Perhaps CNN was growing tired of Lou Dobbs lying about those dirty, leprosy-infected illegals from Mexico, or railing against newspapers for being so distracted by May Day immigration protests that they neglected to notice -- when they actually did notice -- that May 1 is officially Law Day. Whatever his concrete motives, Dobbs is out at CNN, having offered the following to his viewers Wednesday as a reason for his abrupt departure: "And some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond my role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving, as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day." You have to admire a man who wants to be a real doer.

So how should Dobbs make the world a better place for Americans? I've offered a few likely jobs below from off the top of my head; if you feel this list is incomplete, feel free to leave your suggestion as a comment.

-- Paul Thornton

Photo credit: Karen Bleier / AFP/Getty Images

Charlie Beck, chief-designate of the Los Angeles Police Department, visited with reporters, editors and members of The Times' editorial board Wednesday, the day after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced his nomination of Beck as the next LAPD chief. In some areas, Beck distinguished himself (though cordially so) from former Chief William J. Bratton, pointing out that his method of effecting change by focusing on rank-and-file officers differs from his predecessor's emphasis on establishing policy and working with political leaders. Beck expressed support for greater transparency in police oversight (the subject of a Times editorial Saturday*) and Special Order 40, the department mandate that prevents officers from initiating police action for the purpose of determining someone's immigration status.*

Below are audio clips of the session; I've included notable quotes by Beck on each topic. Segments two through eight begin, in order, with questions posed by Times staff members Jim Newton, Patt Morrison, Nick Goldberg, Marjorie Miller, Joel Rubin, David Lauter, Eddy Hartenstein and Newton. The first clip doesn't begin with a question.

LAPD reform, from the ground up

Federal consent decree

"All of the issues that the consent decree was created to address, I agree with, and those will continue. Now, some of the mechanics have become ill-suited because either we've reached universal compliance on them, but that doesn't necessarily declare victory on the issue. There are other ways to do this monitoring that is smart."

Transparency in police oversight

"My core belief is that when you become a police officer -- and you're entrusted with life, liberty and life and death of people in the community -- that you give up some right to anonymity that most other people enjoy. Unfortunately, state law doesn't agree with me on that."

Relationship with the Police Protective League

"I think the union is a huge ally. I think that a manager that ignores the authority and power of a union, such as some of ours have done in the past, ignores a huge opportunity to mold his workforce. So the union is very important. Do I think we're going to agree on all issues? No."

Immigration and drug enforcement

"I believe in Special Order 40. I believe in not just the words on paper, but the spirit of Special Order 40. I think that especially in Los Angeles, that we have to represent everybody, that everybody has the right to quality police service, regardless of status. I don't think that we should be an arm of the federal government in enforcing immigration laws specifically. However, if we make a legal arrest on another charge, and a criminal is monitored by Immigration, then they should have access to him."

LAPD size

"At 10,000 [officers], we can start to address core issues, because you are able to provide that basic level of service and add on the problem-solving piece. So I think that size that we're at right now should be looked at as a floor, the basement."

Beck's leadership team

"The team that got us here in the first place is still here. Nobody is being thrown out; nobody has told me that they're leaving. I intend to use the players that we have."

Work outside Los Angeles

"I'm going to go out a lot more than I would have if Bill Bratton had never been here, but I certainly won't travel as much as he did. This is my home, this is where my family is, this is where all my avocations are, all the things I like to do, so I'm going to be -- I'm a local boy, always have been. So that's the way I'll be as a chief."

Lessons learned from predecessors

-- Paul Thornton

*Update: The Times' editorial on transparency in the LAPD is now online; click here to read it.

*Update 2: A retired LAPD captain kindly wrote to inform me that my previous summary of Special Order 40 -- "the department mandate that prevents officers from obtaining the immigration status of detained suspects" -- was incorrect.

Photo: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and LAPD Chief-designate Charlie Beck. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division moderates readers' comments on editorials, Op-Ed articles and blog posts to filter out anything that's not germane or that's inappropriate. The former is an easy standard to apply; the latter can be devilishly hard. Today we received several boundary-pushing responses to Gregory Rodriguez's column explaining why the federal census should count illegal immigrants (and not just because the Constitution compels it to). One by "BlackSaint" stood out for its withering description of illegal aliens. BlackSaint blamed illegals for a host of ills, including taking out subprime loans, lowering the standard of living, and affecting the country's balance of payments by using so much oil and other imports. Then he wrote:

This is nasty stuff. Yet those of us on staff who regularly moderate comments published it for a couple of reasons. First, we considered BlackSaint's views to be typical of the faction that's most strongly in favor of deporting illegal immigrants. That's not to say they're mainstream or representative of a significant number of people; it's just that we often see similar ideas expressed when we run a piece related to immigration policy. Second, we think it's better to let readers respond with their own comments when they're offended than to have us block anything that might offend someone.

Our site also lets people report comments they think should be taken down, which one reader did not long after BlackSaint's submission was published, calling it, "Another racist screed." After some internal debate, we decided to take the comment down because it violated The Times' policy against “abusive, hateful or objectionable language, threats, violence or inflammatory attacks.” 

How would you have handled this one? Should The Times have blocked BlackSaint's remarks from the get-go? Should it have ignored the objection and left his comment up? Would it be better to publish everything and let readers sort it all out? Or should we go the other direction and set a higher threshold for what gets published? What's the right standard?

-- Jon Healey

Departing Police Chief William Bratton prods immigration culture warriors today with an op-ed explaining why the LAPD doesn't, and shouldn't, participate in the controversial 287(g) program, which gives local law enforcement officers the powers of federal immigration agents. Turning police into de facto Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents harms community policing and discourages witnesses who might be illegal immigrants from coming forward.

Also on the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg argues that trying to limit carbon emissions to fight global warming is a pointless waste of money because it can't solve the problem; better to invest in technological solutions and adjusting to a warmer world. And think tank scholars Leo Michel and Robert Hunter argue that U.S. allies are already doing plenty of heavy lifting as part of the NATO contingent in Afghanistan, so American officials should do less lecturing and more listening if they want more cooperation.

Speaking of Afghanistan, the Editorial page says the country can't be pacified simply by sending more troops. That has become abundantly clear in the face of increased suicide bombings in Iraq, which like Afghanistan has been slow to build a credible government.

We also send a rare love note to the California Legislature, pointing out two genuinely worthwhile bills that will help cities make better use of water, an increasingly precious resource in this dry and crowded state. And we weigh in on Operation Gatekeeper, the federal effort started in 1994 to tighten border security in a five-mile stretch from the Pacific Ocean to San Ysidro. Though the program has been successful in reducing crossings in that area, it has had an unintended consequence that must be addressed: Deaths of people trying to cross the desert farther to the east have skyrocketed.

Editorial cartoon by Tom Toles / Washington Post

The "Illegal Alien Mask with Hat" costume, which includes an actual racial element in the handlebar mustache, seems beyond on the pale; I can't say the same for the other outfit. If anything, the orange-jumpsuit costume, pictured above, comes across more as a riff on anti-immigrant hysterics -- whose use of the nakedly scaremongering term "illegal alien" betrays a kind of mindless, childlike, sci-fi fear of invaders from outer space -- than actual border-crossing undocumented immigrants. Think of the 2004 comedy flick Team America's portrayal of Arab Muslims, who say little more than, "Derka derka, Muhammed jihad," with an occasional "Allah" thrown in. The targets weren't Arabs, but the hawkish view that Muslims as a whole were little more than jihad-obsessed radicals. I can't speak to the costume-makers' intent, but the activists calling for retailers to stop selling the outfits argue based on their perception; likewise, I'm offering mine. (For the record, I fall on the "path to citizenship" side of the immigration reform debate.)

Is this costume offensive to you? Am I totally wrong here? Feel free to post your comments below.

-- Paul Thornton

The need for moderation on this issue -- which for the moment is waiting in line behind healthcare reform and global warming on the ambitious agenda of the Obama administration -- is underscored by a predicament facing Los Angeles County. On one hand, the county’s law enforcement agencies need the cooperation of illegal immigrants to identify and prosecute crimes; no one benefits if people who are in the country illegally are so afraid of the police that they refuse to turn in criminals or resist testifying. At the same time, some of those who enter or stay in the country illegally commit other, more serious, offenses while here, and they deserve aggressive investigation, prosecution and, if convicted, expulsion.

For the debate to progress, those who are angered by the presence of illegal immigrants must acknowledge that draconian enforcement of immigration laws can harm the rest of society, while those who sympathize with immigrants must acknowledge that some deserve to be deported and that every nation has the right to protect its border.

These tensions are highlighted in the latest report on the county jail system by Merrick Bobb, a special counsel who monitors the Sheriff’s Department for the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. It documents the struggles of sheriff’s officials to equitably distinguish between serious offenders and those whose only crime is illegal entry. It recognizes the value of deporting dangerous criminals, while cautioning that the county should not take on the job of enforcing federal laws. It credits the department with managing a clean, well-run detention center in Mira Loma, while warning against turning a facility that houses many asylum seekers into a jail, where those inside lack contact with families and limited access to judges.

Bobb’s report makes a number of recommendations for preserving and extending the protection of those who fall within the country’s custody. These recommendations deserve attention and action by the Board of Supervisors. But in a debate too often characterized by cries of racism, by shouted accusations on the floor of Congress and shrill opprobrium from both sides, the report’s most valuable contribution may be to stand for balance.

-- Jim Newton

Photo: A Los Angeles County Jail officer interviews an inmate about his immigration status. Credit: Brent Foster / Los Angeles Times.

The editorial board mulls over a few topics today, starting with healthcare for illegal immigrants in the proposed reform bill currently floating through Congress. While the editorial board says it may be economically sound to extend coverage to illegal immigrants, it concludes that including such a provision in the bill would kill the measure.

Comparing Hollywood's stance on restrictive Chinese policies to the studios' opposition to novel technologies in the U.S., the board admonishes the studios for attempting to centrally control how people consume their products:

Finally, the board argues that although gay and lesbian couples should not have to wait -- or campaign -- for their right to marry, the Equality California and Courage Campaign should unite their efforts and wait to put a revamped Proposition 8 on the ballot in 2012 instead of 2010:

On the op-ed side of the pages, Robert M. Hertzberg and Thomas McKernan, co-chairmen of California Forward, lay out their solution to California's budget crisis and preventing this year's mess from happening again. Their plan includes keeping government local, defining agencies' goals and purpose in the budget and the institution of a two-year budget as well as a pay-as-you-go approach to new programs.

Emily Green, author of the weekly Dry Garden column for the Los Angeles Times, writes in about Southern California's rather silly obsession with green lawns and argues that brown is both natural and beautiful.

Finally, columnist Gregory Rodriguez responds to those who have decried the disruptive protesters who have been coming out in droves to town halls about healthcare in the past couple of weeks. His thoughts? It's as American as apple pie, and a crucial part of the democratic process (as annoying as it may be):

Image: Jimmy Margulies / The Record

-- Catherine Lyons

The editorial board grants rare praise to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday for his actions with regards to the California Nursing Board. The governor dismissed four members of the board after a L.A. Times and ProPublica article exposed negligent nurses who stayed on duty during protracted investigations into their conduct. While the board members called Schwarzenegger an "action hero" for his response, they wished it would have come sooner -- and with other boards too:

In today's pages: reform. Reform of the health care system, reform of immigration policy and reform of fire retardant laws. Let's start with health care.

The editorial board today takes a look at how to improve medical care while lowering costs in a reformed health care system, and suggests three ways to do so: invest in primary care, develop treatment standards for medical professionals and promote information technology that tracks patient care.

The board is perturbed by the El Pueblo de Los Angeles historical landmark, and the businesses that are affiliated with it on Olvera Street. The site, which claims to be the location where Los Angeles was founded, has been costing the city money instead of paying for itself. The rents on the merchants' stalls along the back alley are much lower than market rate, and the board calls for the city to reset the rents and make this historical landmark cover its costs.

On the op-ed side of the pages, health care again! Phil Lebhertz, director of the Foundation for Health Coverage Education, points out that many health care programs exist for lower-income folks, but many just don't know about it:

And reform is again the word of the day, as Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III and Edward Alden broach the issue of immigration policy and the outcome of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force they recently headed. Encouraged by President Obama's call for change of the immigration system, the three politicians propose to make it easier for some illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, reward businesses that use programs such as E-Verify to check applicants' immigration status, and align immigration policy with America's competitive interests.

Russell Long, vice president of Friends of the Earth, urges California to stop requiring that fire retardant chemicals be used on baby products. Long says the chemicals are not proven to be fire-proof, and instead could be dangerous to the infant's, and their parents', health:

Finally, columnist Gregory Rodriguez tries to find a link between the recession and the declining divorce rate. His conclusion? Our society has yet to find (or create) a marriage model that incorporates all of society's changes and the choices both men and women have:

Photo: U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden (C) speaks as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (L), and President and CEO of Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) Carol Keehan (R) listen as Biden makes an announcement on health care at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building of the White House July 8, 2009 in Washington, DC. Credit: Alex Wong / Getty Images