The Obama administration has abandoned the "war on terror" -- semantically, that is -- and author Reza Aslan says good riddance. In a pointed Op-Ed, Aslan argues that the phrase was counterproductive:

By lumping together the disparate forces, movements, armies, ideas and grievances of the greater Muslim world, from Morocco to Malaysia; by placing them in a single category ("enemy"), assigning them a single identity ("terrorist"); and by countering them with a single strategy (war), the Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, "a war against Islam."

That is certainly how the conflict has been viewed by a majority in four major Muslim countries -- Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia -- in a worldpublicopinion.org poll in 2007. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to "spread Christianity in the region" of the Middle East.

Also on the Op-Ed page, former Justice Department attorney David B. Rivkin Jr. bemoans the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to examine a West Virginia Supreme Court judge's refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his largest campaign contributor, and columnist Tim Rutten calls on the Los Angeles Unified School District to entrust its over-budget and behind-schedule arts campus downtown to a competent charter-school company.

On the other side of the Opinion divide, the Times editorial board again urges Washington to push Iraqi's Shiite-led government to reconcile with former Sunni insurgents. It shows little sympathy for former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), despite the prosecutorial misconduct that contributed to his defeat at the polls in November. And it calls on Sacramento to scrutinize why medical care costs in the workers' compensation system are rising so rapidly:

...[T]he mechanisms that insurers use to keep a lid on healthcare expenses are becoming increasingly expensive. And no wonder -- in the overhauled workers' comp system, more people are likely to review an injured worker's paperwork than his X-rays.

Credit: Anthony Russo For The Times

The Times editorial page sums up President Obama's tour of Europe and Turkey as an impressive show that won the president accolades, but very little else; Obama's hopes for more stimulus spending by the G-20, more troops for Afghanistan and more condemnation of North Korea's nuclear ambitions went largely unrealized. We also find much to like in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' military budget proposal, which aims to shift the emphasis from fighting big conventional wars to taking on insurgencies like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gates and Obama hardly aim to disarm America, but there's no question that they intend to buy less ammo. Given that the United States spends nearly as much on defense as every other country on Earth combined, that's not a bad plan.

Finally, The Times praises Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's efforts to wrest sacrifices from city employees, who must accept pay cuts in this tough economy if they want to avoid widescale layoffs that would only worsen local unemployment.

Over on the Op-Ed page, American Prospect associate editor Ezra Klein compares "nationalized" healthcare systems in Britain and Canada to the private health system in the U.S., and finds that both systems find ways to ration care. The choice comes down to occasional waiting times for elective surgery, or excluding many people from getting care at all:

So although Britain and Canada have decided that no one will go without, even if some must occasionally wait, the U.S. has decided that most of those who can't afford care simply won't get it.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg assails the Obama administration for opening its arms to the discredited United Nations Human Rights Council, a pack of nations that ignores rampant human rights abuses in places like Sudan and Cuba while taking every opportunity to condemn Israel. Rather than trying to change this reprehensible group from the inside, Obama should cut all ties and delegitimize it by ignoring it. And novelist Susan Straight finds that her husband's simple advice to the girls' basketball team he coaches applies as much to everyday life as it does to the court.

Editorial cartoon by Lisa Benson / Washington Post Writers Group

The editorial board continues to parse President Obama's budget intentions, noting that though his blueprint is indeed transparent about the costs of the Iraq war, it is less forthright about the probably near-term future of the economy. The board also bemoans fractured immigration policies that provide residency to some refugees but not others, and sides with a student who gave a religiously-based speech in class about his views against same-sex marriage, after which he allegedly was taken to task by the professor.

As long as he was opposing same-sex marriage on religious grounds -- and not harassing individual students -- he was making an argument that figured prominently in the public debate about Proposition 8. It's not an argument this page finds persuasive, but we wouldn't try to suppress it. Neither should a college preparing students to live in a contentious democracy.

On the other side of the fold, political journalist Marc Cooper chides Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for his  fuzzy response to questions about whether he will commit to serving out a full second term if he is elected. Take a pass on running for governor and pay full attention to the city's tremendous needs, Cooper advises. And Joel Stein reflects on how everyone loves science, until it contradicts what they want to believe.

People on the far right don't believe in evolution, global warming or doing stem cell research. Most of their opposition is rooted in the fact that these ideas challenge the Bible, which is the oldest book they know. I'm guessing Greek conservatives are OK with killing your dad and making love to your mom.

But since I moved to L.A., I've discovered that liberals hate science just as much as conservatives, and they talk about it a lot more. They'll reject any study that contradicts their Mother-Nature-is-perfect myth, which is oddly similar to the conservatives' thesis."

Friday's Letters to the editor features responses to this column by Tim Rutten urging Barack Obama to authorize the release of photos of soldiers' coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. 

Most correspondents think it's a bad idea.  Ned Rice, of Marina Del Rey, cites politics:

As usual, Tim Rutten's column is interesting, thoroughly researched, well written -- and totally wrong.

The government's ban on the release of photos or video of the remains of American soldiers was instituted in 1991 for one simple, compelling reason: The United States of America does not desecrate its war dead.

If President Obama lifts this ban, we can expect to see these sacred images in shrill, partisan attack ads, from both Rutten's side of the aisle and mine, that would exploit our fallen heroes -- their bodies, mind you -- for craven political purposes.

As Rutten observes, the American people are not infants. We do not require visual aids to understand the costs of war, nor cynical media campaigns to comprehend what is meant by the last full measure of devotion. Here's hoping that our new president, in his infinite wisdom, does not add the lifting of this ban to his already impressive list of blunders.

Gail Johnson-Roth, of Los Angeles, brings up more personal concerns:

My survey of families of the fallen indicates that more than 90% say no to taking pictures of flag-covered coffins before families can have a private moment to welcome their hero home.

My son, Spc. Daniel P. Cagle, died in Iraq in May 2007. I want to remember how and why he lived, what he fought for and his bravery. Families deserve those first moments out of the public eye to say their final hellos and goodbyes.

Yes, people should remember that these young men and women sacrifice everything for us here at home -- but let us remember why they lived. Do not reduce their service to a flag-draped box. My son believed in what he was doing, and I believe in him.

Reacting to this Op-Ed by former Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen, Sherman Oaks' William Seaton questions whether worrying much about Al Qaeda trying to bring down the U.S. financial system is the best target for American vigilance:

After the subprime fiasco, Wall Street greed and deregulation gone amok, [Osama] Bin Laden will need several dozen nuclear-tipped missiles to do more damage than we have already inflicted on ourselves.

While we are trying to hunt down some robed fanatics in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we might want to spend a little more time keeping an eye on the financial terrorists at home who move from the boardroom to the trading floor to congressional chambers, wearing the clever disguise of a suit and a tie.

More on California's budget, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and plans to run "green" transmission lines through the desert, too.

Photo: Coffins carrying U.S. military personnel arriving at Dover Air Force Base.  Credit: Reuters.

Some of your employees are facing manslaughter charges. Your biggest customers just yanked your contracts.

How do you repair your image and your reputation?

Simple: change your name and cover your tracks.

The Outfit Formerly Known as Blackwater, the huge military contracting and consulting firm, made its bones and its less-than-salubrious name in Iraq. And now it wants to unmake its notoriety. It is changing its name to Xe.

Pronounced Z. Or maybe "zed," depending on what part of the world you're in.

In a memo to employees, Blackwater/Xe president Gary Jackson says the switch "reflects the change in company focus away from the business of providing private security." To providing what now, exactly? Frosted cupcakes?

Xe is on the periodic charts at atomic number 54; it stands for xenon, a "noble gas" like fellow elements krypton and neon.

The Outfit Formerly Known as Blackwater now joins the ranks of the rebranded, along with Altria, a bland, content-free name used to make people forget that its real name and mission was Philip Morris, cigarette maker.

Whatever they choose to call it, for an awful lot of people, here and in Iraq, Blackwater's name will always be mud.

Photo: April 4, 2004 file photo of Blackwater USA employees involved in a firefight in Najaf. Credit: AP Photo/Gervasio Sanchez

The Times editorial board, after many years of skepticism about California's rule that state budgets can only be passed by a two-thirds vote, finally pulls the trigger and says the supermajority should be abolished. The current budget meltdown has made it abundantly clear that the state simply can't function with a supermajority requirement shared only by Arkansas and Rhode Island, vastly smaller states. Without the two-thirds rule:

California would have a balanced budget. It also would have higher taxes, but taxpayers could rebel, as they have shown themselves willing to do. They could vote Republicans in, and it would be the new minority -- Democrats -- who insist on a supermajority rule. They shouldn't have it, just as Republicans shouldn't have it now. Minority rights should be protected, but vesting the minority party with the power to dictate to the majority isn't protection, it's subversion.

The Times also says the Bush administration did the right thing by extending a $13.4-billlion aid package to GM and Chrysler, but it has one piece missing: a way to restore Detroit's ability to innovate and improve faster than its competition while also designing models that are more compelling.

Over on the op-ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg ponders whether this decade -- the oughts? -- has any meaning or theme, and if so, what it was. James Wagner, an editorial-pages staffer, describes the best Christmas present he ever got: The release of his father, who was taken hostage by Peruvian terrorists when James was 10. And Matthew Levitt and Michael Jacobson, authors of "The Money Trail: Finding, Following and Freezing Terrorist Finances," outline the reasons it's so important to target Al Qaeda's financial network and starve the organization of funds.

Illustration: Steve Breen, San Diego Union Tribune

Last week, the world obsessed over a flying shoe. Letter-writers to the Los Angeles Times were no exception.

During the week ending Dec. 20, The Times received 580 usable letters, 333 of which were in our Top Five Topics:

• Iraq, President Bush, and the shoe: 108 letters;
• Detroit bailout: 75 letters;
• Proposition 8, including letters reacting to this Steve Lopez column about El Coyote manager Margie Christoffersen: 75 letters;
• Eyad El-Sarraj's Op-Ed on Gaza, "'Flowers not allowed'": 44 letters; and
• Bernard Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme: 31 letters.

And now, here's a question for you Letters devotees:

Was Sarah Palin Most Popular in our yearbook?  Jonah Goldberg?  Barack Obama?

Does gay marriage rule the roost?  The budget stalemate in Sacramento? 

In celebration of 2008 -- and our six months compiling the Letters Top Five - -we will be holding a contest and offering a prize to the reader who comes closest to guessing the top five topics for Letters for the second half of 2008. Details to come soon!

How the Top Five is tabulated: Each week, your letters maven receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters through the good old U.S. postal service, and even a few faxes here and there.

After she cuts out spam, obscene mail, letters addressed to more than one recipient, letters that seem to be the fruit of letter-writing campaigns and letters with attachments (which gum up our computer systems,) she is usually left with several hundred eligible items, represented in the Letters Top Five tally. From these, she selects the somewhere around 100 that get published in the newspaper.

Faxes and snail mail are not reflected in the chart.

Monday's Los Angeles Times editorial page declares war on the sun. No, not really; but the page wants to know whether the solar energy proposal on the March 3 ballot is the real thing, or just another "Million Trees":

Los Angeles should have an ambitious solar energy plan, and the DWP is right to pursue it, as are the council and the mayor. But because of the slapdash and suspicious way the program has been rolled out, voters need to be on the alert. The city muffed a solar plan a decade ago, and the resulting bad will delayed, until now, a serious second attempt. Voters deserve to know whether they are being asked to sign on to a well-thought-out plan, or just another idea only half-baked by the L.A. sunshine.

The editorial board also finds some common-sense lessons for Barack Obama in the draft report on Iraq reconstruction by the Bush administration's special inspector general, and hopes South Africa's Congress of the People will stave off one-party rule.

Opposite the editorial page, Opinion contributing editor Rob Long discusses Jay Leno, NBC, economic downturn and shipping. Critic Katha Pollitt weighs in on Rick Warren and Obama, calling the president-elect's choice to give the inauguration invocation an insult. Columnist Gregory Rodriguez grapples with Bernard L. Madoff, hate crimes and "affinity fraud."

* Photo by Andrew Gombert / EPA

The editorial board is about to weigh in on Muntadar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush at a press conference yesterday. The piece is likely to talk about the symbolism of footwear in politics -- there's a rich history of shoe incidents -- before discussing the meaning of the protest. Knowing us, we'll find a way to lambaste Bush while still expressing admiration for his ability to evade incoming projectiles.

Anyway, now's your chance to help the board's headline writers. Offer your witticisms below, and we'll pass the best ones on to the opinion section's copy chief for possible use. Admittedly, it's hard to write a headline for a piece that's not yet written. So don't worry about being relevant, just be funny.

AP Photo/APTN

David Klinghoffer reminds readers that the "invisible world" of spirits and supernatural phenomena reamins very real to many Americans and bucks the trend toward "a pallid rationalism."

"It may be that such pallidness helps explain why Americans turn to florid paranormal beliefs, as opposed to traditional supernatural ideas. Indeed, U.S. polling data from Gallup, reported by Baylor University researchers, shows that belief in the occult is more common among non- or infrequent churchgoers or those belonging to a liberal Protestant denomination than it is among frequent churchgoers and conservative evangelicals."

Editorial writer Jon Healey finds himself in the middle of the Chargers-Raiders game, and perhaps the next phase of entertainment and communications as well, thanks to 3ality Digital of Burbank, RealD of Beverly Hills, the National Football League and a pair of polarized glasses. 3-D didn't make the game a better matchup, but it made it compelling.

Rather than popping images off the screen and into viewers' laps, the 3ality Digital crew used the technology mainly to push the action deeper into the screen. The result was more clarity, more ability to pick out details in crowded scenes and to follow individual players through clumps of bodies.

But Healey wonders whether the experience will be enough to get the public to pay more for the experience if, in the end (for example), the Chargers are still the Chargers and can't perform well on the field.

The editorial board also urges the Screen Actors' Guild and Hollywood Studios to keep bargaining, and it takes a look at Mexico's deadly drug war.

The Humane Society chief economist Jennifer Fearing warns against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to balance the state budget in part on a tax on veterinary services, and Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez calls on the public to not fixate on video images of terrorism. lest the perpetrators gain even more from their violence.

Illustration: Ellen Weinstein/LAT