Major U.S. banks admitted two years ago to cutting corners on the paperwork necessary to foreclose on some defaulting borrowers -- for example, by having workers sign court affidavits without having actually read the associated documents -- but it's been hard to quantify how extensive "robo-signing" and similar practices were. This week, a consultant to the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder's office issued what it said was the first examination of the paper trail involved in hundreds of actual foreclosure sales, and the results were stunning.

According to Aequitas Compliance Solutions, more than 80% of the nearly 400 foreclosure sales reviewed had "what appeared to be one or more clear violations of law." And about 99% showed one or more document "irregularities" that could have violated California statutes. The failings ranged from purely technical problems, such as incomplete filings, to ones that could have hindered borrowers from exercising their rights, such as conflicting disclosures about a loan's ownership, premature foreclosure sales and improper claims to the proceeds.

Although technically not robo-signing, many of the irregularities found by Aequitas similarly involve attestations in legal documents that simply weren't true. It's possible that the problems were caused by inattentive bank employees who were overwhelmed by the number of defaulting borrowers. The less charitable interpretation is that mortgages had been traded and securitized so sloppily, banks no longer could figure out what they actually owned and where they'd acquired it.

Sounds bad, right? Nevertheless, many readers will react to this revelation the same way they've reacted to efforts by the government to slow the pace of foreclosures: They have little sympathy for people who bought more home than they could afford. In this view, the victim is the lender, not the borrower.

It's true that the report offers no evidence that these failings caused borrowers who were current on their mortgages to lose their homes, or that defaulting borrowers weren't given adequate warning and time to work out a solution with their lenders. Aequitas looked at a sample of foreclosure sales in San Francisco County between January 2009 and October 2011; according to ForeclosureRadar.com, the foreclosed homes sold in California that October had been in default for more than 330 days.

But Aequitas offers two counterarguments to the notion that the failures it identified didn't cause any real harm to the borrowers who lost their homes. First, lenders can foreclose, repossess and sell a home in California without a court's permission or supervision. For that reason, the paperwork requirements are crucial to protecting borrowers' due process rights. Those requirements are meant to ensure that borrowers have enough time to contest a foreclosure in court, as well as accurate information about the party (or parties) that own the loan.

Second, Aequitas cited evidence of widespread violations by lenders, mortgage securitizers and loan servicing companies of consumer protection laws -- such as the Truth in Lending Act, which requires accurate disclosure of a loan's terms and conditions. So while some borrowers may have foolishly bitten off more than they could chew, others were roped into riskier and less affordable loans than they thought they were signing up for:

Given these well‐documented and widespread origination and servicing issues, it is not implausible that there are homeowners who are alleged to have defaulted on loans to which they never fully agreed to and, further, are being foreclosed upon by lenders that might not even own such loans. The fact that these homeowners borrowed something, on some terms, from someone should not be enough to rob them of their due process right.

It's well-nigh impossible to say how many borrowers fall into that category without a case-by-case examination of foreclosures. Such an inquiry would not be precluded, however, by the recent deal California and 48 other states and their attorneys general struck with five major banks. Said Aequitas: "The agreement settles only some aspects of the lender misconduct relating to the foreclosure crisis and, with respect to those, does not resolve all legal claims. Consequently, based on our understanding, the settlement does not resolve most of the issues this report identifies, nor immunizes lenders and servicers from a host of potential liabilities arising therefrom."

Meanwhile, the Mortgage Bankers Assn. reports that the percentage of mortgages in foreclosure -- 4.4% -- remains far above the historic average, but the number of borrowers falling behind on their loans continues to decline. As my colleague Scott Reckard observes, that's a consequence of the significantly tighter lending standards that banks have adopted in response to the housing bust and pressure from regulators. Nevertheless, analysts expect a surge in foreclosures in the wake of the multi-state settlement. That's all the more reason to monitor the lenders' procedures carefully to prevent more corner-cutting.

Paul Leonard, California director for the Center for Responsible Lending, said he was still mulling what the right response would be. Two possibilities, he said, would be to have the attorney general conduct routine audits of foreclosure files, or to apply some oversight to the trustees that file notices of default and seek foreclosure sales.

ALSO:

Komen alternatives for a cure

Bursting the housing bubble nonsense

Santorum: The personal isn't always political

-- Jon Healey

Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Images

In Republican circles, one common assertion about the mortgage meltdown is that it was caused by the government -- specifically President Clinton and Democrats -- who forced banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't pay.

This week, though, we were given proof that this assertion is -- what's the legal term for it?; oh yea -- baloney: In New York, Citigroup Inc. agreed to a $158-million settlement with the Justice Department.

As The Times reported:

Citi admitted that it provided misleading information about the quality of its mortgages to a federal insurance program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The government provided backing for the mortgages and ended up losing millions when the borrowers defaulted.

Notice that phrase: "misleading information about the quality of its mortgages."

And who were some of these borrowers?  Yep, you're right, some were the folks Clinton and the Democrats wanted to help achieve the American dream of homeownership:

The government insurance allowed Citi to give cheaper loans to less-creditworthy borrowers and then to sell the loans to investors.

But is wasn't the government forcing Citigroup's employees to make bad loans. In fact, here's what the government demanded:

The major banks were part of a program that allowed them to get automatic approval for government insurance for the mortgages they were issuing. As part of the program, the banks were supposed to aggressively pre-screen the mortgages to make sure they were not too risky and report any signs the mortgages were having trouble.

Hmmm. Wonder which part of "aggressively pre-screen the mortgages to make sure they were not too risky" the bankers didn't understand? Because here's how they apparently did business:

The complaint said Citi systematically ignored these rules, leading the government to insure lower-quality loans. More problematically, employees in Citi's mortgage unit are accused of asking members of the compliance department to not report problems with the mortgages to the government.

In legal circles, I think you call that "a smoking gun."  I guess Citi thought so too, since it agreed to fork over $158 million.

Admittedly, this settlement is pretty small potatoes, given the enormity of the mortgage mess.

And yes, you can't excuse people who took out mortgages they knew they couldn't afford.

But can we at least stop spouting the nonsense that the government forced banks to make bad loans?

Clearly, that's one claim that just doesn't hold up in a real court, and it shouldn't hold up in the court of public opinion either.

ALSO:

Santorum: The personal isn't always political

Mitt Romney picks the wrong fight over the auto bailout

The payroll tax deal isn't a sign of a more harmonious Congress

-- Paul Whitefield 

Photo: A protest in Watts this month against foreclosures. California is working through its backlog of troubled loans faster than many states, trade economists say. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

Well, I guess it's no great surprise to discover that Californians still care deeply about Proposition 13. My column this week, about a lawsuit that challenges the 33-year-old measure, touched off hundreds of angry emails, many from property owners who worried that if the challenge were successful, they could be forced back to the days when rising values and rising taxes threatened to push some owners from their homes.

Sifting through the name-calling -- surely it's possible for people to disagree about the effects of Proposition 13 and the merits of the legal case against it without calling each other "morons," "dimwits" or "self-righteous, sanctimonious moonbats" -- the basic lines of response were two: Those who think the legal challenge is a farce, and those who worry that it might be for real.

In the farce category, a number of readers argued that the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue at the center of this case, the question of whether Proposition 13 was an amendment to the California Constitution, which merely requires a vote of the people, or whether it in fact amounted to a revision, in which case it would have needed the support of the Legislature as well. Because the Legislature did not approve Proposition 13, if it really was a revision, then all or part of it might be legally invalid. Some readers pointed to a 1978 case in which the court did address the issue, ruling that Proposition 13 was an amendment and thus valid. But the case that readers cited, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District vs. State Board of Equalization (1978), confronted a challenge to Proposition 13 in terms of its reach in rolling back property taxes and its alleged alteration of the balance of power between local governments and Sacramento. The court concluded that Proposition 13 did not so alter those relationships that it would destroy "home rule," and it found that even though local governments would have a harder time raising taxes in the future, they still could if they could persuade voters to go along. Thus, viewed through those arguments, the court concluded that Proposition 13 was an amendment, not a revision.

The new case raises different issues, however. It does not contest Proposition 13's ability to restrain property taxes but rather says that another provision of the initiative, the one requiring any new taxes approved by the Legislature to receive a two-thirds majority of the Assembly and state Senate, so fundamentally alters the work of the Legislature that it should be classified as a revision. Defenders of Proposition 13 argue that the court has spoken; supporters of this lawsuit say they believe the court has not addressed this point. One other note to consider: The lead lawyer in the new case, retired judge William A. Norris, knows something about the Amador case. He was the lead lawyer then too.

On the other end of those reacting to the column were those who bemoaned this lawsuit, not because they think it's unlikely to succeed but rather because they fear that it might. For some, Proposition 13 has worn poorly. They see the inequity between new home-buyers and established owners that can result in radically different tax bills for similar homes; they complain that the limitations on the government for raising public funds has starved schools and infrastructure; they see Proposition 13 as stifling and responsible for much of California's decline in the years since voters approved it. For others, however, it is a monument to citizen power and to restrained taxation. Losing it, they fear, would plunge California back to the days when tax bills were rising so fast that some could not afford to stay. As one reader put it: "Repeal Prop. 13. Otherwise known as: Kick grannie and pops out of their home."

Finally, beyond those readers eager to see the measure repealed and those desperate to keep it in place, there's a third group. They boil this issue down to illegal immigration. Then again, that's how they boil down every issue.

ALSO:

Corporations deserve rights too

A message to 'Obamacare' haters

Ron Paul defenders: A video rebuttal from Jim Newton

--Jim Newton

Photo: Since 1978, when this photo was taken in Manhattan Beach, Prop. 13 has established the basic facts of political life in California. Now there's a legal challenge. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Tie two shoelaces together at the ends with a granny knot and you're left with something shaped very much like Harbor Gateway, which links the northern and southern parts of Los Angeles' Council District 15. The odd contours are not a gerrymander, at least not in the traditional sense. Los Angeles annexed this "shoestring" strip in 1906 in anticipation of taking over, several years later, the independent cities of Wilmington and San Pedro and the adjacent muddy bay. With federal money for a breakwater and dredging, that bay became the Port of Los Angeles.

Living in something called a shoestring may not be conducive to civic pride, but the current name reminds residents that they're part of the city primarily as a link to an asset that's as much as 10 miles away. It's a hard area to represent on the City Council, and a hard area for residents to get the attention of their council member. So far, everyone voters have elected to represent this district has lived in and had a voter base in San Pedro, at least going back to World War II. That would remain the case if LAPD Officer Joe Buscaino is elected in the Jan. 17 runoff to succeed Janice Hahn. But his opponent, state Assemblyman Warren Furutani, lives in Harbor Gateway. Although his mailing address is Gardena.

That's another thing about Harbor Gateway: If you live there, the post office and almost everyone else says you live in Gardena or Torrance, not Los Angeles. Even the high school, located in Los Angeles, is called Gardena High. The Holiday Inn is called the Torrance Gateway. Fallas Paredes, the discount chain, says its headquarters is in Gardena. The Wal-Mart says it's in Torrance. The many trucking, shipping and logistics companies that have quarters in the granny knot area identify with either of those two South Bay cities -- although the fact that they cluster in a narrow strip of Los Angeles rather than Gardena or Torrance puts the lie to the common assertion that L.A. is unfriendly to business.

The two neighborhood councils, at least, know where they are; they split at the knot into North and South councils. Harbor Gateway North also shoots east from the shoestring, running along both sides of the Century Freeway as well as south down the Harbor Freeway.

The gateway to the gateway is the monumental interchange stack between the two freeways. Construction obliterated so much of the neighborhood that a legal agreement mandated the creation of an affordable housing developer to create 4,000 units to replace what was lost, together with job training programs. The developer then became Century Housing Corp. The stack was named for Judge Harry Pregerson, who presided over the lawsuit and the agreement.

The north portion has the Harbor Freeway -- the 110 -- as its spine, taking up a large swath of its mere eight blocks of width between Vermont Avenue and Figueroa. The knot, in addition to its office parks and trucking centers, includes two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund cleanup sites, emblematic of the contaminated industrial legacy left to the people of Harbor Gateway.

The Del Amo Facility was in the so-called Dominguez Addition, which was annexed to the city in 1943 just in time for the construction there of a synthetic rubber plant. The facility helped the U.S. win World War II, but its continued operation into the 1970s contaminated the soil and drinking water with PCBs and other dangerous substances. Just to the west, on Normandie, is the site of Montrose Chemical Corp., once the world's largest producer of DDT. Defenders of the insecticide say it prevented countless cases of malaria; perhaps, but Montrose's practice of dumping waste into the ground, and then into the county sewer system, contaminated drinking water and created a toxic offshore dump a mile off the Palos Verdes Penninsula. To this day, white croaker and other fish caught there are deemed poisonous.

Further south, Harbor Gateway takes up a different eight blocks in width, from Normandie to Western, unimpeded by the Harbor Freeway to the east. This region has been troubled by gang violence exacerbated by racial tension. African Americans whose parents and grandparents were restricted in their living patterns around Los Angeles by racially restrictive covenants into the 1950s (although by then such covenants were outlawed) now found their movements restricted by Latino gangs, which reportedly declared areas of Harbor Gateway and adjacent areas off-limits to blacks.

The violence drew citywide attention with the 2006 murder of 14-year-old Cheryl Green. Injunctions and a surge of policing have helped stem the violence. But patrolling is complex and must be coordinated with police in Torrance and Gardena and the county sheriff in Carson and the adjacent unincorporated West Carson strip.

The gang crime, environmental and economic challenges of Harbor Gateway would provide a full plate for any City Council member. But it's the district's awkward geography -- a half-mile wide, connecting better-known Watts and the more politically powerful harbor area nine miles away -- that pose the biggest obstacle to the area's adequate representation.

In The Times' Mapping L.A. comments section for Harbor Gateway, an anonymous former resident said in June 2010:

"The city puts no money into it and as a result, crime has escalated. Building codes go unenforced; crime is rampant; not a place to raise children."

MORE FROM THIS SERIES:

Watts and Not-Watts

Questions, and frustration

Endorsements and the Jan. 17 runoff

When Warren Furutani met Joe Buscaino

-- Robert Greene

Photos: Top, a Harbor Gateway welcome and a tagger's ominous response. Credit: Robert Greene / Los Angeles Times. Bottom, the Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange. Credit: Ken Lubas / Los Angeles Times.

Alligators are in a way the mountain lions of Florida and Georgia. Developers build deeper into their territory; then humans are amazed to find there are dangerous wild animals in their picturesque midst and call for eradicating them.

In the terribly sad case of an 83-year-old woman who was house-sitting for her daughter outside of Savannah, Ga., the family is suing on the grounds that the homeowners' association should have done more to safeguard visitors to the residential area. The elderly woman was killed by an 8-foot alligator that lived in one of the many neighboring lagoons, which is their natural habitat. The Georgia Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case.

But it seems more like the endangerment to humans came from moving so close to potentially ferocious animals, and the lack of safety for the victim in this case was caused by her relatives having her stay in a place where she would be defenseless against attack, or perhaps not warning her to stay inside with the doors closed.

Could the homeowners association have put up more signs or some fencing to keep alligators off residential property? Possibly. But unless the homeowners were led astray by the developers in the first place, sold on the idea that there were no natural threats in the area, it seems that they made their own, ultimately tragic decision to settle in a dangerous place.

RELATED:

Tigers on the loose in Ohio -- and Lindsay Lohan too!

Ohio wild-animal killings renew call for ban on exotic pets 

Dad used 9-year-old as designated driver

--Karin Klein

Photo: An American alligator at the Columbus Zoo in Powell, Ohio. Credit: Postdlf

The housing market remains deeply troubled, with more than 800,000 homes on their way to foreclosure or in the process of being auctioned, according to RealtyTrac and Moody's Analytics. That's part of the reason the economy isn't growing fast enough to put many of the unemployed back to work.

The Obama administration has launched several efforts to avert foreclosures and stop the slide in property values, under the theory that investors will come back into the market once it's clear that prices are heading up again. But none of those initiatives has lived up to its billing. Some analysts blame the banks for dragging their feet; others blame the administration for putting too many restrictions on the aid.

The larger truth, though, is that troubled borrowers' situations are more complicated than they might seem. A good example is provided by my colleague David Lazarus' column Tuesday about a couple in Downey who fell behind on their Wells Fargo mortgage while one or both were temporarily unemployed for several months last year and early this year. By the time they were both working and eager to start paying off their debt, the bank was no longer interested in working out a deal, and it moved in June to foreclose.

The bank's treatment of Jackie Durra and Pedro Balladeres was hard to justify from a pure business standpoint. Given the couple's renewed ability to make mortgage payments, Wells stood to gain more if Durra and Balladeres stayed in their home than if it repossessed and sold the place. The bank eventually came around to that point of view, telling Lazarus that it's now working with the couple to avoid foreclosing.

Nevertheless, one graf in the story jumped out at me:

Durra bought her three-bedroom house in 2001 for $280,000. After a second mortgage was taken out several years later, the total outstanding loan balance was about $375,000. The real estate website Zillow estimates the current value of the property at $348,300.

In other words, the couple took a significant amount of cash out of the home during the housing bubble, piling on more debt. Had they not done so, they wouldn't have been in such a vulnerable position when the bubble burst and the economy collapsed.

Such stories are all too common. Americans took advantage of rapidly rising property values to engage in a slew of "cash out" refinancings and home-equity loans, banking on the continued increase in home prices to provide an escape valve if they had trouble repaying. Some of these borrowers used the loans to help make ends meet -- a sign that they were carrying too much debt to start with. When the market tanked, the escape valve closed and the loans became a trap. Millions found themselves owing more than their houses were worth, making it well-nigh impossible to get out from under their debts by selling their property. The subsequent credit crunch, recession and mass layoffs only made matters worse.

I'm not pointing a finger at Durra and Balladeres -- or anyone else, for that matter. I'm just suggesting that it's worth considering the role many borrowers played in their own difficulties. Durra and Balladeres' home is worth more today than when they bought it, by Zillow's calculation. But their debt load appears to be greater still. In hindsight, that kind of borrowing looks like a pretty good way to dig a hole that's impossible to climb out of. But at the time, neither borrowers nor lenders could see the risk.

RELATED:

Settling the mortgage mess

Refinancing a bubble

Two views of the post-housing-bubble apocalypse

-- Jon Healey

Photo: A repossessed home in Las Vegas awaits a buyer in 2008. Credit:  Jae C. Hong / Associated Press

It's a high-tech world.  It's also a high-unemployment world, especially in California.

Not to be a scaremonger, but I'm starting to think there's a connection.

On Friday, The Times reported that California's jobless rate rose to 12.1% in August, the second highest in the nation. According to the story, "California lost jobs in construction, financial activities and government."

OK, same old sad, familiar tale. But sooner or later, the economy will pick up and jobs will return, right?

Not so fast, Candide.

Consider this story from The Times' Business section Friday: "Some restaurants serve up iPads for customers to place orders." 

In the last few months, restaurants scattered around the country have installed iPads and other technologies on which customers can place orders and perform additional tasks usually handled by staff.

At Stacked in Torrance, which opened in May, iPads mounted on 60 tables enable patrons to flip through a touch screen to view pizza, burger and salad offerings. Diners can choose entrees and sides, pick out toppings, send their orders to the kitchen and divvy up the bill, all without talking to a staff person.

To pay, customers swipe credit cards through slots built into the iPad holders.

The co-founder of the restaurant, Paul Motenko, said he spent more than a year and $1 million developing the digital ordering regimen. It allowed him to open with a smaller-than-average staff, but he maintained that the hands-on system made customers feel more involved in the process.

Yep, it caught your eye too, didn't it? That "smaller-than-average staff" phrase.  That's the sound of jobs going bye-bye.

Having turned to the dark side, I then remembered a story this week from The Times' Money & Company blog: "Cornell lab prints food, says digital cuisine could change restaurants."

There are printers that can spit out 3-D model cars and others that can make paper solar panels. Next up: technology that can print food for restaurants and homes.

Cornell Creative Machines Lab, featured recently in Fast Company, has a printer that can create a scallop nugget shaped like a miniature space shuttle. The machine has made cakes that, when sliced into, reveal embedded messages.

Using edible inks such as liquid or juiced meats, the printer uses electronic blueprints and technology that can create new food textures.

The ability to print food could have significant ramifications for chefs and industrial food producers alike, according to scientists. And the average American, who spends more than 30 minutes a day preparing meals, could save more than 150 hours each year using a commercial version of the machine.

"Significant ramifications for chefs and industrial food producers alike"?  I don't know about you, but  that sounds like another way to say "you won't need as many workers."

I mean, not to be facetious, but it sure looks as though thousands of unemployed actors in Southern California are about to become unemployed waiters and waitresses too.

Fortunately, I couldn't find any stories about iRobot busboys, so starving college kids still may have a shot at work.

It's not just food services, though.  Check out this Technology blog item: "IBM's Watson supercomputer to give instant medical diagnoses."

WellPoint, the nation’s largest insurer by membership, is tapping IBM's Watson supercomputer to diagnose medical illnesses and to recommend treatment options for patients within seconds in a new system that will debut at several cancer cancers early next year.

Executives at the two companies say that Watson, best known for defeating “Jeopardy!” quiz champions on the popular television game show this year, can sift through millions of pages of data and produce diagnoses virtually on the spot.

WellPoint said the computer system will not supplant doctors but instead provide them with instant information to make better decisions to improve the quality of care and save money.

It "will not supplant doctors"?  OK, sure.  It's not as if insurance companies would be interested in cutting staff and saving money, right?

But we'd better hope doctors' jobs are safe. After all, someone is going to have be left to patronize all those restaurants featuring digital cuisine made by 3D copier "chefs" and brought to you by iPad "waiters."

What about the rest of us? Well, technology can giveth too.

Consider this item: "Get a CLOO'? App will rent your bathroom to strangers."

When you have to go, you have to go.

That's the basic philosophy behind the smartphone app CLOO', which wants urban dwellers to open their private bathrooms to strangers desperately seeking a toilet.

CLOO', short for community plus loo (plus an apostrophe mark to represent a GPS marker), aims to create a network of "member loos" from trusting, sympathetic people who will trade a few minutes in their personal facilities "for the cost of a latte," the company boasts on its website.

That's right. All is not lost.

If you're lucky enough to still have a roof over your head -- well, there's gold in your toilet. Maybe one of those doctors -- or high-tech innovators -- will be heading home from a night at iRestaurant and nature will call. 

And now it's your turn, budding bathroom entrepreneur.

Heck, maybe you could even put an iPad in there and charge by the minute.

RELATED:

Restaurant will have to dish on nutrition

Food poisoning: America's homegrown threat

Interactive: U.S. unemployment rate by state

 --Paul Whitefield

Photo: Customers navigate the iPad ordering system at Stacked restaurant in Torrance. Credit: Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times

As part of our Op-Ed series "Postcards From the Recession," which shares on-the-ground reports from throughout Southern California, Kathy Gosnell Seiler, a copy editor at The Times, tells her story of the house she worked to rebuild only to lose to foreclosure.

The house was meant to be my refuge, a place where I could plant perennials and know I'd see them flower year after year, an investment for my daughter and me after many years of renting.

Artist Sean Kelly drew up the 'postcard' for the Op-Ed as he has for the previous installments of this series.

MORE POSTCARDS FROM THE RECESSION:

The Arellanos of Anaheim

California's Inland Empire

For artists, the picture is bleak

Weathering the storm in Morningside Circle

Got knocked down, got up, and then got better

--Samantha Schaefer

Illustration by Sean Kelly / For The Times

Wow, I wish I were Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Perry may be a Republican presidential candidate.  He told Iowa's biggest newspaper that he'll decide in a couple of weeks or so whether to run.

So far, so normal.  Then came this:

In the Des Moines Register interview, Perry claims that running for president "is what I've been called to do," and "what America needs."

How did Perry get so lucky?  He's been "called" to run for president?

Me, I get "called" for jury duty. Or I get a "call" when my kid is not doing his homework.  The car repair place "called" me the other day to say that the shocks on my car are shot -- and so are my tires.

Also, my boss has "called" me several times to come in and work on the weekend: "Just for an hour or so, if you want to."

How come I can't get a "call" to run for president?  Heck, I'd settle for governor at this point, considering how well paid some of California's government employees are.

Life must be so much easier for guys like Perry. Of course, his boss is, apparently, The Boss:

As The Times reported, on Aug. 6 Perry is hosting at a prayer gather at Houston's Reliant Stadium called "The Response: a call to prayer for a nation in crisis."

"As an elected leader, I'm all too aware of government's limitations when it comes to fixing things that are spiritual in nature. That's where prayer comes in, and we need it more than ever," Perry says in a video posted to the event's website.

Oh, so that's it: He's got an in.  Isn't that always the way?  I tell you, you have to network these days to get the good jobs.

Speaking of jobs, that would apparently be one of Perry's big selling points on the campaign trail: Texas' reputation as the little job engine than can.

"If anybody tries to argue the fact that we have not created an economic juggernaut in the state of Texas, then they're either naive, they have a political agenda, or they're just not paying attention," Perry told the Register, hinting at what would be the foundation of his campaign's message.

If that's the case, though, perhaps California Gov. Jerry Brown should think about reviving his presidential hopes.

As The Times reported Sunday in "What recession?  It's boom time in Silicon Valley:"  

Venture capitalists poured more than $2.3 billion into Bay Area start-ups in the first quarter alone, a 53% increase from a year ago. Private equity firms, investment banks and mutual funds also have leaped into the mix, hunting for growth investments in a sluggish market.

(Although that story must be wrong: After all, everyone knows businesses are fleeing California. You can't do business in California -- all those liberals and environmentalists and government regulations, ya know.)

Of course, Perry didn't really say that God is calling for him to run.  It could be the Koch brothers, who may not be God but certainly have more money than Him.  Or maybe one of those super-PACs that The Times reported on Sunday; they're already spending big money on ads touting various causes.

Regardless, I'm betting that Perry is going to throw his Stetson in the ring. 

Although he's going to have finish up that light-bulb fight:  First he'll save the 100-watt incandescent bulb, then the country!

RELATED:

Texas, the jobs engine

God didn't make man; man made gods

Gov. Rick Perry does a Texas two-step

Would Obama stand a chance against Rick Perry?

Rick Perry: The presidential candidate dogged by a ghost?

--Paul Whitefield 

Photo: Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Credit: Gregory Bull / Associated Press

Most viewed: Southern California's great migration

The editorial board looks at what’s behind the population drop in Los Angeles, Long Beach and other large cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties ...

According to the latest census data, there's been a great migration in Southern California over the last decade — a movement that has pulled people from Los Angeles and Orange counties and transplanted them in the Inland Empire. Many moved for the jobs, especially in the booming housing construction industry; others moved to grab one of those houses as prices closer to the ocean soared beyond reach. Working-class and immigrant families sought affordable housing in less crowded communities where schools would be better and neighborhoods safer.

... and offers suggestions for what's needed to get back on track.

Most commented and shared: Echoes of a bygone war

Recalling the similarities between World War I and today's wars, San Francisco-based author Adam Hochschild asks:

Was [World War I] worth it? Of course not. The near-starvation of Germans during the war, their humiliating defeat and the misbegotten Treaty of Versailles virtually ensured the rise of the Nazis, along with a second, even more destructive world war and a still more ruthless German occupation of France.

He asks the same question about the war in Afghanistan.

War has a tendency to produce lofty rhetoric. A French newspaper at the time called World War I a "holy war of civilization against barbarity," while a German paper insisted the war was necessary to stop Russia from crushing "the culture of all of Western Europe."

And so it still goes. Today's high-flown war rhetoric naturally cites only the most noble of goals: stopping terrorists, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy and protecting women from the Taliban. But beneath the flowery words, national self-interest is as powerful as it was almost 100 years ago. Does anyone think that Washington would have gotten quite so righteously worked up in 2003 if, instead of having massive oil reserves, Iraq's principal export was turnips?

 Reaction to Hochschild’s Op-Ed on our discussion board is mixed.

 On the one hand, there's reader rusoviet, who says:

[O]ver sixty-six years of peace in Europe thanks to NATO resisting the Reds and preventing a war - thank you USA and UK.

On the other, there's Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve:

Needless war. That pretty much describes the war in Iraq. Over 4000 KIA and over 20,000 wounded. Over 100,000 Iraqis dead. A civil war between two religious factions. Untold cost. 

After 10 miserable years, we are just now getting to the point where we can withdraw our forces.  

And as soon as that happens, Iraq will no doubt drift back into civil war, dictatorship, oppression, coups and massacres. Which pretty much describes Iraq's history. 

The damnable hubris of the Bush Administration and its cadre of neo-con fools.

*Spelling and formatting were corrected in comments for clarity.

ALSO TRENDING:

Cynicism over Osama bin Laden's death

The cost of illegal aliens, firefighters and schools

Budget and 'birther' battles

 Same-sex marriage and tax increases: Rethinking our decision-makers

Economy and environment in peril -- scare tactics or truth?

--Alexandra Le Tellier