Columnist Jonah Goldberg explains what Yucca Mountain and Guantanamo Bay have in common:

Well, there's the obvious stuff. Both have Spanish names. Neither is a great spot for a family vacation. And each is under the control of the federal government.

Oh, and both are essential tools in wars a lot of people claim they want to win.

Boston University's Andrew J. Bacevich argues that Iraq has illustrated the limits of U.S. power and new Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) wants an independent review of the state's revenue. And freelance writer Mary Kolesnikova says KMN (that's "kill me now") in response to a Pew report finding that teens let Internet chat speak into their homework.

The editorial board notes a new study finding that many Iraq veterans suffer from untreated brain injuries, and supports a state bill that would create CalPERS-managed portable retirement plans for private employees. The board also laments the sad state of the Southern California bookstore and the latest one to fall into financial dire straits, Libreria Martinez:

...Libreria Martinez, Santa Ana's nationally honored Latino-themed bookstore, is now threatened. After all, how many booksellers win a MacArthur Foundation genius grant? (Though Rueben Martinez was forced to use some of that $500,000 to pay his store's bills.) For that matter, how odd is it that the landlord forcing the store to move is a charter school for the arts with a well-regarded creative writing program?

On the letters page, readers react to the notion that Barack Obama's biggest problem is his elitism, not his race. Long Beach's Charles Q. Clay III says, "Hogwash! Obama has exactly half as many Ivy League degrees as our current president, who, you might recall, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was not raised by a single mother on food stamps."

Newsweek correspondent and author Michael Hastings knows too well that war is more than statistics:

While I was in Iraq covering the war for Newsweek for two years starting in 2005, the woman I planned to marry was murdered in Baghdad by insurgents on Jan. 17, 2007. Her name was Andi Parhamovich; she'd come to Iraq to work for the National Democratic Institute, an NGO....

We -- Andi, me, Jeff, Greg, Scott, Ferris -- all chose to go to Iraq, volunteers for our respective causes. We were under no illusions about the risks, though that's a glib way of putting it. I don't think anyone can fully grasp the risks until whoosh, wham, through the looking glass you crash on the way to the rehab center at Walter Reed or a funeral parlor in Ohio.

Iraq often gets treated by pundits, writers and politicians -- all those thoughtful cheerleaders turned war critics -- as an intellectual exercise. It's not.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez reports that people will often ignore their self interest if they can get a fair deal. And New Republic assistant editor James Kirchick says South African President Thabo Mbeki shouldn't stand by as Robert Mugabe ruins Zimbabwe.

The editorial board says no on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99, and asks why phone customers should have to pay to keep their numbers unlisted.

On the letters page, Long Beach's Iris Ingram says to those who would ask Hillary Clinton to quit the race: "The primary season ends in June. So suck it up and stick it out."

Tomdispatch.com associate editor Nick Turse shows how consumer firms like Apple and Krispy Kreme profit from Iraq, and columnist Joel Stein scores some (prescription) marijuana:

Sometimes I can't believe how Californian California is. Women walk around half-naked, waiters call patrons "dude," and medical marijuana is legal. But I wondered just how legal. Could anyone buy it? Even me, who doesn't have cancer, AIDS, arthritis, glaucoma or even any previous pot-smoking experience?

Medical marijuana isn't really legal -- in 2005, the Supreme Court said federal anti-drug laws trump state laws -- but California and 11 other hippie states have been flipping off Washington for years.

The editorial board criticizes President Bush for failing to hold the Reading First program accountable, and says California's misuse of the recall process may be one reason the state is in such bad shape.

Readers discuss the election, and whether Hillary Clinton should quit. Palm Springs' Eleanor Jackson wonders, "It's difficult to understand how anyone, particularly a Democrat or independent voter, can dislike Clinton (or for that matter, Obama) so much that they would be willing to not vote or vote for John McCain. Do they not realize the consequences of a Republican victory this November?"

European policy experts John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell look to 'The Godfather' for diplomatic pointers:

[Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather"] is also a startlingly useful metaphor for the strategic problems and global power structure of our time. The don, emblematic of Cold War American power, is struck by forces he did not expect and does not understand, as was America on 9/11. Intriguingly, his heirs embrace very different visions of family strategy that approximate the three schools of thought -- liberal institutionalism, neoconservatism and realism -- vying for control of U.S. foreign policy today.

Freelance writer Lionel Beehner has another proposal for smoother diplomacy: pronouncing foreign dignitaries' names properly. Columnist Tim Rutten tells an L.A. version of "A Tale of Two Cities," and contributing editor Erin Aubry Kaplan explores why poet and long-time Watts resident Eric Priestley is fighting City Hall to keep his home.

The editorial board praises a California Supreme Court decision voiding the death sentence of Adam Miranda, presses for a shield law, and says now isn't the time to scold Myanmar's leaders:

It has been clear for more than a decade -- and especially since last year's suppression of the would-be Saffron Revolution -- that Myanmar's odious junta cannot be shamed into reform. It is too isolated and xenophobic to worry about its image, too paranoid to learn from outsiders and too blood-drenched to believe it can survive any loosening of control over its hapless people. The contradictory combination of U.S. sanctions and an engagement strategy adopted by its neighbors has failed to produce any improvement. Attempts to use the catastrophe of Tropical Cyclone Nargis as leverage to pry open the country will almost surely fail as well.

We recently featured a Blowback by Mark Cromer of Californians for Population Stabilization, claiming that this country's rancorous immigration debate has stopped a sensible discussion of sustainable population growth.

It seems the opposite is true in Britain, where fears of overpopulation are stirring immigration policy reform, and big-time Conservative politicians aren't afraid to link the two. The Telegraph reports:

The population of England will increase by a third over the next 50 years as it becomes the most crowded major nation in Europe, official forecasts suggest.
The current population of England is 50 million, but by 2056 the figure will be 68 million, meaning an average of 1,349 people will live in every square mile. At the moment England’s population density is 1,010 people per square mile....
The Conservatives, who obtained the figures in a parliamentary answer, said they were a damning indictment of Labour’s immigration policy and once again called for tariffs on migration....
About 1.3 million immigrants have arrived in the past decade and ministers say the record levels are required because the British economy has 600,000 job vacancies. Yet the benefits to indigenous Britons have been questioned.

Today, the government announced the second stage of a new points-based immigration system. (I briefly discussed the issue, as it relates to the all-important forecasted curry shortage, here.) British employers will have to prove they can't find a skilled countryman to fill an open post, and potential immigrants have to speak English and earn over 24,000 pounds (or about $47,400). The first stage of the points system went into place in February, applying to immigrants already in England who wanted to extend their stay. A third stage will go into effect later this year, covering temporary workers and students.

Just how crowded is England? As the Telegraph notes, the most crowded place in the world, Macau, has a population density of over 47,000 people to a square mile. California's density is about 217 people per square mile, while the U.S. has a density of under 100. But Los Angeles County's is 2,344, which is lower than Orange County's 3,605.

In any case, the UK is working hard to keep out at least one temporary visitor.

(And, I can't resist linking this.)

Columnist Jonah Goldberg says issues that may seem irrelevant actually give us clues about the candidates:

Whatever the true import of Obama's relationship with Wright may be, or whatever the proper weight voters should give to his view that poor whites "cling" to guns and religion because they've suffered under bad economic policies, or, for that matter, what Clinton's "sniper fire" story says about her, it strikes me as absurd to argue that these data are meaningless but their stance on a gas-tax holiday is of enduring importance.

Pacific Council on International Policy adjunct fellow Joshua Kurlantzick profiles China's educated, wealthy next-generation nationalists who aren't afraid to be aggressive toward the West. And USC's Sara Catania has an idea for the Silver Lake Reservoir: a new kind of urban park.

The editorial board thinks a tax on services might work for California if done right and explains why Yahoo and Google's teaming up on advertising would be bad for consumers. The board also responds to the death of racehorse Eight Belles at the Kentucky Derby last weekend:

As we explore the limits of physical performance, sports trend toward the more extreme, even if it harms rather than enhances the athlete's health. Steroids in baseball, eating disorders in prepubescent gymnasts, whatever it takes to win, until there's a public pushback that threatens the sport. Without industry reform in the near future, it's easy to imagine such a pushback against the biggest athlete of all -- the racehorse.

On the letters page, readers discuss May Day. Chino's Raul Perez asks, "How is it that I have to have a passport to enter the country in which I was born, raised and served in the armed forces while others come and go as they please?"

Journalist and food critic Alice Feiring explores why California wines aren't what they used to be:

Forget "Eureka," the new state motto can well be: "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing." Today's California wines are overblown, over-alcoholed, over-oaked, overpriced and over-manipulated.

When I first stopped drinking the Left Coast, it was because I was offended by the overuse of wood, boring flavors and lack of structure. The wines, many of which had plenty of edge and personality, seemed neutered to me. I soon learned that the other part of the story was that an arsenal of technology was deployed to make them that way: yeast, enzymes, tannin, oak and acid, as well as over-extracting techniques, micro-oxygenation, dialysis and reverse osmosis.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez calls out Barack Obama for flip-flopping on Rev. Jeremiah A Wright Jr. And Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System trustee Kelly Candaele says CalPERS should stick to being an "activist" investor.

The editorial board warns Angelenos that a racial separatist running for judge could win if they don't get out the vote. The board also checks in on trouble in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia and thinks California should bring fairness to its school spending.

Tim Rutten marvels at the questionable artistic value of "Grand Theft Auto IV," and writer Gary Ferguson laments the senseless violence that hunters are unleashing on the gray wolf, just released from the endangered species list. New York University professor Stephen F. Cohen says hold the baloney: It's the U.S., not Russia, that's responsible for the heightened tensions of late:

During the last eight years, Putin's foreign policies have been largely a reaction to Washington's winner-take-all approach to Moscow since the early 1990s, which resulted from a revised U.S. view of how the Cold War ended. In that new, triumphalist narrative, the U.S. won the 40-year conflict and post-Soviet Russia was a defeated nation analogous to post-World War II Germany and Japan -- a nation without full sovereignty at home or autonomous national interests abroad.

The editorial board also worries about the gray wolf, and calls on Mexico's politicians not to fuel the debate over the future of the nation's oil industry with hot air. The board also gives Obama a thumbs-up for not falling victim to easy political gimmicks as gas prices rise:

High gas prices can prompt political hysteria in the best of times, but when they soar during an election year, the fumes rising from candidate stump speeches can make a person sick. Of the three candidates and the president they're out to replace, only one is telling the truth about oil -- and he may suffer for his political courage.

Readers rip into an editorial commending McCain for not indulging in political pandering. Fred Sokolow asks:

In your editorial, you characterize McCain as boldly preaching an unpopular message, but it's the same old, tired, free-market deregulation dogma.

There's nothing contrarian about it -- it's the Bush line, which has put America in the terrible spot we're in today.

Won't you begin to assess this guy for what he really is? He's no maverick; he's a throwback, and more of the same poison that's been killing America (and Americans, and Iraqis) for seven years.

... and soars on hot air from the blogosphere.

After more than a month of studied silence, the reverend has stepped into the public spotlight to defend his controversial remarks on race in America -- and make veiled criticisms of Sen. Barack Obama in the process. On Obama's repudiation of his incendiary statements, the minister had this to say: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician."

Obama reacted angrily to his former pastor's comments, calling them "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." Jonah Goldberg gleefully celebrated Wright's coming-out as "every bit as radical as his detractors claimed."

They're not the only ones with choice words about Wright's recent performances:

The Times' own Top of the Ticket blog asks, "Was Jeremiah Wright's speech set up by a Clinton supporter?"

... we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at ... who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds ... an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Jeffrey Weiss over at the Dallas Morning News' religion blog wonders why pundits can't take Obama out of the equation:

After the NAACP speech, the all-news networks talking heads were mostly falling all over themselves to do political analysis about whether or not the speech would help or hurt Barack Obama, rather than attempt even a moment of thought about the meaning of what Wright actually said.

The Caucus over at the NY Times does a roundup of its own, observing:

Voices around the blogosphere say they’re tired of the media kerfuffle surrounding Barack Obama and his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., but they certainly keep writing about it.

They also say they’re sick of the expression “thrown under the bus,” but they keep using it.

For some Wright-Obama commentary with both local and international flavor, Ha'aretz's Shmuel Rosner invokes the "Bradley Effect," but also snarks at the minister's comments about Israel:

At moments he came off as mocking and somewhat vain, but made an effort to soften the hardliner perception his speech had left behind. He was also asked about his views on Israel. "Apartheid?" he asked, adding that Jimmy Carter used this term, not him.

Israel, Wright said, "has a right to exist". His only desire was that the Israelis and Palestinians live in peace. He made no reference to the sermon in which he connected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the September 11th attacks, but he did make sure to emphasize his "Jewish friends". As it turns out, Jeremiah Wright also has a couple of those.

Daniel Nichanian at the Huffington Post compares Wright's position to one of the 2000 presidential election's most beleaguered political players:

Wright has no obligation to put Obama's interest above his own; dragged through the mud for news, the pastor has an opening to make people listen to him and hear the full context of his theology. Those who today profess themselves appalled that Wright would throw Obama under the bus miss the point that Wright does not think of himself as having any allegiance to Obama or to his election, just as Ralph Nader had no any allegiance to the Democratic Party making it hard to understand why 2004 was "a betrayal."

Wonkette agrees, in an offbeat sort of way:

He's blowing open the racial politics that Obama wants to close and claiming that Obama is insincere when he rejects Wright's "extreme sermons"; he's trying to balance a deserved self-defense with the collateral damage that that brings on Obama. He has an ego. Most importantly, he's just some old preacher and not Obama's surrogate father. He can say whatever he wants and Barry will just have to deal with it. Individual people have a right to defend themselves, and politicians have a right to disown them. That's all, goodnight.

While Sen. McCain had the plug pulled on the North Carolina Republican Party's ad highlighting the Obama-Wright connection, it seems the state party leaders will be getting the airtime they wanted for free.

Author Stefan Merrill Block remembers his home-school days:

When I tell people that I was home schooled, I frequently encounter an amalgam of awe, pity and curiosity. I can see the false images materializing behind their eyes -- a childhood spent idling in front of the TV in my pajamas, or spent subject to the fanciful whims of a flighty New Age mom, or spent imprisoned by my parents' ignorance and severity.

These myths have alternately amused and annoyed me, but now it seems they threaten the very survival of home schooling in California.

Hampshire College's Michael T. Klare says China and the U.S. would be wise to cooperate rather than compete for oil as the market heats up. And Bryan A. Liang of the San Diego Center for Patient Safety notes that drugs have to stay safe particularly as they grow more complex.

The Times endorses for district attorney and the Board of Supervisors, and asks the presidential candidates 10 serious questions.

Readers discuss proposals for converting carpool lanes into congestion-priced toll lanes. L.A.'s Samuel Gould says, "Charging anyone using special lanes at rush hour regardless of occupancy will merely give advantages to those who can pay and exclude those who cannot, selling convenience to the affluent."

According to a New York Times article, “Pants May be Touted as the Coming Thing, but Women Seem to Prefer Dresses.” Included as evidence? Quotes from the 1941 classic “Citizen Kane” and allusions to a decades-old short story, “The Girls in Their Summer Dresses.”

If you assumed the piece to be an old nugget from the archives trotted out for amusement (like we do here, on occasion), you’d be wrong. Here’s a choice bit:

I am not eager for women to become “a little more hard-core, a little more androgynous, a little more butch.” Yes, gender play is fun, and trousers are a useful wardrobe default for the woman in business. But unless you are Thomas McGuane and find nothing sexier than a woman with crow’s feet, tight Wranglers and suede chaps, you will have to concede that, for flattering a woman’s body, nothing is quite like a dress.

The sentiment alone—men like women in dresses—is too obvious to be objectionable. That the story tries to couch the sentiment as advice for women is plain silly, as is the idea that New York City women would wear summer dresses in winter, or the dreaded “trousers” in summer (we in L.A. can pull both off a bit more easily).

But there are some objectionable things here: the peeping-tom creepiness; the weirdly old-fashioned gender ideals; the patronizing slide-show title, “Enjoy Being a Girl”; the clear and cruelly-put preference of the writer for the young and full-figured; and the dismissal of successful women in the fashion industry. (How dare those power-grubbing witches anoint pants trendy and ruin it for the men!)

Kishore Mahbubani of the National University of Singapore explains why China sees Tibet quite differently than the West:

Chinese history records dominion over Tibet as far back as the 13th century. China's control has ebbed and flowed -- but this is equally true in many other parts of China. Central control by the capital has never been consistent, shifting with the strength of the central government. But this much is certain: China has been in control of most of its territories longer than some Western nations have existed.

More important, the Chinese recall that the latest efforts to separate Tibet from China came as recently as the 1940s and 1950s, when British and U.S. agents were seen to be encouraging Tibetan independence while the new People's Republic was still weak.... Virtually no Chinese believe that Western governments have a strictly moral interest in Tibet. They are convinced that their efforts are only the latest efforts to dismember or derail China.

Author Carolyn See navigates Santa Monica sans car, and columnist Joel Stein finds a place for thoughts that aren't even well-formed enough to be blogposts: the tumble and the twitter.

The editorial board encourages Congress to extend unemployment benefits, urges California to fight proposed federal fuel emissions rules, and says there are small signs of a thaw in Turkey-Armenia relations.

Readers discuss McCain's disability pension and whether it raises questions about his ability to serve as president. L.A.'s Anthony Filosa says, "I'd like to remind The Times that Franklin D. Roosevelt's significant disabilities did not affect his ability to successfully lead this country through some of our most tumultuous times and be remembered as one of our greatest presidents."

And Long Beach's Barbara Hubbs hopes that "McCain is donating that money to the disabled veterans who were not able to put their lives back together."

Columnist Rosa Brooks plays Hillary Clinton:

Thank you, Pennsylvania! What an incredible margin of victory you gave me! Ten percentage points over Barack Obama. Count 'em! Ten!

All right, 9.2 points if you insist on actually counting. But they said I had to win by double digits to keep my campaign alive, and I think 9.2 points counts as double digits. And I am alive! And kicking! And punching and biting and kneeing my opponent in the groin!

Contributing editor Arianna Huffington says only a media filled with self-loathing could hire the likes of former Bush rep Tony Snow. USC emeritus professor Robert E. Tranquada argues for an independent authority to oversea L.A. county health services. And columnist Patt Morrison reveals what she and other Angelenos would do with the city budget if they had their way. (Coffee poured by the mayor at the Getty House Bed and Breakfast, anyone?)

The editorial board praises three African countries that stopped a Chinese arms shipment to Zimbabwe, looks to a 1983 report on education for present-day advice, and looks beyond the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania:

The Democratic race only seems interminable; there will be a winner, and he or she will reconcile with the loser and call for party unity. If Republicans can withstand the abrupt alliance of Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney, why shouldn't Democrats be united by an enthusiastic endorsement of Clinton by Obama, or vice versa? After all, for all the attacks, the two Democrats aren't far apart on policy.

On the letters page, readers take on the race, as well. Valley Village's Larry Margo has this to say to Clinton-bashers: "Quick! Stop her! Force her out before she wins again!"

New Republic executive editor J. Peter Scoblic says if you like George W. Bush's foreign policy, you'll love John McCain's:

Weaned by a military family on the lessons of that most classically Manichaean of modern conflicts, World War II, and psychologically defined by his own maverick streak, McCain's worldview may be more instinctual than intellectual. But it doesn't matter. Like Cold War conservatives, McCain has taken a moral observation that the United States is a force for good battling the forces of evil and turned it into a strategic guide.

Thus, he rejects negotiation with our enemies in favor of "rogue state rollback," repeatedly deriding as "appeasement" the 1994 deal that froze North Korea's plutonium program and mocking calls for unconditional talks with Iran....

Columnist Tim Rutten argues that immigrant bashers weren't right to rough up the pope. And author John M. Barry thinks paying for New Orleans should be the federal government's responsibility.

The editorial board urges Congress to pass a bill that would make it easier to assert pay discrimination in the work place, and analyzes Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's new budget. Finally, the board tells the Writers Guild of America to stop chastising the few members who broke ranks.

On the letters page readers discuss Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas. San Francisco's Joanne Minsky says, "I proudly voted for him twice, but his failure of memory and judgment calls into question the value of his forays into international politics. It is time to retire, Mr. President."

While L.A. worries about the fate of taco trucks facing stricter county regulations, London's worried about the impact of immigration policy on curry joints. The Guardian reports:

Thousands of curry restaurant workers gathered in London yesterday to demand that the government relaxes new immigration rules to avert a financial catastrophe caused by crippling staff shortages....

Members of the Bangladeshi community, who were joined by groups from Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Turkish catering businesses at the protest in Trafalgar Square, also complained that a spate of "heavy-handed" raids looking for illegal workers at restaurants was damaging business.

The culprit behind the curry problem is a new points-based immigration system (briefly considered in this country, and supported by the editorial board). Workers, including chefs, entering England from outside the EU have to speak English and meet certain academic qualifications.

As someone who has tried to make curry by following her immigrant mom's recipe and still failed, I'd like to side with protesters and say curry can't be cooked by the non-native, no matter whether she can speak English and has a college degree. But it's probably more likely that I just can't cook, and people who can -- immigrant or not -- manage just fine.

In any case, the restaurant raid is an interesting point of comparison: Would more Americans object to raids, or at least demand immigration reform to obviate such stop-gap measures, if they saw them firsthand and were left hungry in high-end restaurants?

*Photo of chicken tikka masala, the British favorite, by Bob Carey, Los Angeles Times

Columnist Jonah Goldberg asks how neo the neocons are, economist Bruce Bartlett reveals the truth about GOP tax cuts, and attorney Zachary Bookman says that secrecy is back in style in the Mexican government. Finally, former Times staffer and rural Pennsylvania native Shawn Hubler profiles her home state's bitter bloc:

Had they heard much talk about Barack Obama describing rural Pennsylvanians as "bitter"? Not too much, but thinking about it made my mother laugh.

"Bitter?" she asked. "Well, yes, of course we're bitter. Who wouldn't be?" She giggled until she started to cough.

Here's what I've thought as I've watched my hometown -- and so many others like it -- materialize so improbably at the forefront of this election: As much as the truth may hurt, Obama was right. Maybe he overdid it a bit, but generally, people don't feel secure when you leave them behind.

The editorial board checks in on how Texas is deciding where to place kids removed from a polygamist compound earlier this month, and recaps the pope's trip to the U.S. The board also remembers Ruben Salazar, a one-time Times staffer and columnist killed during the East L.A. riots:

Journalism, by its nature, tends to focus on the immediate. Only a few of any generation leave a bold enough mark to be visible over generations. One such journalist was Ruben Salazar, whom we honor today as the United States Postal Service issues a stamp to commemorate his life and work.

On the letters page, readers react to Richard Dawkins' Op-Ed on intelligent design. Apple Valley's William S. LaSor says, "In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed. If the latter is improbable, as he claims, then why is not the former also?"

Hey would-be Beijing protestors, watch out for Jackie Chan. The Hong Kong action hero isn't putting up with any lip, as Chicago Sun-Times columnist Bill Zwecker reports:

Chan told me he's also going to be part of the torch relay once it nears Beijing. Demonstrating one of his famous kung fu moves with his hands, he quipped, "Demonstrators better not get anywhere close to me" -- a clear challenge to those who might want to disrupt his and the torch's progress.

How would Chan hold up in a head-to-head with a certain celebrity Tibet champion? No, not Steven Spielberg, but Steven Seagal. The two martial artists are friends, or at least so says IMDB, but to settle this subject, they might have to take it outside. Who'd win?

The winner: Jackie. Now enjoy some of his best fights.

Columnist Joel Stein makes New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson work for the money:

Impressed by his confidence, his integrity and this vague threat of being around "possibly nationally," I offered Richardson $20 if he'd record my outgoing answering machine message. He immediately agreed. Unfortunately, callers to my house now hear a long speech about how they should give Richardson money instead of the little speech I asked for, which said that even though I wasn't home, he fully endorsed me.

Yale's Laura Frost says forget about FIA president Max Mosley's Nazi role-playing S&M romp, and focus on the post-coital cup of tea. MIT's Lester C. Thurow thinks solutions to high oil prices, the housing crisis, and outsourcing will require some sacrifice.

The editorial board considers the costs of the Iraq war, explores how airlines can get safely back in flight, and praises Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for taking up immigration again.

Readers discuss protests following the Olympic torch. Claremont's Daniel A. Guthrie says, "China's behavior toward Tibet is no different from our behavior. I wish Americans would be as concerned about their own disgraceful past as they are about the behavior of other countries."

Columnist Rosa Brooks reminds everyone that despite the attention on the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton mudslinging, it's the GOP that's losing ground:

Although Democratic Party infighting makes good copy, the intense media focus on the Obama-Clinton battle obscures the fact that it's the Republican Party that's in deep doo-doo. The very factors that make us wish we could forget about the war in Iraq are driving a seismic shift in the American political landscape: the likely reversal of years of GOP electoral dominance.

Speaking of the GOP's losing ground on war issues, former NATO commander Wesley K. Clark and Iraq vet Jon Soltz wonder why John McCain isn't stepping up to support a new GI bill. Columnist Patt Morrison remembers when ethnic campaigning was as simple as eating a knish and spinning pizza dough. And author Daniel Imhoff says the farm bill is too porky. 

The editorial board hopes for stronger rule of law in Pakistan, takes a look at shocking inmate conditions in Orange County jails, and says the Senate's housing relief plan is a mixed fix:

The tax breaks in the Senate bill would help home builders that profited handsomely during the boom. They would also prop up the price of foreclosed properties with $7,000 subsidies for the purchase of those homes. But the goal isn't to stop the boom-and-bust cycle from running its course or causing losses. It's to prevent the bust from being so sudden and severe that it chokes off credit, stifles consumer spending and wrecks the economy.

Readers react to Gen. David H. Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony before Congress. Bob Constantine of Placentia has a suggesetion: "Next time Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress, skip the personal appearances and merely play the tape of the previous testimonies."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger explains why he opposes a bill that would have state's pension systems divest from certain private equity funds because of human rights concerns:

[T]his measure is unlike the legislation I signed with respect to Sudan and Iran. Those measures barred investment in entire countries. AB 1967 instead addresses investment into a relatively small class of investment vehicles. It does not send the same powerful signal to the world, would do little to address human rights and would impose a costly burden on California.

What's more, if anyone thinks this bill will inhibit the ability of questionable sovereign wealth funds to invest, they are fooling themselves. Any sovereign wealth funds covered by this legislation would still be able to invest in the multitrillion-dollar public stock and bond markets around the world.

Author Nancy Altman offers some politically palatable fixes for social security. Writer Matthew DeBord forgets "mission creep" for a bit and worries about Gen. David H. Petraeus' "ribbon creep." And columnist Tim Rutten reminds that Olympic protests historically have been futile.

The editorial board debunks some Special Order 40 myths, asks whether it's worth staying in Iraq to fight a proxy war, and says San Francisco is the perfect forum for protests against China as the torch passes through.

Readers discuss Tim Rutten's column on John Yoo's torture memos. L.A.'s Jerome Argesty says, "This is not a matter of academic freedom: it is a matter of neglecting morality and justice in educating young lawyers."

Columnist Jonah Goldberg argues that a narrow definition of genocide often lets mass murderers off the hook:

This can lead to a dangerous way of thinking in which people who are perceived to be standing in the way of progress -- middle-class farmers opposed to collectivization, aristocrats, reactionaries -- can be more forgivably slaughtered than ethnic groups because they're allegedly part of the problem, not the solution. After all, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet.

In general, the Soviets and the Red Chinese elude the genocide charge -- and hence the status of ultimate villains -- despite having murdered scores of millions of people in the 20th century, in large part because their victims stood in the way of progress.

Historian Martin Meredith laments that Robert Mugabe's hunger for power prevented him from becoming another Nelson Mandela. And contributing editor Max Boot says the U.S. can still win in Iraq if the troops just stay put.

The editorial board encourages Congress to approve a trade pact with Colombia, observes that the Supreme Court will once again consider a display of the Ten Commandments, and wonders if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both obscuring their true feelings on trade.

Readers react to columnist Patt Morrison's piece on billboards in L.A. Culver City's Gene Rothman updates Ogden Nash:

I see again an outdoor panel
It's another from Clear Channel
If from its stock we all withdrew
Perhaps we'd hear another view.

Author Pico Iyer finds "globalism-lite" in the airport lounge:

All the cultures of the world are here, but they're all translated into placeless ciphers of a kind; we sit before screens, drift off, plug into our machines and feel as if we've entered the global space of a Haruki Murakami novel, a food court, a minimalist white-on-white Nowhere Hotel.

This globalism-lite is what we find around us often, especially in places like L.A.; it's cooler, sleeker, more diverse than the world we grew up in, but it's not clear that it sustains us deep down. We can access Beijing in a millisecond, fly to Bangalore tomorrow -- and yet we find, when we get to either place, that they don't look so different from Ventura Boulevard or Monterey Park.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez explains the border fence as a shrine to American insecurity. Authoer Maureen Ogle remembers the happy day 70 75* years ago when beer returned to the U.S.

The editorial board wants Ramon C. Cortines to return to LAUSD, this time in the No. 2 management position. The board also continutes its editorial series on water, and says it's time Californians let development follow water, not the other way around:

Even as our state continues to grow, sprawl can no longer be our birthright. Hydrologically remote regions cannot depend on new sources of imported water for human needs, much less for verdant lawns.

Readers respond to an article about the ties between Mormons and Muslims. Palm Desert's Sunny Kreis Collins writes, "it can only be a good thing that any two philosophies, however disparate, can come together peacefully and find commonality and mutual respect."

*Thanks to reader M. Bouffant for the correction.

Both pages recall the death of Martin Luther King Jr., 40 years ago today. The editorial board imagines the U.S. if King had lived:

We don't need to canonize King to appreciate his many accomplishments, nor declare time-wasting moratoriums to mourn his passing. He was a complex man with messy personal affairs who unified people of all races on the issue of civil rights, while dividing many with his controversial stance on the Vietnam War.... In the final years of his short life, King became nearly as concerned about the war and the plight of the poor as he was about racial discrimination...if King were alive today (he would have turned 79 on Jan. 15), the fight against poverty would probably be higher on the national political agenda and the opposition to the Iraq war more focused.

Goergetown's Michael Eric Dyson examines King's increasingly angry stance after 1965:

King's skepticism and anger were often muted when he spoke to white America, but they routinely resonated in black sanctuaries and meeting halls across the land. Nothing highlights that split -- or white America's ignorance of it and the prophetic black church King inspired -- more than recalling King's post-1965 odyssey, as he grappled bravely with poverty, war and entrenched racism. That is the King who emerges as we recall the meaning of his death.

And the Op-Ed page features photography of the Lorraine Motel, where King was killed, by Steve Schapiro.

Columnist Joel Stein has learned one thing from the John McCain campaign -- that jokes about the elderly are just fine. And the editorial board praises the House for passing a generous foreign aid package for AIDS patients around the world, and reflects on the Bush Administration's declassified torture memos.

Readers discuss illegal immigration on the letters page. L.A.'s Frank Galvan says, "This article helped put a human face on a population that is too often only considered by many to be just a problem...." But Van Nuys' Phil Hyman retorts, "Pardon me if I"m not breaking down in tears.... Who made them decide to come here illegally in the first place?"

*Photo Steve Schapiro, courtesy Fahey/Klein Gallery, Los Angeles

Columnist Rosa Brooks wonders if, years after their relationship got rocky, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin can patch things up:

The U.S. can't afford to turn Russia into an enemy. If Bush wants to salvage something from his disastrous presidency, he needs to use his Sunday visit to Russia to get the relationship onto a healthier footing.

It won't be easy. Bush's Russia trip follows the NATO summit in Romania, and Bush this week reiterated his commitment to initiating a NATO "membership action plan" for Ukraine and Georgia, and to deploying missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Because Russia regards both steps as hostile acts, it's hard to see how Bush can make much progress when he meets this weekend with Putin and Putin's handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

Hard -- but not impossible.

Indiana University's Tibetan studies program direcotr Elliot Sperling thinks the Dalai Lama may be a dupe. Columnist Patt Morrison tries to count L.A. billboards, and finds out you can't. And Capt. Jeffrey L. Greer of the LAPD and Mike Albanese of SWAT explain why changes to the elite team's selection process will improve the force.

The editorial board says a recent immigration raid in Van Nuys went about as well as a raid can go. The board also thinks Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) should be served a warrant like any other American, and argues that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s plan deserves a good look.

Readers react to John Bolton's Op-Ed proposing full diplomatic recognition for Taiwan. Claremont's Chunjuan Wei, who is writing a book on the Taiwan Strait problem, says, "Strict adherence to Taiwan's 'unilateral' rights could engender unnecessary risk to U.S. national security."

Georgetown's John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed of Gallup's Center for Muslim Studies says what you don't know about Muslims can hurt you:

How much do Americans know about the views and beliefs of Muslims around the world? According to polls, not much. Perhaps not surprising, the majority of Americans (66%) admit to having at least some prejudice against Muslims; one in five say they have "a great deal" of prejudice. Almost half do not believe American Muslims are "loyal" to this country, and one in four do not want a Muslim as a neighbor.

Why should such anti-Muslim bias concern us? First, it undermines the war on terrorism: Situations are misdiagnosed, root causes are misidentified and bad prescriptions do more harm than good....

The University of Chicago's Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein apply the "choice architecture" of grocery stores and cafeterias to public institutions. Columnist Tim Rutten says functioning anti-gang programs are held hostage in the L.A. City Council's ongoing turf war.

The editorial board reacts to the Zimbabwean election, and finds itself in an unusual position -- agreeing with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Two editorial writers, Eryn Brown and Karin Klein, reflect on human efforts to mimic Mother Nature.

Readers don't agree with Joseph S. Nye Jr's claim that President Bush could be our Woodrow Wilson. See why Sierra Madre's Howard W. Hays says, "I can't think of two figures more dissimilar."

Columnist Jonah Goldberg doesn't like the Darwin fish:

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

Attorney Kelly Valen remembers her encounter with John McCain's autopen. As the Anthony Pellicano case continues, author Will Vaus remembers his father, the original Hollywood wiretapper.

The editorial board applauds efforts to narrow AIDS vaccine research, explores why Mars rovers have so many fans, and explains that the U.S. approach in Basra requires more subtlety.

Readers react to columnist Rosa Brooks' piece warning moms to resist Disney princesses. Valencia's Natasha Wegter asks Brooks not to "punk the princesses," but Monterey Park's Ralph Mitchell thinks "Brooks doesn't go far enough in her objections."

I never expect to hear much about the benefits of the free market in the New York Review of Books. And when it's John Maynard Kenynes biographer Robert Sidelsky Skidelsky* reviewing frequent Times contributor Joseph E. Stiglitz' book Making Globalization Work ("A damning denunciation of things as they are," says Salon's Andrew Leonard), well, I expect it even less than usual. But strike>Sidelsky Skidelsky slips a surprising bit of good news into his polite-but-negative review of the book:

First, Stiglitz greatly underestimates the extent to which globalization, imperfect as it is, is helping people in poor countries. Already, it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Stiglitz finds a world "replete with failures." Typical is his remark that although 250 million Indians have improved their standard of living "immensely" in the last two decades, 800 million haven't—a good example of his failure to give progress its due. Or: "The sad truth...is that outside of China, poverty in the developing world has increased over the past two decades." The World Bank puts it differently: "By the frugal $1 a day standard we find that there were 1.1 billion poor in 2001—about 400m fewer than 20 years previously." Stiglitz believes that the increase in poverty outside China qualifies the progress made in poverty reduction. But 400 million fewer people living in extreme poverty is a happy, not a sad, truth, whether it happens in China or anywhere else.

He also underplays the gain achieved outside China. It is true that the number of very poor outside China rose slightly. Stiglitz cites the figure of 877 million in the developing world in 2001 living on less than $1 a day, an increase of 3 percent over 1981. What he fails to mention is that the total population of these countries increased by 20 percent over this period, so that while there is a slightly higher number of very poor people in the developing world today, they represent, proportionally, a decline from 32 percent to 21 percent of the overall population.

Stiglitz also ignores the fact that the number of those living on between $1 and $2 a day rose about as much as the number of people living on under $1 a day fell. Nor does he mention the World Bank estimate that if global poverty continues to fall at the rate it did between 1981 and 2001, the reduction will almost certainly be sufficient to meet the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015.[4] A different observer might see the glass half full rather than half empty.

Where Stiglitz accepts that progress has happened, he denies that it can be attributed to the current way globalization is occurring. His method is to show that countries that rejected the free-market mantra known as the "Washington consensus" did better than countries that followed it. For example, East Asian governments, such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, invested in industries with high growth potential, encouraged their populations to save, limited imports that undercut their agriculture and manufacturing, and (in the case of China and India) restricted short-term capital flows.

Such interventions may or may not have contributed to their "miracles." But surely much more important were the acts of domestic liberalization of the economy: for China the decollectivization of agriculture and introduction of the "household responsibility system" in the late 1970s; for India, the deregulation of much production, investment, and foreign trade in the 1990s. Above all, the "export-led growth" of East Asia depended crucially on the opening up of foreign, especially Western, markets through bilateral deals and successive rounds of tariff reductions.

Film critic extraordinaire Alan Vanneman has more on this eggheads' tango, concluding: "It’s striking that economists have such a hard time believing in the most fundamental concepts of their field."

* Thanks to reader Scott Lahti for pointing out my misspelling.