiece for Bill Cinton, James Carville was (in)famous in my home state of Pennsylvania for the “guru ad,” a 1986 campaign commercial for the original Bob Casey  that savaged Casey’s Republican opponent for governor, Bill Scranton III, as a  follower of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The ad, which showed the image of a younger, long-haired Scranton to the sinister accompaniment of sitar music, was aired only in the conservative midsection of Pennsylvania and not in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia.  Casey won.

I thought of the guru ad the other day when The Politico recycled, and desconstructed, a famous Carville exercise in political geograophy. I always thought Carville had described the Keystone State as “Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Mississippi in the middle.” But The Politico’s version was more parochial still: “Carville described the state as Paoli (a suburb of Philadelphia) and Penn Hills (a suburb of Pittsburgh) with Alabama in between.”

Alabama, Mississippi — what’s the difference? Either way, Carville was equating my native state’s Bible Belt — and receptive audience for guru-bashing ads — as Hicksville, a point that sticks in the craw of some Southerners.

I’ve been to both Penn Hills and Paoli, and they are as different from each other as either is from Pottsville, Pa. — or Punxatawney, of “Groundhog Day” fame. Pennsylvania is a big place, and a diverse one, which is why Carville’s caricature was onto something in its crude way.

Pennsylvania is enjoying its day in the political sun now that — for the first  time in my career as a journalist — its presidential primary is actually the object of national attention. If nothing else, this unaccustomed attention will mean some journalistic pilgrimages to the cheesesteak emporiums of Philadelphia, the shot-and-a-beer bars of Pittsburgh and the pecan farms — I mean pretzel factories — of Hanover.

The state Supreme Court is in Los Angeles this afternoon to consider this question: How blatantly does a prosecutor have to exploit a case for big Hollywood or book bucks before the case is compromised?

The better known of the two cases focuses on the movie "Alpha Dog" and the real-life prosecution of Jesse James Hollywood in the kidnapping and killing of Nicholas Markowitz. Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Ronald J. Zonen, who was assigned to prosecute Hollywood, also served as an unpaid consultant to writer/director Nick Cassavetes in the making of the film. In October 2006, an appeals court ruled that Zonen had created a conflict of interest that should prevent him from proceeding with the case.

Then there is the "Intoxicating Agent" case, in which Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley wrote a book describing the prosecution of a man for drugging and sexually assaulting his victim. She happened to be prosecuting, at the time, a man for drugging and sexually assaulting his victim. The supposedly fictional heroine is prosecutor Joyce, uh, no, sorry -- Jordan Danner. The appeals court ruled that Dudley, like Zonen, had compromised her ability to continue prosecuting the case.

You know what they say about Santa Barbara prosecutors. What they really want to be is waiters and waitresses in Los Angeles...so they can say that what they really want to be is screenwriters.

Haraguchi v. Superior Court -- that's Dudley's case -- and Hollywood v. Superior Court are both scheduled for oral arguments at 1:30 p.m. at the Reagan State Building at 300 S. Spring St. in downtown Los Angeles.

USA Today has full-cast dossiers on the new crew of the starship Enterprise. As is usually the case with these new-cast spreads, the Star Trek XI feature looks to me pretty much like a deck of SAG trading cards; I recognize only two of the people involved. Of those two, one choice — Simon Pegg as Engineer Scott — is nothing less than inspired. I'm not as encouraged by Lt. Uhura choice Zoë Saldana, who is button-cute but has a pretty serious known Star Trek deficiency that only YouTube commenter LMUli and I appear to have noticed.

In the Steven Spielberg joint The Terminal Saldana plays a CIS officer who is secretly a Star Trek fan. It's a fine plot device, but as you can see from this clip, when called upon to do the nearly universally recognized Vulcan "Live Long and Prosper" salute, she completely screws it up! I suppose this problem could be spun in Trek XI into a variation on the hoary old joke about how humans have a hard time making the Vulcan (actually rabbinical) hand gesture. In any event, kudos to Saldana's agent.

This of course is not the end of the worries. There's the odd-number curse to consider. And this teaser trailer is a bit too fond of the dark-n-edgy trend for my taste: If anything needs to be recovered from the original Trek, it's the bright lighting, high-key color schemes and spare set decoration that make so much color TV from the sixties still so delightful to watch. Finally, having lived next door to Paramount pictures for a year and a half, I'm convinced there's nothing The House Popeye Built can fail to ruin. It's ominous that nobody on the mountaintop has thought to roll out the obvious tagline: "This is your father's Star Trek!" And if you really want to fear for the future of the Federation, hop on over to Trekkies Against Torture and sign up!

Gregory Rodriguez advises Barack Obama to start wearing his patriotism on his sleeve -- or on his lapel -- and American University law professor Nancy D. Polikoff calls for laws to recognize the whole spectrum of family structures, whether gay or straight, married or unmarried. Civil rights lawyer Peggy Garrity assesses the damage that tort reform has caused the justice system:

A second woman is likely to face the same fate in the same court, in a suit alleging that she was drugged and brutally gang-raped by co-workers in Iraq and then held incommunicado, without food or water, in a shipping container by the same employer.... Adding insult to injury, the rape kit used by a military doctor in examining the victim was reportedly handed over to Halliburton/KBR, and doctor's notes and photos of her bruises are missing.

There was no criminal prosecution of the alleged perpetrators because they worked for a defense contractor, which is exempt from criminal sanctions under an order enacted by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq during L. Paul Bremer III's tenure as its administrator.

That decision was outrageous enough. But now the Texas court ruling appears to say that because of the arbitration clause, these women have no standing in a U.S. civil court either.

In the next installment of its series "The Great Thirst," the editorial board predicts plans for a peripheral canal will be a win-win in the water wars between Northern and Southern California. The board also kicks off the one-year countdown to round one of Los Angeles' city elections, and calls out John McCain and Barack Obama for inching away from their commitment to public funds:

[W]ith his new front-runner status -- and facing the prospect of raising more private money than McCain in a general election -- Obama has begun to waver. Asked in the last Democratic debate if he was waffling on a promise to accept public financing, he dodged, saying that, if nominated, he wants to "sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides." That sounds like the "old politics" that Obama inveighs against.

Both candidates should get over their buyer's remorse. What they gain by abandoning public financing, they may lose in credibility.

Readers write requiems for Dutton's books, set to close at the end of April. "With the imminent passing of Dutton's books," mourns Burt Prelutsky, "I feel as if I am on the verge of losing a relative. That is, a relative I actually like."

When you're looking for creative ways to deal with failing schools and budget cuts ... bring in a tank! From the Sacramento Bee:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a new rewards program for schoolkids: Stay in school, take a tank for a spin.

The Republican governor is bringing home an Austrian army tank he loaned the Motts Military Museum in Columbus, Ohio, and he said Wednesday he plans to use it to drive around inner-city children who do well in school, say "no" to drugs and avoid gangs in the Los Angeles area.

Standing outside the Northwood Elementary School in North Sacramento, where he promoted his plan to assist 97 troubled school districts, Schwarzenegger said he plans to take kids for a ride one day a month.

Though the future looks bleak, I now have newfound hope for the Year of Education. And my little brother will be psyched.

For all you collectors out there, a prized piece of Fidel Castro memorabilia is going on the auction block: a signed map of the failed battle plan to overthrow Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1953. If you don't think there's a market for commie collectables, think again: A lock of Che Guevara's hair sold for more than $100,000 last October.

Granted, Che had a lot going for him in the cultural-icon market that Fidel lacks -- a romantic cause, a life tragically cut short, latin hottie Gael Garcia Bernal playing him in The Motorcycle Diaries. And a killer marketing campaign. Seriously, who doesn't own a Che t-shirt?

Still, nothing says bygone like an auction, and the autographed map is an indication that Americans are ready to assign Fidel Castro to his proper place in 20th-century political and cultural history. Judging by his announced retirement today, Fidel is getting there, too -- even if he is holding on to his opinion column in the state newspaper. And while the presidential hopefuls can't seem to get over their Cuba complex, they'll get the hint once the Antiques Roadshow hits post-Fidel Florida.

Take heart, Los Angeles — we're not the only American metropolis whose major airport is pitifully incapable of handling the city it serves. Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport may soon join our own humble facility in that category:

Las Vegas's chance for a new boom may be limited by its airport, which is busting at the seams even before the addition over the next four years of around 40,000 new hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip, Deutsche Bank analyst Bill Lerner said on Tuesday.

To fill those rooms, nearly all of which are aimed at upscale customers, the gambling center will need to attract 75 percent more visitors between now and 2012, he said at the Reuters Travel and Leisure Summit in Los Angeles.

That will be "difficult to impossible to achieve" given constraints on transport infrastructure, including McCarran

The analyst said McCarran will likely be able to handle normal visitation growth for a couple of years, but plans for a new airport are still in the works and it would not come on line before 2017 at the earliest.

I have to admit — given how regularly Angelenos are (correctly) reminded of what a disgrace LAX is, it's satisfying to see another city be the focus of your-airport-sucks news coverage, if only for a few days. Doubtless it'll be a while before McCarran gets so cramped that Vegas-goers from L.A. opt instead for the six-hour crawl through the Inland Empire and up I-15.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's flirtation with a presidential bid has had a dreamy-eyed media playing effeuiller la marguerite. He'll run! He won't. He'll run! He won't. Will he?

But that daisy may have already wilted under the California sun. According to the Field Poll, one quarter of the state's registered voters said they'd consider voting for Bloomberg — but two thirds said they'd definitely not.

Why so disenchanted, and so soon? It may be that Bloomberg inadvertently fell into the Thompson trap, by not entering early enough to capture the public's imagination. And left-leaning Californians (including the ever-growing population of decline-to-staters) might feel their choices among the Dems are more than ample, thanks all the same.

Unfortunately for a Bloomberg bid, politics this season has been fun. At Monday's Democratic debate in South Carolina, the audience gasped, laughed or cheered at nearly every jibe the candidates threw at one another. No matter how they felt about each contender, they weren't going to let favoritism get in the way of having a good time.

If Bloomberg was ever planning to run, he was probably looking to walk into a race that needed a little shaking up. But starting with Iowa and New Hampshire, the ground has shifted so often that it's hard to believe the mayor could ever get solid footing on his own.   

I'm trying to figure out what Mike Huckabee's appearance on the Colbert Report was supposed to accomplish -- spending time with a satire talk show host who tried to run in a Democratic primary and makes fun of conservatives? Maybe he's trying steal away some independents from John McCain's fanbase. Or maybe he just likes breaking picket lines around talk shows.

Huckabee's performance got mixed reviews:

Buzzflash thinks "he might make a decent late-night host." Jonathan Adler at the National Review Online agrees. While he "heard Laura Ingraham griping about Huckabee's appearance on the Colbert Report last night,"

I caught the show, and I had a different take.  The Huckster's Colbert appearance highlighted many of the things that have made him popular. He is extremely likable in such low pressure settings. He has a good sense of humor and comic timing, and it served him well in his back and forth with Colbert. Being an anti-Huck guy, I would have liked him to fall flat, but he didn't.

The New York Times Caucus blog was a little more skeptical:

There is a cardinal rule to being a guest on “The Colbert Report”: Never, ever, ever try to be the funny one. That’s Mr. Colbert’s job. If you break that rule, chances are you will look 1) a lot less clever than he does and 2) like you’re trying too hard.

Last night, Mike Huckabee broke the rule. Several times. Judge for yourself how it worked out. And train your eyes on Mr. Huckabee as he attempts to keep a straight face.

I'm leaning toward the Caucus' view: The former governor from Arkansas tried to start off the funny by praising the "Colbert bump" (which he said came from the last time he appeared on the show) and almost lost it in the process with the Huckaburger recipe. And it took him a split-second too long to react to Colbert's query: "Are we the candidates who think that the devil and Jesus were brothers?"

But I have to admit, it did make me laugh -- though apparently not as much as it did the Oregonian's Idiot Box blog, which called it "brilliant":

I think his visits to the Report really could help get Huckabee on the Republican ticket, as strange and unlikely as that seems. But then will he actually ask Stephen to be his running mate?

A Huckabee-Colbert ticket ... Chuck Norris must be crying into his pillow right now.

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks California's a pretty big deal this election season. With Iowa and New Hampshire out of the way, papers from around the state (and even one in the U.K.) are looking hopefully for a starring role on Super Tuesday. Here's a roundup:

"California mail-in voters a primary target," The Times punned yesterday.

The Sacramento Bee eyes Golden State independents, who could make or break the Democrats this year:

A twist in California this year will allow the state's "decline-to-state" voters to cast ballots for Democratic Party candidates in the state's Feb. 5 primary – but not for Republicans.

This could make a difference. In New Hampshire on Tuesday, analysts said nonpartisan voters significantly boosted the tallies of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. There, independents can vote for candidates of either party.

"But," today's L.A Times reports, "some strategists believe California's Latino voters could boost Clinton, who is more popular in that group than Obama."

That's good news for Clinton, who may have to place a lot of her eggs in California's basket. According to the Huffington Post:

A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.

At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.

Panicking about Obama's head start with the mail-in crowd?

The San Francisco Chronicle remarks on how the GOP race is shaping up:

At this rate, California Republicans - and only Republicans because those not registered with the GOP are forbidden from voting in the state's primary - will have the chance to cast the decisive vote to crown the party's nominee.

"California will be voting before the nominee is decided," said California Republican Party chair Ron Nehring.

Only two Republican campaigns - Giuliani's and Romney's - have organizations of any size in California. And analysts said McCain had to win New Hampshire to generate enough buzz - and the ensuing campaign donations - to allow him to continue. [...]

McCain won't be able to attract independent voters, or those who register as "decline-to-state" in California. They're not allowed to cast Republican ballots in the state.

Even Britain's Guardian weighs in on the Golden State:

For many Californians, the unusually early date for the primary corrects what they see as a historical wrong: the clout of the "pipsqueak states" over the might of California.

While California has the largest population and the highest number of delegates of any state, it has in the recent past been reduced to the role of bystander as smaller, early-voting states have decided the destiny of the presidency.

To make matters worse, California is also the bankroller of the campaigns, the place where chequebooks are open and supporters ready to endorse with money, not just kind words.

But not this time.

Damn right.

The Times' editorial board wraps up its American Values series with 'The blessings of liberty':

The Bush administration soon will be consigned to history, and not a moment too soon. The end of this cynical, mean-spirited presidency provides the opportunity for a renewal of generosity and hope, for a widening of political and cultural horizons, for a return to strength tempered by humility, for an era of decency and mutual respect rather than the blunt exercise of force.

That will be the mission of the next president.

The board also raises an eyebrow at a lawsuit filed by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. seeking to block the publication of the "Harry Potter Lexicon."

The Opinion page caps off 2007 with a quiz on the year's "hard-to-forget moments," while columnist Joel Stein looks into his Magic 8 Ball and makes some predictions for next year. Under "Presidential election":

Barack Obama wins the general election but does not carry the Northeast, due to New Englanders' ingreasingly implausible excuse, "It's not that we're racist; it's just that the South would never elect a black person."

Readers weigh in on oil and green energy, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's hunting prowess and the billion-dollar child-support suit against Donald L. Bren. Snarks John Rabe,

I hereby publicly offer to be adopted by Bren. For a monthly remittance of $1,000, I promise to buy him one tie on Father's day, one pair of slippers and/or a robe at Christmas, and one joke card on his birthday....

For my part, the contract will be considered null and void if I get a DUI, disparage Bren in public or cause the police to be called to a noisy beach-house party.

Last week, atheist Christopher Hitchens succintly (if crudely) told GOP candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon, that he has some explaining to do about his adherence to Christianity's exotic cousin:

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

Ask and ye shall receive, Chris. Tomorrow, in what almost everyone but the Mormon candidate himself is billing as the next "JFK speech," Romney will discuss "Faith in America" at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. Romney denies that questions over his faith prompted his address, a contention many people aren't buying considering the candidate's values-based conservative platform aimed at evangelical Christians. Unfortunately for Romney, Christianity and Mormonism are different beliefs, and hard-line evangelicals consider the Joseph Smith-inspired religion a freakish cult.

But if Romney's beliefs are so exotic that they demand an explanation, then each candidate who professes a religious faith — especially Christianity — should justify it. After all, any belief in the supernatural is just as nutty — and, sometimes, downright troubling — as the next, especially if the adherent aspires to become the world's most powerful person.

Photo credit: AP

For an editorial I'm working on I've been learning about the process by which the MTA auctions off its retired buses (don't ask, just be glad you're not me).  My journey of spiritual discovery brought me down to a facility in Long Beach where Ken Porter Auctions at 10:00 am tomorrow will get rid of 55 former Metro buses, plus some non-running, no-provenance relics like the one pictured to the right. The MTA auctions off old buses once or twice every year, and according to the auction company there's a pretty brisk business in such liquidations for various municipalities. I was really struck by this plug-ugly vehicle because its interior is in pretty good shape and it seems like a steal for anybody in the set design or construction business. Isn't there a constant demand for vintage stuff like this in period films? For the prices we're talking about (inside dope is that most or all of tomorrow's inventory will be bought by scrap dealers), it would even be worth it for some high school class to buy this baby, strip off one side and use it as the set to do a Rosa Parks school play.

For that matter, who wouldn't want to buy one of the MTA's own, more recent, orange-and-white diesel gems? (See more details at the Ken Porter site.) My pal at Ken Porter Auctions tells me 44 of these babies have full engines and transmissions and could, in theory, still run. Won't they need a dozen or so buses to trash whenever they get around to making the next Die Hard picture? You could pick up a bunch now and sell them to Fox for a tidy profit! Or just buy a running vehicle, get your bus license, do some smog work and put in a port-a-john, and you've got the ideal traveling home.

Anyway, if you're thinking big or just want to keep me company, show up at 10 tomorrow morning (Wednesday) at 970 W. Chester Pl. Long Beach Ca 90813.

Amazon, that fearsome Internet peddler of all things — particularly all things media — has consistently led the pack in marketing and distributing products, whether it's selling eBooks or digital movies through Amazon Unbox.

But eBooks never really took off, partly because there's never been an appealing reader. Now, according to Larry Magid of the Mercury News, the online store has taken matters into its own hands:

Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos wants it both ways: He wants to change the way we read without making us feel that we have to change the way we read. The manifestation of this lofty goal is the Kindle - the company's first electronic book reader.

Wall Street seems to think Amazon's new venture is a winner, judging by the way the company's stock rose after the announcement. It's not too surprising: The handheld Kindle has a number of advantages over previous attempts. It's not backlit; the battery lasts for days; and it has a built-in receiver that allows you not only to download books but also surf the Web. And of course, choice and cost don't hurt:

...Amazon has something none of the other players can match - the world's largest online bookstore and a powerful position with the publishing community. Its library of 90,000 e-books includes almost all the bestsellers. And, unlike typical e-book pricing, Amazon is selling electronic books at a very reasonable price - $9.99 for most new books and as little as $3 for older titles. I was on the verge of spending $18 for "Boom," Tom Brokaw's new book about the '60s but am instead reading an electronic version that I bought for $9.99.

And the two-ton gorilla lurking around this blogpost: If it ignited a real change for print media, how would the Kindle affect the newspaper industry?

Right now, newspaper readers can be pretty firmly placed into overwhelmingly online consumers, or dogged print readers. There's something to be said for being able to take in a whole page, complete in its design, providing you information you wouldn't necessarily know to look for. Then again, there's also a whole lot going for the efficient, updateable and individually tailored digests you can get from the Web.

If used for newspapers, the Kindle could change that. When you downloaded the day's paper, what would you see? A page from the print edition? The Web-based news feed? Or would it be some hybrid, an apparently print page featuring clickable ads and active links? Nothing so exciting yet, unfortunately. The current format gets lukewarm praise from Newsweek's Steven Levy:

It's also exciting to get a daily dose of The New York Times and other papers. But the interface for newspaper reading is disappointing—you have to painstakingly go through article lists, and often the stories are insufficiently described. Still, getting the Times in one burst on a daily basis, no matter where you are, is closer to getting a hard-copy delivery than picking out articles on the Web, and it costs $13.99 a month, compared with the $50-plus I pay for home delivery. Do the math.

Then again, not much is likely to happen with the price tag sitting at a pretty $399. Granted, Amazon's first run sold out. But if they really want the Kindle to catch fire, they'll market it less as a luxury item and more as a convenience. Intriguing as this new device is, novels will never rival music in sheer sex appeal and consumer attraction. The Kindle is no iPod. It can't rely on the pop-culture-chic to get people to pay up. Though perhaps they can tap into the Prius effect and market it primarily as a paper-saver. Green is the new cool, after all.

Speaking of iPods, they'd better do it fast, before Steve Jobs works out the kinks and makes a real bestseller out of Amazon's idea. As Magid points out, "It wouldn't take too many Apple programmers to turn an iPhone and an iPod into an iReader."

For those of you who think the few dozen 747 jumbo jets that come to Los Angeles International Airport every day are lacking in size, the Texas-size plane from Old Europe will make its second-ever visit to LAX this week. Australian carrier Qantas will land a fully furnished Airbus A380 on Wednesday to conduct a demonstration flight carrying passengers over Southern California later in the week. This time, airport officials will dispose of the pomp and circumstance of last March's A380 visit:

After landing on Runway 25 Left on the south side of LAX, the aircraft will taxi to the Flight Path Learning Center in the LAX Imperial Terminal at 6661 West Imperial Highway. NO ceremony is scheduled for the arrival. This is a media opportunity only.

No parties — and thank God for that. I dropped in on the celebration that accompanied last March's A380 visit, which ended up being a surreal celebration of cognitive dissonance: airport officials on their facility's readiness to handle the massive bird, and Airbus and airline folks on how wonderfully suited and unimposing the 1.2 million-pound A380 would be on airports like LAX. I still remember a few of the more perplexing howlers: L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said that large planes like the A380 are "better for our airports," and Airbus North America Chairman T. Allen McArtor remarked that the A380 was "perfectly designed "for LAX.

At that time last March, not a single gate at LAX could handle such a massive plane — even though the airport has long been recognized as the one that will draw the most A380 traffic in the U.S. On Airbus' end, the celebration was for a plane slated to go into service two years behind schedule. Stripped of the the gushing praise and festivities, all that was left was a plane that symbolized the folly of the pan-European industrial policy and the ill-equipped airport that's an embarrassment to Los Angeles. Click here to read a piece I wrote in March about the experience.

So kudos to LAX for holding off on the champagne and caviar this time around. Perhaps it's a testament to how much more seriously L.A. officials have been handling the airport's shortcomings lately. In fact, the last few months have been the most productive in readying LAX for its role as the A380 hub of the United States. In August, the L.A. City Council OK'd the construction of 10 gates in a brand new concourse that will be designed to handle planes the size of the A380. Breaking ground on gleaming new facility sure beats popping champagne corks while your airport chokes.

As for Wednesday, I'd recommend making the trip to LAX to spot the bird if you have time. For all the headaches it has caused, the A380 is indeed an engineering marvel and magnificent sight. The plane will land on LAX's southernmost runway at 11:45 a.m. Click here for a list of locations that afford decent views of LAX's airfields.

Granted, it's no Super Tuesday — elections are taking place in more than a dozen cities in Los Angeles County, and the most interesting story at the polls is really how dull San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's election day is, given his recent personal scandals. But it marks a countdown to the real deal — November 4, 2008 — when local, state and federal elections all collide and voters have to sort them out on a highly inconvenient weekday.

Speaking of which, why DO we have elections on Tuesday?

That's the question NPR's Alex Cohen seeks to answer. It turns out, ironically, that the day was chosen for practical purposes. Elections couldn't be held on weekends because good Christian folk couldn't work or travel on the Sabbath, and since it could take more than a day to get to the nearest town with a poll, Monday was cutting it too close.

The U.S. government adds,

Lawmakers wanted to prevent Election Day from falling on the first of November for two reasons. First, November 1 is All Saints Day, a day on which Roman Catholics are obligated to attend Mass.

See? Who says this WASPy nation wasn't tolerant of other faiths? Never mind that it was apparently moved to Nov. 2 to be lumped with All Soul's Day.

"Also," — minor detail — "merchants typically balanced the accounts from the preceding month on the first of each month." That makes Nov. 1 one of the few times when politics and money didn't mix.

Of course, with the invention of cars, the weekend restriction has become almost irrelevant. In fact, it's become a hurdle for millions of overworked Americans — which may help to explain at least part of our abysmally low turnout compared to other nations.

Some are trying to take a page out of other countries' playbooks, be it expanding the voting period or holding elections on holidays. Either way, we need a change, since early voting can only do so much, and some question the effectiveness of Vote by Mail. It's likely too late for next year's election day — but perhaps the three main Democratic presidential contenders, all claiming to bring reform to the White House, will do more than just tack it onto their to-do lists.

Tonight, on the CW, the much-hyped Aliens in America — a show about a small-town Wisconsin family saddled with a Pakistani Muslim exchange student — will premier, and whether it’s fresh or a flop, most people have already made up their minds about it.

I think I’ll wait until 8:30 tonight to make a final decision, but that’s not stopping me from Googling all the previews and clips I can, so I’m armed with my own opinion before I ever turn on the TV.

Given the competition, I wouldn’t put it past the CW to go for curiosity over quality. ABC still boasts veteran shows such as Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives, while newcomer Pushing Daisies is racking up the critical accolades. NBC, soaring on the wings of Heroes, is milking the sci-fi cash cow for all it's worth, with a high-tech Monday lineup and amped-up publicity for Bionic Woman. The CW's main draw Gossip Girl, while it's generating major buzz, follows myriad dramas about pampered high school students, and the supernatural draw of Reaper is unlikely to make a dent in NBC's enthusiastically over-the-top lineup. (Several CW affiliates, including KTLA in Los Angeles, are owned by Tribune Company, the parent of the L.A. Times.)

The truth is, comedies involving such racy topics as Muslims (gasp!) generally fall flat, mainly because they’ve invested much in the novelty factor and little in character development or dialogue. The Canadian series Little Mosque on the Prairie suffered from that very affliction: While the pilot brought in 2.1 million viewers, it quickly dropped off to an average of 1.2 million per episode. Don't get me wrong — I enjoy watching Americans display their cultural ignorance as much as the next American, but you can find that theme in just about every other sitcom on the face of the earth.

Perhaps because my parents were immigrants, I’m inherently wary of shows that draw comedic inspiration from cultural mishaps. Invariably, the foreign culture is feebly offered up to the American characters — who, in their endearing ignorance, humorously maul it in the name of cultural acceptance. That always gets a lot of laughs. 

I'll reserve judgment until this evening. Although to be completely honest, I’ll probably just grab snippets of the show in the ad breaks during Heroes.

It’s hard to know what to say about the protesters tree-sitting in an oak grove outside UC Berkeley's Memorial Stadium. Like many of the high-profile conflicts in the city carrying the clogged old heart of the Free Speech Movement, there isn’t a right side and a wrong side—just a whole lot of stupid ones.

There are the protesters, who are eating, sleeping and crapping out of a bunch of trees that the university wants to bulldoze to build a shiny new athletic center (it promises to plant new trees in their place). There’s the city, which decided it wanted in on the action, so it sued the university again—this time in an attempt to stall construction of the center. And then there’s the university, which somehow seemed to think that putting a fence around highly politicized ground would work the second time around.

The university says the fence is meant to protect protesters from football fans, who could stumble upon them during game days. Please. All it did was raise the protest’s physical and political visibility. One human chain-link fence later, even The New York Times is paying attention to this dotty demonstration. 

Officials really should have known installing a fence was politically charged and emotionally explosive — as fellow UC Berkeley alum and Daily Cal veteran Paul Thornton points out, it’s like People’s Park all over again. But if People’s Park was the action-packed, tear-jerking, awe-inspiring blockbuster, this is just the really bad sequel with no plot, no point, no character development — and no extra sex appeal to make up for it.   

Man, I miss Berkeley.

This is absitively posolutely your last chance to vote in the Be Joel Stein contest. Before we call the race for Sam "America's next top mohel" Apple, get in there and make your vote count. And watch this space for Stein's wrapup column and a brief online chat about the whole sad story, both coming Friday.

We're in the home stretch of the Be Joel Stein contest, and turnout's been lower than you'd see in a special election for Maywood commissioner of cat litter disposal. Now's your chance to get behind the hapless Times Friday columnist, pile some more glory on Sam "America's next top mohel" Apple (who is cleaning Stein's clock as of this writing) or vote for any of our underdog finalists. Does Stein stand a chance? Is the bris lobby really that strong? You can make a difference by casting your vote today! And again tomorrow.

Get in there and pull the lever for or against Joel Stein. Be a good Samaritan and take pity on the Times columnist who's getting beaten to a bloody pulp by Sam "America's next top mohel" Apple. Or be a joiner and get in on the Stein beatdown while it's in full gory heat. Either way, cast your vote today!

Joel Stein is laying a major neutron bomb in his effort to replace himself as the L.A. Times' Friday columnist. If you haven't voted today, get in there and vote.

To recap: Stein is trying to figure out whether his column can be done just as well by somebody who writes for food free. Many of you good people sent in Steinian columns to show that it can. Now it's time to vote on the finalists, and after a comfortable few days, during which Stein's control column—an anti-Elmo chestnut from days of yore—vied for first place with Suzanne Robertson's submission "Toddler trauma," there's a new sheriff in town.

Say hello to Sam Apple's "America's next top mohel," which has won more votes than Stein's and Robertson's pieces combined. Is Apple closing in on a solid majority, or is this just some pre-sabbath rally by a rabbinical voting bloc? If you're pro-Stein, he needs your vote in this electoral crisis. If you're anti-Stein, now's your chance join in his public thrashing. And if you're pro-mohel, well, you know that every half-inch matters. No matter where you stand, get in there and vote!

After maintaining a comfortable lead throughout the morning, Joel Stein is hitting the skids in the Be Joel Stein reader poll. His 2006 anti-Elmo chestnut has now dropped to second place among the Stein-essay submissions, thanks to a surge by Suzanne Robertson's "Toddler trauma." Robertson's slender lead could change at any moment, but Stein has a shameful new item to brag about: Even in a "Be Joel Stein" contest, he's coming in second place.

Maybe you're a Stein supporter watching the results with dismay. Maybe you're one of those Stein haters and are gleeful over the columnist's looming debacle. Either way, only a few dozen readers have actually bothered to vote. What are you waiting for? Get in there and put your thumb on the Carr-Benkler wager scale of justice! Vote for Stein, vote for Robertson, vote for third place contestant George Waters or for any of our other finalists. But get in there and vote.

You, the Fabulous Little People, weigh in on recent Opinion Dailies:

Of "Battle Royalty," Jon Healey's savage nightmare journey into the coming internet radio apocalypse, David Young of Wilmington, N.C. writes:

In point of fact, a Happy Meal is only $3.29. 

Seriously, though, Mr. Newhouse seems to ignore the fact that the rates set by a separate CARP for Satellite Radio deemed fair compensation for labels and artists to be just 7.5% of revenue.  By avoiding that little tidbit, Mr. Newhouse seems to be ignoring the fact that as a percentage, webcasters are being asked to pay anywhere from 75% to upwards of 200% of gross revenue in royalties.  Bear in mind that gross revenue has not been adjusted for overhead, operating costs, etc.  So, while what webcasters are being asked to pay may amount to TWO happy meals in terms of actual dollars (per listener, per year), as a percentage of their revenue, it is grossly overreaching….especially when contrasted by what Satellite Radio is required to pay (a mere 7.5% of gross revenues).  There may be issues needing to be addressed by the current business models for Internet Radio…but belittling the plight of current webcasters in such a biased manner is simply asinine, in my view.  The way in which the rates were set for webcasters goes against the very nature of what is fair and just in this country.  If 7.5% of revenue is acceptable to labels and artists for Satellite Radio, it stands to reason that it should also be acceptable for Webcasting.  Why the need for the double standard?

In my point of view, this whole affair basically comes down to an issue of controlling content dispersal on the web.  Right now, the labels don’t control the distribution channels on the web.  By eliminating smaller webcasters, and subjecting larger ones to ever-increasing fees, it seems to me the RIAA and SoundExchange are seeking to regain control of all music distribution.  Were I Pandora, Live365 or other webcasters, I would be charging a “finders-fee” for each and every song that is purchased and downloaded through a link from my service.  It’s only logical that if the labels and artists expect to be paid for use of their music, that a service that directly connects a listener to an online store where that listener can instantly purchase a song should be compensated for providing that service in the first place.

Omaha, Nebraska's own Jim Daskiewicz has had enough:

As a listener fed up with the big entertainment giants, sign me up as fan of niche music.

I'm with the Save Net Radio Coalition.

Note to the big producers, I'm not stealing your stuff, I'm just not interested.  My money goes to the labels and producers that provide music I want to listen to.  And, oh yes, netcasters aren't decreasing my purchases, they are introducing me to new artists who are reaping the benefits.

Related: If you, like David and Jim, have an internet radio jones, you may also want to plug your earphones into this week's Dust-Up between Jay Rosenthal and Kurt Hanson.

Michael McGough's poignant yet bold profile of the junior senator from the Ocean State, "Whitehouse takes Gonzales to the woodshed," draws the following response from Jason Brown in Germany:

Thank you for writing about this.  My grandfather, Martin Rossman, worked at the LA Times for 30 years until approx. 1992, primarily on the Foreign Desk.

I currently live in Germany and follow your paper online everyday.  I was quite pleased when you (finally) changed course on your opinion of the Iraq War.  It was probably illegal and now is only a chance for weapons manufacturers to please stockholders, young kids (both American and Middle Eastern) to die needlessly and a chance for the rest of the world (except for Albania, apparently) to think we are a rogue nation.

Please keep up on the Attorney scandal.  I have been following this case since late January and am convinced that the politicization of our Justice system might be the worst part of the Bush Administration, and that is saying a lot.

Please look more into Debra Yang (former USA in LA) and her apparent 1.5 million signing bonus (like she's Russell Martin on the Dodgers or something) for leaving public life and taking a job at the very law firm who is representing Jerry Lewis, the same man she was investigating before leaving her job.  Was she forced out as well?  Imagine if the law firm was encouraged by the White House to make Yang "an offer she couldn't refuse", 1.5 million bucks and now all her info on the case is perhaps lost because she works for the law firm that represents him.

Please check and see if major investigations in LA and SD are still moving forward or have they been stalled since this debacle in December 2006.

Congresswoman Sanchez is of Lakewood district is doing an excellent job of questioning justice department officials in House Judiciary Committee hearings.

All right, I've got to teach a university class on American newspapers here in Germany and will probably use your editorial on Senator Whitehouse in class this week or next, thanks!

cheers
Jason
www.jasonconga.blogspot.com

My searing-in-its-intensity woolgatherer on Carol Shloss' suit against the Joyce estate, "Portrait of the old man as a copyright miser," draws a cheer from Orlando, Florida's Gregory W. Herbert, Esq....

thanks for the in-depth reporting and analysis.  important topic for IP lawyers and anyone interested in the internet too.

...and a jeer from Shloss herself:

I read Tim Cavanaugh's "Portrait of the old man as a copyright miser" (5 June 2007) with interest. Being the "plaintiff of choice" in the case, I can tell you that the suit was not a "laundry-list" suit, nor did it involve issues of privacy that gave Stephen James Joyce some "sentimentally compelling" argument. It involved real damage. Mr. Joyce condemned my biography of Lucia Joyce without having read a word of it. He did not object to the content of the book (how could he?) but to its very right to exist. Having engineered an expurgated text with his refusal of permissions, he argued that the resulting narrative was not scholarship, but "a joke." Having created a hellish situation for everyone involved in publishing the book, he called the suit a "nuisance."

Mr Cavanaugh, who has obviously not read the book either, concludes that it is a "sordid family history few of us would want to see made public." Had he bothered to open the covers of the biography, he would have discovered a disturbing narrative without a demonstration of its veracity--the very qualities that stoked Katie Roiphe's disparaging review. Precisely.

This is the issue that prompted the lawsuit in the first place. The harm done by overly aggressive and controlling estates is not only real but far reaching, as Cavanaugh's opinion piece continues to demonstrate. He simply recirculates the negative judgment of a carefully researched work that was damaged by the extension of copyright laws, by the litigious nature of an angry heir, and by the fear engendered by his aggression.

Thank heaven for the Stanford Fair Use Project that, at this moment, is one of the few resources for scholars who have difficult stories to tell and who need the truth provided by historical evidence to confirm their work. Carol Loeb Shloss

These are the runners up. The clear winner in recent reader mail volume is Ronald Brownstein's "Border brouhaha baffles Beltway," whose correspondence we'll be publishing in a separate post. Thanks a lot for writing, and keep those cards and letters coming!

So a few nights ago I'm walking my kids past Mel's Drive-In at Highland and Hollywood, when we get flagged down by a strangely chimerical penguin (a penguin, I later learned, with longer, airworthy wings and the head of an eagle). He's Norky, an all-purpose mascot whose press materials describe him as "the Hybrid Peneagle from the North Pole" and also "'The New Original GOODWILL Character' who appears anywhere any day of the year." Norky and his handler, Brady Farmer, were working bystanders for a free-food offering from a local ad hoc committee to save the Hollywood Christmas Parade. The guy in the Norky suit was pretty good: He successfully engaged my five-year-old for a couple minutes without scaring her, and when Farmer namedropped Mickey Rooney as a supporter of the save-the-parade campaign, I said "Hey, isn't that Mickey in the Norky suit?" and Norky without missing a beat squatted down until his peneagle suit was almost a perfect sphere and began waving: "No this is Mickey in the Norky suit," he said—which wasn't the funniest gag ever but was fairly witty for an on-the-spot reaction.

Anyway, the save-the-parade meeting was sparsely attended. For a story about the campaign in late March, an aide to Councilman Eric Garcetti told the L.A. Times' Bob Pool, "[O]ur office looks forward to learning more about their efforts," but sadly, neither Garcetti nor Councilman Tom LaBonge responded to invitations. Melrose Larry Green, on the other hand, was in attendance, and I wish the activists the best in their efforts. A recent Times Op-Ed mourned the passing of the parade, and it seems strange that the center of the global entertainment complex can't compete in the parade market with Pasadena or Philadelphia: I'd suggest moving the resurrected parade away from the Macy's Thanksgiving competition and into an early-December date—maybe Día de la Inmaculada Concepción (12/8 this year) or even Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (12/12), both of which would seem to fit L.A. to a tee. The Christmas-parade niche is wide open, but not if you hold it on Thanksgiving weekend.

But it's Norky who's really fired my imagination. Just what is the peneagle's status in the lovable-character/mascot pecking order? The enthusiastic Farmer assured me that the character does solid business in Kentucky Derby appearances, has TV deals in 30 countries and, after five years in action, is set to expand into a range of media. Eight-year-old Christian A. Henley, for example, has authored Adventures with Norky: Teamwork. For more documentary evidence, here's a gallery of Norky photo opps. This pic of the peneagle, Santa Claus and L. Ron Hubbard's spirit all supporting the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights is from Norky's site, which ominously warns that Norky "even shows up in your dreams."

The one place Norky hasn't shown up has been on my radar screen, and while I don't like to brag, the last few years have given me more than a passing acquaintance with sub-A-list-level kid-friendly characters. If you're talking Miffy, the strangely deathless Noddy, even Jakers! The Adventures of Piggly Winks, you're talking my language. But Norky? Never heard of him until the other night. And not to put too fine a point on it but it's a seller's market these days for penguin avatars; if anything we're rapidly approaching the saturation point. I'd suggest Norky ditch the half-eagle stuff in a hurry and just start marketing himself as a magical penguin who flies and plays Polar Ball.

Norky's also got an uphill climb in terms of brand recognition. While he tops the Google results for a search on "norky," the first results page also turns up entries on Norky's Peruvian restaurant in Tampa, Florida; a seemingly more swank Norky's in Lima; and most disastrously, several mentions of a character named Norky who showed up on the Ewoks television show in the eighties, and is described by witnesses as "a marsupial-type creature" and "an obnoxious kangaroo-like creature." At the very least, Norky is going to have to close out the competition in the imaginary-creature space, and also distinguish a separate brand identity from the various bulletin-board Norkys who self-identify as Opera browser users, Buddhist guitar fans, and the "King of Kings."

Nevertheless, Farmer, who recently took charge of building the brand as Norky Entertainment's director of entertainment and community affairs, says the company is doing well enough to employ 20 people, including an assistant for himself—and to my rather too blunt question, he replied that yes, they are making payroll. He also promised to send some Norky swag my way, and I will be sure to give my report when that arrives. And in fact, I intend to keep an eye out for Norky in the future. While I hope he can help lead the Hollywood Christmas Parade to a triumphant return to life, I'm mainly just fascinated by the franchising prospects. Every day people are striking it rich on brands you've never heard of—another fascinating region of the Long Tail era, even if penguins don't have very long tails.

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.