LONDON -- Like most Anglophiles, I feel cheated when I cross the pond and find myself listening to American accents or walking past Burger King and McDonald's in search of a British pub, only to find the bar cluttered with Rolling Rock and Bud taps. What we want is contrast (like Conservative proto-Prime Minister David Cameron embracing the National Health Service, a.k.a. the public option, as he did in a speech today).

Likewise, I relish reading the British papers with their accounts of endless "rows" -- an all-purpose, headline-friendly word that covers everything from mild disagreement to nuclear war -- even though I do keep up with the Times (our Times) online.  From my first visit to Britain as a high school student, coming here has been a trans-dimensional experience.  As they used to say of Earth-Two, the parallel universe in DC Comics, Britain was a world like our own, but with subtle and interesting differences.

That's less and less true in London with its similarities to other cosmpolitan, multicultural cities like L.A., New York and D.C.  But London isn't Britain (or even England) in the way New York isn't the United States. Thus I was chuffed, as they say here, to spend Sunday in the country celebrating (with 90 others) the christening of the son of an old friend. From the Saxon church where the baby was sprinkled by a Central Casting English vicar, we repaired to the manor (no kidding) for a post-baptismal repast.

An Anglophile's dream, but -- Globalization Spoiler Alert -- U.S. politics intruded even in this settiing. I found myself sitting with an American who engaged me in a mostly friendly discussion about whether Obama was really born in the U.S. (and where's that original birth certificate?). The really depressing thing wasn't that a fellow American asked for my view of the Birthers, but that English heads inclined interestedly to hear my answer (which, by the way, was "bunk').

More tea, Vicar? -- and how about that Glenn Beck?

--Michael McGough

An ounce of enforcement is worth a pound of new laws. Or something to that effect. The editorial board points out today that Los Angeles could more effectively limit the proliferation of marijuana clinics by enforcing existing state law against for-profit operations than by dithering over municipal restrictions.

The board mourns the deaths of more than 100 men, women and children in a Pakistani car-bombing, saying that such terrible events should convince Pakistanis that the fight against violent Islamic extremism is their fight too:

More than anything [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton can say, a series of assaults that have taken the lives of more than 500 civilians this year should serve to convince typical Pakistanis that this is not just a U.S. war. The United States and Pakistan have a common enemy in Islamist extremists, and the Pakistani state is fighting for its survival.

And the board urges President Obama to stand by his deadline for closing Guantanamo:

The legal axiom that "justice delayed is justice denied" applies with special force to Guantanamo. Whether they are dangerous terrorists or, like many of those already released, bystanders caught up in a post- 9/11 dragnet, these detainees have languished for years without adequate due process.

On the other side of the fold, a consultant to a documentary on convicted murderer Leo Frank writes about his 1915 lynching in Georgia. The subsequent campaigns either to vilify him or clear his name echo today, with haves and have-nots viewing the same events from markedly different perspectives.

And the battle continues over the Human Rights Watch reports earlier this year on the Middle East. Robert Bernstein, who helped found the organization, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times slamming the group's Middle East division for what he called bias against Israel. Today, a Middle East reporter for Time magazine hits back at Bernstein on our op-ed page:

Bernstein is just plain wrong that the organization's Middle East program focuses on Israel's alleged human rights violations while ignoring those committed by Arab governments and the Iranian regime. Even a quick glance at Human Rights Watch's website, where recent reports are posted, shows that the majority of those on the Middle East relate to countries other than Israel. According to Human Rights Watch, it has produced 1,776 total documents on the Middle East since 2000 -- 250, or 14%, of which were devoted to Israel.

--Karin Klein

Photo of the aftermath of the Pakistan bombing, Credit: Arshad Arbab / EPA

 

 

 

 

 

I don't usually consider Facebook posts to be worthy of transplanting to a (cough cough) professional blog like this one, but I'm making an exception for an FB thread about a Washington Post story.

The article focused on Georgetown University sophomore who has advertised for a personal assistant who would handle tasks "such as organizing his closet, dropping him off and picking him up from work, scheduling haircuts, putting gas in the car and taking it in for service, managing his electronic accounts and doing laundry (although the assistant will be paid only for the time spent loading, unloading and folding clothes, not the entire laundry cycle)." The pay: $10-$12 an hour.

One response was whimsical: "Just this morning I told my mom I needed a PA. She laughed at me. Then [she] saw this article on Facebook and told me about it." (Oh, oh, Parent On Social Media Alert!) But the Facebooker who introduced the subject considered the student's quest  "the most egregious of all insults."

 I weighed in ...

The Vatican today announced a new arrangement under which Anglicans may enter the Roman Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions, including married priests and the use of at least some parts of the Book of Common Prayer. (It isn't clear from the Vatican news release whether this means only that already married Anglican priests will be welcome, or that future priests and candidates for the priesthood will be free to marry -- probably the former.)

This is a big deal. First and foremost, it is a reflection of the continued crackup of the Anglican Communion, the worldwide association of churches with roots in the Church of England, which was created after King Henry VIII declared himself the head of the church. (As Protestant kids in Northern Ireland used to spraypaint on Belfast city walls: "One Bible, One crown, No pope in our town.") 

In an attempt at face-saving, Rowan Williams, the Hamlet-like archbishop of Canterbury, said the new express conversion (as George Costanza would say) wasn't a "commentary on Anglican problems" over the ordination of gays and women as bishops. It's lucky he doesn't claim to be infallible, because this is a holy whopper.

But if the "poping" of conservative Anglo-Catholics eases tensions in the Anglican Communion, it is likely to exacerbate them in their new spiritual home. Many Roman Catholic liberals will be aghast at this development, because they too believe in opening ordination to gays and women. And even some moderate Catholics are likely to grouse over the fact that cradle Catholics can't become priests and be married, but Anglican arrivistes can. (Married former Episcopal priests in the United States have been allowed to switch teams for some time, through the creation of an "Anglican Use" -- a church within a church.)

One group of Roman Catholics, which comprises liberals and conservatives on issues of sexuality, will be happy about this development. They are the Catholics (and I'm one of them) who abhor the tone-deaf language of the post-Vatican II Mass in English. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one of the wonders of the English language. Asked what he missed most about his former church, an Anglican-priest-turned Catholic supposedly replied: "The Mass in English."

After today's announcement, I suspect a lot of cradle Catholics in other countries will be sneaking off to "Anglican Use" parishes on Sundays.

-- Michael McGough

You know you're pariahs when even the ACLU wants nothing to do with you. In my in-box this morning was this release:



--Michael McGough

The new LAPD headquarters won't be dedicated until later this month -- more about the name of the building in a bit -- but when it is, the first official shift to show up for work will see some sadly familiar names.

The identities of the 200-plus LAPD officers who've been killed in the line of duty over 102 years are graven on brass plaques in a 5.5-ton memorial wall dedicated Wednesday night; replicas of their badges fill cases that visitors will pass to walk into the new building. Well, not quite fill; on the memorial wall and in the badge cases, there's room left for more names, more badges, as will in time follow.

For decades, a memorial fountain outside Parker Center did the honors for the dead officers -- it was dedicated in 1971 by Richard Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, who later served prison time for the Watergate coverup.

But that monument fell to pieces when it was being moved to make way for a new jail. The Los Angeles Police Foundation raised nearly three-quarters of a million dollars for the new memorials. 

The reception and the speeches before the dedication had to be moved inside because of unexpected rain. It was, said departing chief William Bratton, as if the memorial had been ''washed by God.'' When the crowd moved outside for the final ceremonial, and the families of the dead officers laid white roses on the monument, the evening skies had cleared and, across First Street, City Hall looked like an enormous white votive candle.

The dedication is the latest in a whole lot of events jamming into October before Bratton lays down his shield at the end of the month; the formal dedication of the building is on October 24.

Within the building's half-million square feet is a huge space for the COMPSTAT data tracking and management system Bratton introduced and swears by, and the tenth-floor offices taking the place of the sixth-floor command staff offices in Parker Center. Those halls are hung with pictures from the department and the city's history: Charles Manson in custody, actress Thelma Todd slumped in death in her car, a copy of a bank robber's cheery stick-up note, a somber black-and-white photo of investigators reenacting the ''Onion Field'' murder of officer Ian Campbell.

The chief's suite, with its own terrace, has a huge LAPD badge with four stars instead of a badge number carved into the double wooden doors of the chief's inner office, soon to be occupied by ... well, that's another big end-of-the-year event for the department: the naming of a successor to Bratton. Of the two dozen applicants for the job, about six will be interviewed by a civilian panel, which will give the names of three finalists to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is expected to decide by mid-November which one will walk through those double doors as the next LAPD chief.

At least that successor will have a name. I'm still thinking the new building needs a good handle. The old building was called the Police Administration Building for its first eleven years, until Police Chief William Parker died suddenly, and the city put his name on it. "Parker Center'' has some history and resonance; even if you don't like that history, it just sounds less drab and cumbersome than ''LAPD headquarters,'' which is why we need to do better than a name that sounds like it came out of a kit. C'mon, LA -- New York has ''One Police Plaza,'' and even though it sounds like a name dreamed up by a studio production design team, it's a whole lot better than ''police headquarters.''

Mayor Tom Bradley was a cop himself, but with his war with Chief Daryl Gates during his mayorship, he's  too contentious a figure to have his name on the LAPD's building. ''Parker Center'' is out of the question; the city would sooner name its new edifice after Pretty Boy Floyd. It's possible that in time, the city might name the building after Bratton, but I expect City Hall is pretty wary of going that route.

In the meantime, you know that if the city doesn't come up with a name, Angelenos will, on their own, find some nickname, and nicknames, once they stick, are almost impossible to get un-stuck.

Suggestions?

-- Patt Morrison

Photo: LAPD Captain Daryl Russell examines the Los Angeles Police Foundation Memorial to Fallen Officers in August. Credit: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times

Not for use with small animals. (EPA/Peter Foley)

Credit Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the takeaway quote from the Supreme Court's oral argument Tuesday about a law punishing the possession or sale of depictions of animal cruelty. Questioning a lawyer for Robert Stevens, a pit-bull enthusiast sentenced to 37 months for selling dog-fighting videos, Alito asked if her First Amendment theory would protect people who wanted to watch the "Human Sacrifice Channel?" Other justices then riffed on the concept in the hypothetical-mongering for which the court is notorious.

Alito's hypo seems a bit less far-fetched when one considers the popularity of WWE, televised hockey games and even The History Channel (which one of my peacenik relatives calls The War Channel). Violence sells, But censors, with support from the courts, usually have  focused on sex instead. What puts obscenity outside the protection of the First Amendment is that it appeals to "prurient interest" -- that is, it's sexually arousing.

Patricia Millett, the lawyer for video vendor Stevens, ratified the "violence OK, sex bad" rationale. She conceded that the law might have survived a First Amendment challenge if it  had been narrowly drawn to punish only the phenomenon that provoked the legislation -- so-called "crush videos" catering to fetishists who are turned on by seeing a woman crush dogs with her high heels. A non-erotic, aesthetic appreciation of dog-fighting, however, is protected.

The sex/violence dichotomy has inspired the familiar joke about the differences between conservatives and liberals when it comes to censorship: Conservatives want to ban depictions of sex, liberals want to ban descriptions of violence. But it's rooted in the traditional justification for laws against obscenity: society's interest in preventing debauchery. As a 19th century British judge put it: "I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." In other words, keep reading this and you'll go blind.

That rationale arguably applies to "crush videos," but it's hard to see how it justifies prosecution of the sale of dogfighting videos, which means that Stevens likely will go free. Watching violence against animals is constitutionally protected as long as you don't enjoy it too much. If a Cable TV producer greenlights Alito's idea of a Human Sacrifice Channel, he should be careful to market it to anthropologists, not sadists.

-- Michael McGough

 

Even if I hadn't covered the U.S. Supreme Court in a former life, I'd be looking forward eagerly to C-SPAN's interviews next month with members of the court, snippets of which are available now on YouTube. It's not often that TV viewers get to eye the mugs of The Nine.

But it's not never, either. Not counting their confirmation hearings, justices have been selectively subjecting themselves to TV interviews for some time, sometimes in connection with promoting their books. This fact renders even more ridiculous one argument against cameras in the courtroom, Justice Clarence Thomas' suggestion that, after 9/11, televising the court's aguments would let terrorists know what the justices look like. All they have to do is TiVo C-SPAN.

The more familiar argument against cameras in the Supreme Court is that they might alter the ethos of the court, perhaps by tempting justices into "saying something for a soundbite." (The quote comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy, pictured above.) Believe me, the Supreme Court arguments I've heard are eminently unsoundbitable.

Like the law that it interprets, the court should be open to evolutionary change. Television has been around for 60 years. The justices may still be camera-shy, but, as Justice Antonin Scalia once said in a somewhat different context: Get over it!"

Photo credit: AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite

-- Michael McGough

I never met Robert "Prince of Darkness" Novak but my association with the columnist who died today goes back to my earliest days in journalism. As a twentysomething copy editor at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I was responsible for proofreading (and condensing) various syndicated columns, from James Reston to William F. Buckley Jr. to Rowland Evans and Novak.

A lot of obituaries highlighted Novak's scoop about the undercover status of CIA operative Valerie Plame. But in his later career Novak was known less as a reporter and more as an opiner and television talking head. His metamorphosis says a lot about the evolution (or devolution) of Washington journalism.

The title of the Evans-Novak column, "Inside Report," said it all. Like the more decorous Reston column, it was a form of foreign correspondence, initiating Mr. and Mrs. Heartland into the exotic culture of the capital. I remember amusing myself with a parody of "Inside Report" that went something like this: "A whispered conversation at the yellowed urinals of a hotel men's room explains why President Ford's defense budget is in grave trouble." Then came open primaries, C-SPAN and the celebrification of what used to be backroom advisers.

Insider journalism wasn't the only casualty of this transformation. So was the political novel. Potboilers like "Advise and Consent" and "Seven Days in May" depended for their popularity on their familiarity with the hidden Washington of political strategists, lobbyists and reporters for whom everything was off the record. Today those once-shadowy figures blab and blog their way to fame.  Why rely on a novelist's depiction of a fictional James Carville when the real one is all over CNN?

If you want the thrill of a behind-the-scenes potboiler, look for a book like "The Da Vinci Code" or its imitators. As I've written before, the sacred precincts of the Vatican are an even better setting for skullduggery than the Oval Office or the Senate majority leader's hideaway. Conspiracies are still being hatched in smoke-filled rooms, but these rooms smell of incense, not tobacco. (Is that part of the reason Novak converted to Catholicism?)

Photo credit: AP Photo / Pablo Martinez Monsivais

-- Michael McGough

During the controversy over U.S. aid to Nicaragua's Contras, a commentator (Charles Krauthammer?) noted that while defenders of President Reagan's policy pronounced "Nicaragua" in an Anglicized/Americanized fashion, many liberal critics of the policy and NPR reporters gave it a Spanish twist. I've noticed a similar difference between the way people pronounce Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name, though the linguistic fault line doesn't seem to be ideological.

But I do detect an ideological aspect to different pronunciations of "Iraq." Critics  of the war say "Eer-rack" or "Eer-rock," supporters prefer "Eye-rack" (just as my Irish grandmother used to refer to "Eye-talians").

Another mystery: Politicians and others who favor "Eye-rack" also accentuate the first syllable in "insurance," a difference I used to attribute to regionalism. Surely some dialectician -- not in the Marxist sense -- can build a doctoral dissertation on this phenomenon.

-- Michael McGough