You already read in the Times' L.A. Now blog last month's report of an amazing coincidence — Bernard Parks' campaign web site bore a striking resemblance to Barack Obama's.

Parks is not alone. Many candidates are trying to hitch a ride on the Obama steamer if it serves their purposes. You probably won't see many Obama-esque slogans in the Senate district where Republicans Bob Huff and Dick Mountjoy are facing off, but check out the bottom of Isadore Hall's brochure for the 52nd Assembly District and the top of the Obama poster. Even the font is kind of similar, don't you think? By the way, the Times endorsed both Parks and Hall. Originality isn't everything.

Anthony "Tony" Day, editorial page editor of the L.A. Times from 1971-1989, died Sunday of complications from emphysema. He was 74. Read The Times' obit here. Memorial services will be held Saturday, Sept. 15 at 3 p.m. at All Saints Church in Pasadena.

As today's editorial page points out, Day was famous around these parts for, among several things, fighting for, and then writing, a June 7, 1970 editorial entitled Out of Vietnam NOW [PDF file]. You can see some of his more recent book-review work for the paper, as well as articles that reference or quote him, here.

The obituary describes his departure from the editorial pages thusly:

Day was relatively safe while Otis Chandler had a corporate role, but when Chandler dissolved his last official ties in 1988, the shield was gone.

[Publisher Tom] Johnson and [Editor William] Thomas were pressured by senior members of the board to fire Day because they regarded him as too liberal. Both men refused, but two months after Johnson was replaced as publisher in 1989, Day was removed and given the post of senior correspondent reporting on ideas and innovation.

The back story to that is pretty interesting, at least to veteran Times-watchers. According to the 2001 Otis Chandler biography Privileged Son by Dennis McDougal, the refusal to fire Tony Day cost Tom Johnson his job as publisher. (He landed on his feet, moving to CNN.) David Laventhol, president of the Times Mirror board, "had ordered Johnson to not only replace Bill Thomas but to handle a long laundry list of unfinished assignments, according to Otis, including. ... Replace the editorial page editor, Tony Day." Thomas was indeed replaced, by Shelby Coffey. Here's what McDougal says happened next:

Laventhol abolished the editorial board and the daily meetings. Instead, he ordered Day to present his daily editorial list directly to Coffey. The editor and publisher alone would decide what went into the next day's editorial page. When Day objected to this procedure, Laventhol told Tom Johnson it was time.

Johnson disagreed. He had never had his authority as publisher breached before and he refused to start by submitting to Laventhol's direct order to fire Tony Day. What happened next was a swift, clear example of how things were to be done under the new regime. If Johnson would not rid the Times of Tony Day, Laventhol would find someone else to do it. Tom went to Otis in a panic, but Otis had already heard from [Times Mirror Chairman Robert] Erburu and Laventhol. They had asked him not to interefere, and Otis agreed. Otis told Johnson that he could not save him. [...]

"Tony Day is a good example of Tom's inability to make a decision until it is too late," said Otis. "Tom is told over and over. I told him. He didn't listen."

But Shelby Coffey did listen. Two months after David Laventhol supplanted Tom Johnson as the sixth publisher of the Los Angeles Times, Coffey called Tony Day into his office to tell him that he had ben given a new assignment. He would be the Times' new columnist for ideas and ideologies. [...]

Fear and rumor raced at Mach 2 through the halls of Times Mirror Square in the closing days of 1989. If they could fire the publisher and the editorial page editor, they could fire anyone. [...]

Overnight, life inside the Velvet Coffin went from rosy to wretched, and most Timesmen and -women began leading professional lives of quiet desperation.

Dramatic stuff! But the question this all brings to my mind, and is certainly more appropriate on a day of mourning, is what did Tony Day write about ideas and ideologies after 1989? For a February 1993 Column One example, keep reading after the jump:

Take your best shot at Andrés Martinez, Editorial Page Editor of Los Angeles Times. Wednesday, February 7, 2pm Pacific Time. Click here for details and free registration.

Before The Times or any other local newspaper runs another story comparing public services in L.A. to those in New York, let's just stipulate something: New York always spends more. When LAPD Chief William Bratton complains that he doesn't have enough officers, he likes to point out how far the department lags behind New York (it has one officer per 207 residents, compared with one for every 411 residents in Los Angeles). New York also spends roughly twice as much on services for the homeless. And in media reports on L.A. County's troubled jail system, it has become standard practice to mention that New York has dramatically more jail guards overseeing a smaller inmate population than L.A.'s.

An otherwise excellent report on jail killings in Sunday's Times by Stuart Pfeifer and Robin Fields repeated that familiar theme, pointing out that 3,300 uniformed deputies in L.A. County must watch over about 18,000 inmates, while in New York there are three times as many guards overseeing 5,000 fewer prisoners. This is frequently offered by the Sheriff's Department as an excuse for the oversight problems that may have contributed to the 14 jail homicides in L.A. County since 2000. Certainly, the comparison makes L.A. jails look shockingly underfunded --  unless you look at any other big city besides New York.

L.A. County spends roughly $27,800 annually per inmate, compared to $61,000 in New York. Yet L.A. still spends more than the next three biggest cities in the United States. Philadelphia spends $23,700 per inmate, Chicago's Cook County spends $20,000 and Houston's Harris County spends only $15,800. Harris County happens to be the nation's death-penalty capital, and killing the inmates off does save on room and board. Still, it's clear that L.A. is only a laggard on jail spending when compared to New York.

Why does that city spend so much? Probably because it has more to spend, given sky-high property and sales taxes. But while Sheriff Lee Baca would like people to believe that an ongoing crisis in the local jails is the result of underspending on his department, that isn't necessarily the case. A bigger problem is the shortage of people who want to be sheriff's deputies, creating a recruiting shortfall that makes it hard to fill open slots. It's also more than possible that training and oversight of the deputies who serve as jail guards leave a lot to be desired, while computer systems and jail facilities are badly outdated.

What's certain is that L.A. is never going to match New York when it comes to spending on law enforcement and other services, and unless Angelenos want to pay much higher taxes, that isn't going to change. So comparisons on such things aren't really very valuable.

Over on the news side of The Times, columnists are reacting to the paper's ongoing turmoil by trying to convince readers of just how great their hometown paper is. Steve Lopez:

Whether it's Ron Brownstein on the president, Kim Murphy on Russia, Megan Stack covering the war in Lebanon or Iraq, Stephanie Simon reporting religion and culture with scrupulous neutrality, Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino getting inside the disastrously run Getty, David Zucchino following wounded soldiers back home from Afghanistan and Iraq, Patt Morrison slicing and dicing, Bob Pool filing sublime snapshots of the city, Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten breaking political stories in Washington or Bill Plaschke digging for a local sports angle no one else thought of, there is personality and purpose in every edition, and it costs less than a cup of joe.

More in that vein at the link. Tim Rutten:

[Y]ou have to understand what makes The Times unique among major American newspapers. Alone among the country's leading papers, this one is simultaneously the most important news organization in a vast region, the Western United States, the most influential source of news in the largest and most important state in the country and the hometown newspaper of one of the world's greatest and most important cities. At the same time, it is a paper with a national and international reach because the size, interests and sophistication of its local readership require those things. Finally, the demographic realities of the world's most ethnically and culturally diverse region dictate special obligations when it comes to coverage of Latin America and the Pacific Rim.

Over in the Opinion shop, the Chandler family's Harry Chandler gives his recommendations on how to revive the paper, while columnist Gregory Rodriguez uses the new publisher's recent remark about going after the "Hispanic" market as a jumping-off point to discuss the limitations of the (Times-preferred) term of "Latino."

L.A. Times Editor Dean Baquet was forced to resign last week, but the news (first broken today by the Wall Street Journal) wasn't supposed to be announced until Thursday. He'll be replaced on Monday by James O'Shea, managing editor of (none other than) the Chicago Tribune. Baquet's ouster follows that of former publisher Jeffrey Johnson, who was forced to resign last month by the Tribune Company over proposed staff cuts.

Links:
L.A. Observed
Editor & Publisher

* Update (via L.A. Observed): Excerpt from the note Hiller sent out to the staff, in which the publisher mentions differences over paper's direction with Baquet and future "levels of staffing":

When I came here four weeks ago, Dean Baquet and I agreed that we would work to get to know each other, for me to get to know the newspaper, and we would decide if we were on the same page in terms of the strategic and operating direction of the paper. After considerable discussion, we concluded that we have significant differences on future direction, and so Dean will be leaving. [...]

Part of that last point relates to levels of staffing and other resources, and how we allocate and re-allocate resources as our business changes, As I write this, I still do not have a definite view of staffing levels across the company, including in the newsroom. We are working through these issues in connection with the 2007 operating plan. I think it is very important, as I said in my note earlier, that all of these resource and staffing issues be decided within a framework of where we are leading the business for the long term.

It is also important that all of us be aligned on how we will approach these needed changes, and that we lead these changes positively and with confidence. I appreciate that not everybody will agree and choose to join in this direction, and that's ok. Smart and reasonable people can differ significantly. Everybody gets to choose whether this is a direction they can support, and do so with excellence and passion. But decide we all must, because the last thing we can stand is confusion on our mission and objectives. It's going to be hard enough as it is.

New York Times:

Mr. Baquet and Mr. Hiller were in preliminary discussions about staffing levels when Mr. Baquet gave a speech late last month in New Orleans in which he encouraged editors at other newspapers to "push back" more against owners who wanted to reduce the size of newsrooms.

Mr. Hiller was angered and disappointed at the New Orleans speech, according to people at the newspaper, especially as he and Mr. Baquet were trying to reach an accommodation over the budget for The Los Angeles Times.

AP:

Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan refused to allow an Associated Press reporter into the newsroom to hear Baquet speak, saying "it's an internal matter."

More -- Nikke Finke, Joseph Mailander, Mack Reed.

Still more -- Frequent Op-ed contributor Jaime Court and and former Editorial Board member Judy Dugan, who belong to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, are calling for a boycott:

"Baquet was seen as the last line of defense for the newspaper's editorial integrity," said Court. "His removal is a sign that the hog butchers from Chicago will be slashing jobs in the newsroom of Los Angeles's only remaining major newspaper, even as local suitors seek to purchase the newspaper from the company at a fair price."

It's time for subscribers of the Los Angeles Times to unite and take their newspaper back, said FTCR. It asked subscribers to begin by sending a fax posted at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/subscriberrevolt, demanding that the Tribune either reinstate Baquet, rescind its next round of cuts and concentrate on building the newspaper's coverage; or sell it to local owners ready to pledge similar action before the end of the year. Without such changes, subscribers can threaten via the fax to cancel their subscriptions by Jan. 1. [...]

"This Election Day, readers who care about having a great Los Angeles newspaper should unelect the Tribune's management of the L.A. Times," said FTCR research director Judy Dugan, a former editorial board member of the Times. "Tribune's strategy is aimed at short-term improvement of the stock price and saving the hides of Tribune executives, not at reinforcing a great local paper."

Over at the Huffington Post, Court says "The Tribune company has pulled a page from Karl Rove's playbook."

Today is an important milestone in the evolution of the Opinion section -- we're moving up to the newly redesigned A section of the newspaper. To mark the occasion we have used the opportunity to step back and reintroduce ourselves to you, shed a bit of light on what we do, how we do it, and why. Ever wonder about the editorial board's philosophy? Wonder no more (or at least less) by reading our Mission Statement. Here's an excerpt:

We reject overreaching moves by public authorities to control the culture or private mores. Citizens' right to privacy, to decide for themselves how best to lead their lives, is fundamental. It is in keeping with our Western roots to champion individual autonomy and the freedom of conscience.

Much more where that came from. There's also an explanation of how we arrive at our (usually) three unsigned editorials per day. Excerpt:

The writing of editorials is a team effort; they aren't columns reflecting any one person's viewpoint. A member of the board (editors included) can't write an editorial endorsing a position in the absence of consensus among the group. That is not to say we are a full democracy. Editor Andres Martinez and Deputy Editor Michael Newman have a bigger say, especially in wielding a veto, and both report directly to the publisher, who has an even bigger say.

And you can, for the first time, meet the members of the editorial board, find out what they cover and where they've been.

And what of the Op-Ed side of the page? Read an explanation from Op-Ed Editor Nicholas Goldberg. Excerpt:

Sometimes we get e-mails complaining that the pieces we've run are biased. To which we reply: Of course they are! Unlike the articles in our news pages (where reporters endeavor to be objective), our articles are opinion pieces; bias and a point of view are expected. In that sense, they're like the editorials that appear on the opposite side of the page (Op-Ed, get it?). [...]

People often want to know whether we seek balance on the page. The answer, as best I can give it, is this: We want a page that is politically balanced over time — not leaning too heavily to the left or the right — but we don't monitor it day to day, or count Democrats versus Republicans. Similarly, we seek diversity of thought and diversity of contributors — we want provocative ideas from people of all races, genders, religions, etc. — but again, we don't try to balance the number of women to men on every single page.

And our 10 regular Op-Ed columnists each re-introduce themselves to you. Here, for example, is a taste of Joel Stein:

Basically, what I do is the opposite of "Seinfeld": I turn something into nothing. To get that perspective, I try to find the small angle on the story no one has looked at. My column is not a place for readers to pick up facts and figures to bolster your already ingrained arguments. And that's only partly because finding facts and figures takes a lot of work.

And finally, Letters Editor Julie Ryan Green announces that the newly designed page will add more space for letters (at the expense of editorials), and explains how she goes about her work. Excerpt:

On any particular topic, we try to represent the volume and variety of opinions expressed by our mail, not necessarily an even number of pro and con positions. Every day, an average of 800 readers share their thoughts with us.

We can print only a dozen or so letters daily, but about a year ago we began to share more of our readers' comments by posting additional letters online at latimes.com/letters.

How can you improve your chances of getting published? Be succinct; we seldom publish letters of more than 150 words. Your letter also should be exclusive to The Times and must include where you live and provide a daytime phone number for verification purposes.

To pre-emptively answer one question, no, the motivation for this episode of public confession has nothing to do with the appointment of a new publisher, nor is it part of the Manhappenin' Beach Spring Street Project. We just wanted to lay our cards on the table, answer questions we're asked daily, and stick it online for future reference. Let us know what you think!

Above-the-masthead sky boxes, a thousand headline-fonts blooming, a mix of 21st century sass and old-timey newspaper ALL-CAPS ... plus an intriguing note from new Publisher David Hiller. Thumbs up? Thumbs down?

And stay tuned tomorrow for the Opinion Section's inaugural appearance in the back of the A section, which will be accompanied by various editor's-note explainers and manifestos letting you know the who, where, when, why and how of what we do.

The New York Times reports today that the braintrust of the L.A. Times

is dedicating three investigative reporters and half a dozen editors to find ideas, at home and abroad, for re-engaging the reader, both in print and online. The newspaper's editor, Dean Baquet, and its new publisher, David Hiller, plan to convene a meeting today to start the effort, which is being called the Manhattan Project. A report is expected in about two months.

Nitpickers might notice some subtle differences from the actual Manhattan Project -- instead of four years, this'll take two months; instead of legendary airtight secrecy this was announced in the New York Times before the first meeting -- but the important thing is that there'll be some kind of fiery explosion at the end.

We kid! How about some local reaction, then?

Mack Reed of LaVoice.org says "Good instinct, good goals, and good action."

Just not sure why it would take two months to figure out they can engage their readers by covering Los Angeles better and maybe doing some real investigative work in Hollywood

Italics his. Former Timesman Ed Padgett seems to like it, and adds:

I say take it a big step further by having all Times employees involved in increasing our circulation.

Another former Timesman, Ken Reich, reckons that:

this cannot be done, in my view, without some willingness on the part of Tribune Co., the present unimaginative owners, to spend some money on the improvements. And to pay for a marketing campaign to publicize them.

Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News says:

It's a great idea, and so we hope they get it right. My biggest concern is that they will focus too much on the print edition, and not enough on the Web.

Meanwhile, the helpful tipsters over at The Free Republic have a bounty of advice, including this from "abb":

1. Assign competitive teams to cover each area of the city. Cover those areas as if each were small towns (which, in a way, they are.) Find positive stories and human interest stories and print them, not just crime reports. Include pictures. People will start to buy a paper if they recognize their neighbors in it, or if their kids get a mention for their participation in Community Service or sports or something.

2. Make a true, concerted effort to make your reporting impartial. Political viewpoints should go to the editorial and op ed pages.

3. Find a non-partisan cause to support...cleaing up litter, Boys and Girls Clubs, tree-planting, etc. and get the community involved. Devote your efforts to this cause instead of constant snarky comments about Republicans.

4. Require all reporters to spend 2 weeks each year riding with a cop, working construction, following a small businessman around, etc. They need a dose of the real world. Better yet...require all reporters to take their vacations in small Midwestern towns. In the winter.

What should the 21st century Manhattan Project produce? Please leave suggestions in the comments. To see what a bunch of grumpy journalists think, click here.

UPDATE: Reaction to the 21st century Oppenheimers keeps coming in. New Media guy Jeff Jarvis:

I wish them luck, but I fear they are off on the wrong if predictable foot: namely, preserving print and the past. [...]

I find it surprising that I find nothing under "Manhattan Project" or its boss' name at the LA Times. I'd think the first, best thing to do is to get the ideas from your public.

Venice-based syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon:

Perhaps I should send Marc Duvoisin my column samples. I mean, if they aren't pulling 'em in in droves with Al Martinez and Howard Leff.

Make sure to read the comments! Thomas Kelley over at California Connected:

from this reporter's vantage point, the LA Times would do well to also match the Web innovations of their Manhattan-based competitor, The New York Times. With an easy-to-use, uncluttered Web site, The New York Times delivers a seamless and engaging multimedia experience.

In contrast, despite producing a worldclass video series on ocean pollution, the LA Times failed to promote it properly on its own Web site. I have spoken to no one, including journalists and journalism professors, who have seen it. If the same series had appeared on the NY Times' interface, it would have created a much bigger buzz.

Boston media critic extraordinnaire Dan Kennedy:

Visions of nuclear armaggedon aside, the "Los Angeles Project" would definitely be a more promising name.

We are proud to introduce our third Los Angeles Times Opinion Blog, Bit Player, written by the incomparable Jon Healey. Jon is an editorial writer at the Times who pens most editorials on the subjects of business, entertainment and technology. His knowledge in these areas is encyclopedic, and his blog is bound to be an entertaining and enlightening read.

Jon starts by writing about Sony BMG and the Times' entertainment poll series, which has been running this week. We hope you will go and take a look!

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, stopped by the Times yesterday for an action-packed Q&A session with the editorial board and other senior editors. Among the questions that were asked was one question from a reader. Exerpts from our conversation with Blair are below. The full list of questions and more information can be found here.

Featured question

Why do you continually focus so much on increasing economic aid to Africa instead of corruption, when you know, and if you don't you certainly need to find out the reality, especially here in Nigeria, that the VAST majority of it never reaches the poor people for which it is intended?

Blair's response

"We've got a peer review process, which the African governments are going through, which is actually quite robust, where they have to come up to certain benchmarks on democratic process.

"We've also got the agreement on the extractive industries, which I'm trying to get everybody to agree to, but which will basically mean that there is transparency in all the exploitation of the metal resources of Africa so that people see what's actually being paid and why.

"The only way of dealing with Africa is a partnership. We have got to put immense pressure on African countries and African leadership to stop practices of corruption, to get proper judicial systems, we are prepared to help and support them in that, but it was actually a very important moment when President [Olusegun] Obasanjo put forward his proposal to stand for a third term, they said no, and now he's leaving office. That's important. There have been African countries changing hands for the first time democratically. But then you get a situation like Zimbabwe where you kind of despair because the pressure for change there should be coming from within Africa, not from outside Africa.

Other selected quotes from Blair:

On Middle East violence: "My argument is that the immediate crisis in the Lebanon is indicative of some far deeper crisis, which is basically a struggle about global values.... The most important thing is that we show that our values are based not just on freedom but also on fairness."

On Israeli bombing of Lebanon: What happened at Qana was terrible and tragic, but the fact is you're not going to get a cease-fire unless it's on both sides as part of an agreement.... Short term — there's no point in being absurd about it — there's a lot of damage to the cause of moderation done amongst the Arab and Muslim countries, but what's Israel supposed to do when it comes under attack like that?"

On Iraq's future: "It has evolved into a different type of conflict ... and we will judge whether we have succeeded or not when the democratically elected Iraqi government is predominantly in charge of its country.... You cannot say we have succeeded if in Baghdad actually you've got militias running the streets rather then the Iraqi army and security forces. So that's the test."

On climate change: "America should always be in the lead on every major issue.... You could take the view if America led on climate change the rest of the world would resent it, but actually they wouldn't. The rest of the world would say, 'Well, that's great, America's caring about an issue we care about.'... A climate change deal without America, China and India is, how can I put it, not entirely effective."

On use of force: "Sudan is a classic example in which once again we are not intervening as strongly as we should be.... I'm basically an interventionist. Afghanistan shows you what happens when you're not. We let that place go."

On Bush: "Any world leader who deals with President Bush will tell you that whatever disagreement some of them may have with his policy, he is always a charming and courteous person to deal with.

The Chandler-Tribune fued has triggered two L.A. Times items of interest the last few days.

The first was a profile of Tribune Co. CEO Douglas FitzSimons by Thomas Mulligan in Tuesday's paper.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt called the piece an all-out attack on Tribune by its ungrateful and unreformable employees:

This is a classic hit piece, standard fare for the Times, but usually reserved for a politician that the paper has decided must go.

Former Times staffer Ken Reich at Take Back The Times attacked FitzSimons, saying that the piece showed the Times feels mistreated:

This is no surprise. It means what has become obvious, that FitzSimons cares far more about making money than he does about journalistic quality. He has even selfishly raised his own salary, while Tribune fortunes sink.

The second piece is a column by Steve Lopez, who attacks Tribune executives as "corporate profiteers," and tries to convince local billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad, among others, to buy the paper.

The primary election is just a week away, which for most voters means fumbling through misleading voter information guides, picking Superior Court judges' names at random, or just staying home. Here's some notable recent election coverage in the opinion and news pages to get you in the voting mood:

Lying guides: The Times' Robert Greene dissects the state's Official Voter Information Guide. He writes: "The Official Voter Information Guide (available, by the way, in seven languages, and costing $9.3 million this year to print and mail) becomes an extension of the pro and con campaign mail that floods mailboxes a few days before each election. Backers and opponents of ballot measures can, and often do, say pretty much anything to get you on their side."

Election fatigued: Too many elections make Jack a bored voter, says analyst Tony Quinn. He writes:

"The biggest decision on the ballot is whether Democrats prefer state Treasurer Phil Angelides or state Controller Steve Westly as their candidate for governor. Neither has stirred much political excitement, a state of affairs reflected in the relatively large number of voters still undecided. Tired voters may do what they always do when bored by politics — stay home.

"A low turnout usually means an older, more conservative electorate. In 2002, nearly as many Republicans as Democrats voted despite the fact that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 1.5 million voters. If that happens in June, Proposition 82, the measure to raise income taxes on the rich to pay for universal preschool, will probably lose. Polls show voters are split on the proposal."

Schwarzenegger's baaack: The Austrian-born mumbler has rumbled back into the thick of the gubernatorial race, writes author Lou Cannon. Why? He's just too darn likable to let a few political stumbles get in his way:

"The biggest single reason that Schwarzenegger is favored to win reelection is that a significant majority of voters, including those who take a dim view of his policies, like him. He descended into politics as a popular celebrity known from his movies, particularly the 'Terminator' films, and this aura still clings to him despite his many political mishaps. A poll in March by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that, his policies notwithstanding, 71% of prospective voters said they liked the governor.

"When any incumbent enters an election with the personal approval of more than 70% of the electorate, he has a leg up on his opponents. 'There's a reservoir of goodwill for Gov. Schwarzenegger,' said H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs at the state Department of Finance and the governor's chief spokesman on fiscal issues. 'People want him to succeed because they want the state to succeed.' "

Sandbox standoff: The debate over Proposition 82, the universal preschool initiative, is a chalkboard scratch-off. Clouds of chalk dust fly as foes scribble numbers and try to wipe out their opponents' fuzzy math. Here's a taste from two recent op-eds:

From opponent Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley education prof: "Lower-income children would get less than half of the estimated $2.4 billion in new annual pre-school funding that would be raised by taxing the wealthiest Californians. That's partly because over half of these children already attend free preschool. At least $1.4 billion would go to subsidize better-off parents who can already afford to pay for preschool."

From proponent Arthur Reynolds, a Minnesota child development specialist: "A much-discussed 2005 Rand Corp. study found that a universal program of high quality for all California 4-year-olds would return to society from $2 to $4 for every dollar invested. That's a conservative calculation."

Go HERE to read the full op-eds and cast your vote.

Want more? Here's an op-ed by Stanford economist Michael Boskin arguing "Proposition 82 is the latest in a string of terrible initiatives that seek to micromanage the state by creating unnecessary, inefficient, multibillion-dollar programs financed by ever-higher tax rates."

The Superior Court guessing game: Times reporter Jessica Garrison writes about the uninformed scramble for state Superior Court spots: "Chances are, most voters won't have heard of any of the prospective judges whose names will appear at the bottom of their ballot next month. Chances are, most voters will vote anyway." Judges with unusual names are especially at risk of election challenges. Example: experienced jurist Dzintra Janavs, whose campaign consultant believes was targeted because of her tongue-twisting name.

Want to skip the guesswork? See the Times endorsements for Superior Court, the nation's largest trial court. And yes, the Times endorses Janavs, whose white-bread challenger Lynn Diane Olson put lawyering on hold to run a Manhattan Beach bagel shop. "Olson may make the better bagel. Janavs would remain by far the better judge," write the Times editors. See all Times endorsements at www.latimes.com/endorsements.

As the city shut down for the Memorial Day weekend, Mexican President Vicente Fox wrapped up his four-day U.S. tour in L.A. today — the end of his first California visit in five years. Fox met with two leading local immigration-reform backers, Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa and Cardinal Roger Mahony, as well as labor leaders. The Times reports tomorrow that Villaraigosa tried to avoid talking about immigration, which he called a federal matter. The mayor stuck to his trade-mission talking points with reporters, while Fox said "a legal, safe, orderly immigration policy will benefit the security and prosperity of both our nations."

Spanish-language daily La Opinion reported that Fox applauded yesterday's Senate vote for comprehensive immigration reform, saying it would help the two countries focus their attention on security and economic growth. "We are your allies in the war against drugs and crime," he said in a meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Yesterday Fox told reporters Mexico is "promoting economic growth and social opportunities so that migration is no longer a necessity," the Times noted. Since Fox was last in California, some 5 million people have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Times newshound Patrick McGreevy reports that L.A. Police Chief William Bratton is getting into the computer age. No, we're not talking about the long-delayed, court-ordered officer-tracking system. We're talking blog.

With LAPD Blog, Bratton joins a suddenly crowded field of civic bloggers, including Councilman Eric Garcetti and animal services manager Ed Boks.

(Note: As of 1 p.m. Friday the main LAPD site was redirecting users to a non-LAPD "under construction" page offering free ringtones and links to an education news blog that wasn't the Times' perky School Me!) UPDATED 3:48 p.m.: www.lapdblog.org now appears to be working.

The blog's first posts take a more confrontational approach than the generally upbeat attitude of other civic blogs. An unsigned response to a Daily News editorial alleging he cooked crime stats begins, "Your recent article and editorial regarding the Los Angeles Police Department crime statistics require a deeper explanation and discussion than you have allowed." Bratton told the Times he sees the blog as "an opportunity for me to respond to those issues where I feel the department is being misrepresented." Watch out, trolls! 

The story says Bratton will post regularly on the departmental blog, but a staff member will administer the blog.

The chief hasn't given up on old media, though. Last week he defended the department in a Times op-ed arguing the post-Rampart consent decree not be extended when it expires next month. Bratton wrote:

This is a new LAPD. Fully one-third of our officers have been hired since the consent decree was implemented in 2001, and more than two-thirds have joined the department since 1995, when the Justice Department began its investigation. So, a significant percentage of our officers accept these "new" practices as normal operating procedure. Among the changes: watch commander review of arrestees and booking charges, stringent selection standards for anti-gang and field training officers and creation of a specialized division to investigate uses of force.

Plus, he didn't add but could have — we're bloggin'.

LAPD Standoff: A federal judge will hear arguments May 15 about whether to extend the consent decree two years or let it expire next month. Read Erwin Chemerinsky, Catherine Lhamon and Mark Rosenbaum's oped about why the LAPD still needs policing, and Bratton's op-ed about the new LAPD, and cast your vote.

Independent Sources blog does a close reading of the Times and finds L.A. Sheriff Leroy Baca would beat Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ... in a 10K footrace: "The Los Angeles Times' recent story on Antonio Villaraigosa’s active schedule included a picture of the LA Mayor running the 5K Run for Victims’ Rights 5k. They noted that his time of 22:58 was quicker than his LAPD body guard. This is indeed impressive unless of course you compare it to the running exploits of Sheriff Lee Baca [....] If Villaraigosa were to run a 10k and slow [his] pace only to around 7:30/mile (a conservative estimate) because of the longer distance, Baca would beat him by a about a mile." Catch up with Baca in Times reporters Robin Fields and Stuart Pfeifer's Sunday story about the "quirky sheriff."

Last week in the Times, economist William Easterly argued spending mountains of cash on a campaign to end poverty is getting us nowhere. Yesterday, academic and advocate Jeffrey Sachs took aim at Easterly and other foreign-aid "skeptics." Read the op-eds here and decide who's right — then cast your vote on who won.

Well, it's an e-mail/blog hoax. To see the truth, as best we have determined, check out Swati Pandey over at our Borderline blog.

The L.A. Times has suspended Pulitzer-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik without pay, and discontinued both his column and his weblog, in response to the news that Hiltzik used psuedonyms on his blog and elsewhere to comment on Times-related matters, including his own work. From the editor's note:

Hiltzik did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web. But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The Times' ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world.

Over the past few days, some analysts have used this episode to portray the Web as a new frontier for newspapers, saying that it raises fresh and compelling ethical questions. Times editors don't see it that way. The Web makes it easier to conceal one's identity, and the tone of exchanges is often harsh. But the Web doesn't change the rules for Times journalists.

Whole thing here; related material at L.A. Observed. Hiltzik will be "reassigned" after the suspension. The investigation was triggered by some tech sleuthing by serial Hiltzik/Times antagonist Patrick "Patterico" Frey, who drew an initially dismissive response from Hiltzik.

Frey is conflicted about the result:

Obviously, the decision was the editors’ to make, and they have made it. I will have to reflect on this. I may post further thoughts over the weekend.

Regardless of whether this was the right move, I take no joy in the result, and I encourage readers to show class and restraint in their comments.

L.A. Voice's Mack Reed is not shedding any tears:

The memo from Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Doug Frantz puts it pretty well, but almost misses Hiltzik's crime against authorial morality in pinpointing the one against editorial policy [...]

[H]e stumbled by manufacturing two of his greatest fans, posing as them on his own blog and others, and trying to mislead the public as to his own popularity - both the height of vanity and the depth of stupidity for a blogger. It was only a matter of time before someone exposed him. If you proclaim yourself a truth-teller and analyst of fact, you can't get away with lying for long in this venue.

Hugh Hewitt pours scorn on the whole enterprise:

Isn't it at least a little ironic that the Times releases this information on a Friday afternoon, traditional burial ground of bad news-- in an obvious effort to have the story pass with as little attention as possible? So much for transparency.

Michael Hiltzik is just one of hundreds of examples of ideologicially blinkered agenda journalists at the Times. He just got caught. [...]

The Times concludes "an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting."

[T]he culture at the Times that produced him quite obviously stays the same.

Lefty blogger and bankruptcy lawyer Steve Smith, on the other hand, thinks the suspension was a terrible mistake:

Perhaps demonstrating, once and for all, that the LA Times doesn't get the internet or the blogosphere [....] Being a monopoly allows you to do stuff like that.