Is North Carolina the fat lady that sang for Hillary Clinton? The editorial board suggested that it's finally over for her, and L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks called it way back in March. The Hill reports that backs are turning on her. What are the other papers saying?

The Washington Post editorial board focuses on Barack Obama even as it comes to the same conclusion on Clinton:

Hillary Clinton may, as she promised yesterday, fight on through the next few weeks of primaries, but after her disappointing showing Tuesday she has no plausible route to victory. So Mr. Obama was sounding themes for the coming battle against John McCain.... These are familiar phrases by now, appealing but also insubstantial.

Its columnists Harold Meyerson and George F. Will agree...

It just goes to show what can happen if you don't pay attention to judicial elections. Los Angeles voters could unwittingly end up electing white separatist Bill Johnson to the court. Vote-by-mail ballots are available Monday, so it's important for anyone planning to vote anytime soon to first read an April 29 Metropolitan News-Enterprise profile on Johnson. The story by editor Roger Grace exposes the candidate as the author of a proposed constitutional amendment to reserve U.S. citizenship exclusively to white people "of the European race."

Last month The Times endorsed James Bianco for the Los Angeles Superior Court seat, saying that  Bianco was "impressive as a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner and would make an excellent judge." We didn't mention Johnson, his opponent, who ran for Congress in Arizona in 2006 on an anti-immigration platform; we simply focused on the fact that Bianco is the better choice.

I did note in a blog entry the previous month that Johnson helped circulate petitions for Carson minister Ronald C. Tan, whose petition campaign forced six Latino judges to be put on the ballot to face possible write-in opponents (none apparently have stepped forward).

Grace writes that Johnson wrote a 1989 book, under the name James O. Pace, called "Amendment to the Constitution," backing what became known as the Pace Amendment. Here it is, in part:

No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.

This would likely come as news to Reverend Tan, the Filipino-American minister who got Johnson to circulate petitions to help him oust Latino judges — so Tan could try to get Filipinos elected. Tan earlier claimed not to know that Johnson was active in the Ron Paul for president campaign; here's something else for him to be surprised about.

The MetNews story also notes that Johnson ran for Congress in Wyoming 1989 under the name Daniel Johnson in a special election to replace Dick Cheney, who had been named secretary of defense in the administration of the first President Bush. Times stories from the 1980s connect attorney Daniel Johnson with the League of Pace Amendment Advocates and identify him as the author of the Pace amendment.

So here's a candidate for judge who espoused (and may still support) disenfranchisement and deportation of non-whites, and who ran for Congress from two different states, once under a different name, while maintaining his law practice in Los Angeles.

(Full disclosure: I worked for Grace at the Metropolitan News-Enterprise for 11 years. But I wish I'd gotten this story before he did.)

Could voters elect Johnson? Yes, they could, if they don't learn anything about the candidates. The MetNews story — and, I hope, our link to it — will help voters make wise choices.

And in case there was any doubt, we still support Bianco, now more vociferously than before.

The kingmaking Kennedys may be the most high-profile family whose allegiance has split along Clinton-Obama lines, but the Murdochs offer their own intriguing form of political discord.

If you think they're dealing with a red-blue divide (as when Republican presidential hopeless Rudy Giuliani's daughter endorsed Obama — ouch), think again: The infamously conservative media mogul responsible for FOX News' impeccable journalism has actually put his money on Hillary Clinton. The International Herald Tribune explains:

Rupert Murdoch is a well-known conservative, and his New York Post newspaper was a longtime foe of former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton during his two terms in the White House and her first run for the U.S. Senate in New York in 2000.

Since then, the couple have worked to reach a detente with the paper and its owner. The Post endorsed Hillary Clinton's re-election bid in 2006, and Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for her senatorial campaign.

In January, however, the Post endorsed Clinton's rival, Obama, for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The Post may have broken away from Murdoch, but his daughter Lis, a TV tycoon in her own right, has upped the ante by hosting a fundraiser for Obama at her London digs. Further proof that, no matter what commenter Michael says about Jane Fonda over at Top of the Ticket, no endorsement (however weird) is a bad one. Unless it's from President Bush.

In short, politics makes for fascinating family drama — and the whole epic "the future is at stake" angle is a crowd pleaser. Seriously, when are we getting the reality TV show about celebrity campaigners? CNN can't have all the fun. Besides, straight news is beginning to sound like it's in reruns: Obama! Hillary! Race! Gender! Scandal? ... Repeat.

Like the late Rodney Dangerfield, state constitutions "get no respect" in discussions of constitutional law. A rare exception came in this week's oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's gun-control law. In trying to puzzle out the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Walter Dellinger, D.C.'s lawyer: "To what extent do you think the similar provisions in State constitutions that were adopted more or less at the same time are relevant to our inquiry?" Dellinger bobbed a bit, replying that various state constitutional provisions  on the right to keep and bear arms are written in "different terms."

Dellinger surely knew that at least one state, my native Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has a venerable state constitutional provision dealing with guns that sounds as if it was written by the NRA: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" Hmm. maybe I was violating the state constitution when I was writing all those pro-gun-control editorials for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (I'm safe now; California's constitution lacks a little Second Amendment.)

Unlike the "real" Constitution, state constitutions are sometimes prolix documents. For example, their protections of religion and freedom of expression often read like the First Amendment on steroids. The First Amendment is content to say that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Here's the equivalent provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution's Declaration of Rights:

The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Whew!

Ironically, in this case more (verbiage) is less: Pennsylvania's version of the First Amendment is less friendly to the press, particularly in libel cases, than the First Amednment as it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hunting is big in Pennsylvania; so are libel suits by public officials, including judges. Too bad the framers of the constitution didn't write: "The right of freedom of the press shall not be questioned"

If you're looking for a little countertonality in the choir of angels praising Barack Obama's anti-disownment speech, Washington Post columnist and former G.W. Bush administration speechwriter Mike Gerson belts it out for you:

The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "damn" our country.

Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor...

This accusation [that the government invented HIV as a means of genocide against people of color] does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy." It makes Wright a dangerous man...

And his pastoral teaching may put lives at risk because the virus that causes AIDS spreads more readily in an atmosphere of denial, quack science and conspiracy theories.

Obama's speech implied that these toxic views are somehow parallel to the stereotyping of black men by Obama's grandmother, which Obama said made him "cringe" -- both are the foibles of family. But while Grandma may have had some issues to work through, Wright is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. There is a difference....

What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the U.S. government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists see as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the candidate attending this church lacked judgment and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

I don't like columns that ask rhetorical questions, then answer them, then invite me to congratulate myself on agreeing with the answer. I have at least one family member who believes the U.S. Government is up to all manner of criminal and murderous activity. And I object to the political prophylactic of denouncing and excommunicating non-violent zealots — in fact I find all attempts to police the borders of acceptable conversation to be self-serving, authoritarian and worst of all boring. So I'm the worst possible judge of this column.

But if there is some theonomist politician out there, considering whether to make a run: You have not yet lost my vote. The odds are you will lose it. (It's not just you; it happens to most guys!) But if you're offering me something good (or better, not offering me anything at all), I won't pull somebody else's lever just because you have some crazy ideas.

Samantha Power's "monster" gaffe probably won't turn Barack Obama's primary setback into a full retreat, but it's still great fun. Read the full quotation, with the Pulitzer winner's attempt at an instant backpedal:

"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: "Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

You can practically hear the wrong-buzzer "EEEHHHH!" sound coming from the interviewer for The Scotsman (which by the way is my second-favorite name for a newspaper, after The Hindu), who not only declined to grant the request to keep the comment off the record but made it the lead and headline of the story. Well played!

Power has written for the Op-Ed page periodically. Here's her piece "How to stop genocide in Iraq," from a year ago. Another piece, "Democrats: Get Loud, Get Angry!" cowritten with Morton Abramowitz, has been disappeared from our site but you can still check it out at Common Dreams.

I take a more liberal view of what sorts of language are haram and halal than many of my colleagues, so it's probably not a surprise that I don't see what all the fuss is about. Why shouldn't you be allowed to call your opponent a monster in a no-holds-barred political campaign? It's a completely generic put-down, falling far short of the intricate jibes that some parliamentary systems consider standard. Besides, as Bugs Bunny understood, monsters are the most interesting people.

USA Today has full-cast dossiers on the new crew of the starship Enterprise. As is usually the case with these new-cast spreads, the Star Trek XI feature looks to me pretty much like a deck of SAG trading cards; I recognize only two of the people involved. Of those two, one choice — Simon Pegg as Engineer Scott — is nothing less than inspired. I'm not as encouraged by Lt. Uhura choice Zoë Saldana, who is button-cute but has a pretty serious known Star Trek deficiency that only YouTube commenter LMUli and I appear to have noticed.

In the Steven Spielberg joint The Terminal Saldana plays a CIS officer who is secretly a Star Trek fan. It's a fine plot device, but as you can see from this clip, when called upon to do the nearly universally recognized Vulcan "Live Long and Prosper" salute, she completely screws it up! I suppose this problem could be spun in Trek XI into a variation on the hoary old joke about how humans have a hard time making the Vulcan (actually rabbinical) hand gesture. In any event, kudos to Saldana's agent.

This of course is not the end of the worries. There's the odd-number curse to consider. And this teaser trailer is a bit too fond of the dark-n-edgy trend for my taste: If anything needs to be recovered from the original Trek, it's the bright lighting, high-key color schemes and spare set decoration that make so much color TV from the sixties still so delightful to watch. Finally, having lived next door to Paramount pictures for a year and a half, I'm convinced there's nothing The House Popeye Built can fail to ruin. It's ominous that nobody on the mountaintop has thought to roll out the obvious tagline: "This is your father's Star Trek!" And if you really want to fear for the future of the Federation, hop on over to Trekkies Against Torture and sign up!

Here at The Times editorial board, we take seriously the matter of precedent. We build our positions upon those of our predecessors, and though we do depart from them when we feel they have outlived their value, we try to honor consistency along with intellectual honesty as we weigh the issues that come before us.

Today, we begin a series of editorials that explore some of the most ancient and deeply held views of our ancestors – the sturdy, rapacious men who built this newspaper and the city of Los Angeles. As many readers know, the early years of this city and its paper were forged by two desperate campaigns, one to lure visitors and new residents to the area, the other to find water. The Times took the lead in touting the region to the east, and William Mulholland, the chief engineer of the city’s Department of Water and Power, struck out in search of water. He found it in the Owens Valley and, again with the help of The Times, persuaded Los Angeles residents to approve a bond measure that would pay to bring that water down the eastern slope of the Sierra Mountains and into the San Fernando Valley. The city annexed the valley and got its water, and modern Los Angeles was born (and, not incidentally, the Chandler family, patriarchs of this newspaper, made a killing on their valley land).

“Glorious Mountain River Now Flows to Los Angeles,” the headline on November 6, 1913 read, followed by this subhead: “Silver Torrent Crowns The City’s Mighty Achievement.” Say what you will about their ethics, our predecessors undeniably could write.

Much has been made over the generations regarding the stealth that Mulholland and the DWP used to acquire water rights from the Owens Valley farmers, of the land deals behind their campaign, of the desiccated valley that the great water heist left behind. Yes, it’s true that our forbears did not do that valley any good, but any honest appraisal must also acknowledge that without their hard work, this city would not be here today.

So, it’s with due cognizance of the past that we today embark on an editorial series about water and its place in the life of this city and the world. This time, we’re doing it not as land barons (it’s safe to say that Harry Chandler would have been crushed to wake up one morning and find himself in possession of the combined real estate holdings of today’s editorial board), but as heirs to a newspaper built on water – and as residents of a region whose history has been formed by its pursuit.

Our first entry in the series, which appears today, looks at the potential for conservation and small-scale innovation in the drive to preserve what water we have before we go looking for more. That’s not an idea that particularly weighed on The Times in 1913, when it was more interested in getting than in saving. But it’s one with enormous potential to alter this city’s water future, as the editorial demonstrates.

Yes, that means we’re breaking some precedent here, but we’re doing it with full consciousness. That paper from Nov. 6, 1913, the one that hails Los Angeles’ water future? It hangs in our board room.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Obama-rally-security-standdown story: Shocker? Stone gas? A great Dallas tradition revived for a new era? Much ado about nothing?

Jack Douglas reported Wednesday that security details, on apparent orders from the Secret Service, stopped screening for weapons more than an hour before the candidates took the stage. He followed up a little while ago with a response from the Secret Service and some interesting nothing-to-see-here comments from people who had had similar experiences at other rallies. (More on that in a moment.)

Dan Gifford, who hipped me to this story, sends in a roundup of related items:

"Security surrounding Barack Obama has been stepped up amid fears he could be an assassination target."

"For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed, and it is on people's minds. You can't make a prediction like this — like he has 'a 50 percent chance of getting shot.' But the greater his visibility and the greater his access to people, there is a danger."

"Today the phrase 'assassinate Obama' appeared on a list of the top 100 Google search terms."

As Robert Greene noted after the L.A. debates, security is not exactly written in stone at campaign events. Getting into the Democrats' event in the Kodak Theater was quite frenzied, and although I did pass through a metal detector it didn't look to me like there was any systematic security there. I'd be surprised if everybody at that event was screened for weapons: In fact, given the Hindenburg-style chaos inside and outside the theater, I'd say nobody would have gotten into the Dems' debate at all if the security had been regulation-tight. The Republicans didn't search me or even ask for tickets, which I initially took as welcome evidence that I was considered the "right sort" out in Ronald Reagan country, but they didn't seem to be sniffing anybody else either.

It's not exactly comforting that security arrangements don't seem to make any sense at a lot of venues, but it does argue against the idea that there was anything especially fishy in Dallas. Kudos to the local cops for bringing it up, anyway.

For all you collectors out there, a prized piece of Fidel Castro memorabilia is going on the auction block: a signed map of the failed battle plan to overthrow Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1953. If you don't think there's a market for commie collectables, think again: A lock of Che Guevara's hair sold for more than $100,000 last October.

Granted, Che had a lot going for him in the cultural-icon market that Fidel lacks -- a romantic cause, a life tragically cut short, latin hottie Gael Garcia Bernal playing him in The Motorcycle Diaries. And a killer marketing campaign. Seriously, who doesn't own a Che t-shirt?

Still, nothing says bygone like an auction, and the autographed map is an indication that Americans are ready to assign Fidel Castro to his proper place in 20th-century political and cultural history. Judging by his announced retirement today, Fidel is getting there, too -- even if he is holding on to his opinion column in the state newspaper. And while the presidential hopefuls can't seem to get over their Cuba complex, they'll get the hint once the Antiques Roadshow hits post-Fidel Florida.

During our own Republican endorsement campaign, I lobbied first for Rudy Giuliani and then for Mitt Romney, not merely hoping to kill the market for Matt Welch's book, but because I believe opposing The New York Times in all things takes precedence over all other concerns. So I'm the one who should be forthright, gracious and magnanimous and admit that the other Times just beat the pants off us in endorsement power in our own state.

Final score: Times east, two for two; Times west, one for two.

For what it's worth, we removed the candidates' collective and individual probabilities of winning as a factor in determining 2008's semi-finalists, and I call that a wise decision. Nor did my dream race (Richardson-Paul to Obama-Paul to Obama-Giuliani to Obama-Romney, which I think is a song by The Who) differ substantially from that of the board. Why did your dream race change if electability was not a factor? you may ask. I can reply only that we do not live in dreams.

We also attempted to be as forthright, gracious and magnanimous in building our endorsement cases, to think through the meaning of our words and to try to get your input, as well as or better than any paper published on any of the terran planets. We look forward to continuing to serve you in the exciting election year we expect. Thanks for tuning in to Opinion L.A. and the L.A. Times, and we welcome your thoughts.

If you enjoyed John Mueller's recent Rambo charticle, which tracked the pneumatic commando's varied career along a rising death-per-minute axis, you were not alone. The United Kingdom tabloid The Sun got enough of a kick out of the Ohio State professor's math that it decided the most sincere form of flattery would be to make up some fake quotes and attribute them to Mueller. According to The Sun's story on the Rambo chart:

Mr Mueller said the movie, out next month, showed “the most depraved level of man’s inhumanity to man”.

Mueller has a different story. In an email to us, he states, "I just want to say that I never made the statement quoted — to the Sun or to anybody else." In addition to being concerned that the invented quote might allow an inference that he was reviewing the film rather than subjecting it to rigorous scientific testing, Mueller says he's troubled because "the words put in my mouth are so prissy and sanctimonious they make my skin crawl."

In case there's any doubt, Mueller adds, "I  hope I am not overly naive about the journalistic standards of the British tabloids... I have sometimes been misquoted in other papers — but in those the reporter at least actually  talked to me and was clearly TRYING to get it right. Total fabrication is new to me..."

Original charticle here.

Christopher Hitchens remembers Fleet Street in all its squalor here.

Robert Burns laments man's inhumanity to man (a phrase I always thought was invented by Mad magazine) here.

Not sure why the Lone Star State's own David Morgan is writing to us to voice his objections to William Kristol's hiring as a New York Times columnist, but David, now that you've canceled your subscription and are in the market for a first and main source of news, can I interest you in the Los Angeles Times? Our four-day weekend subscription is a fantastic bargain. Absolutely no William Kristol!

The problem is not that the Times has hired a strong Conservative in Wm Kristol, but that it has brought in a relentless Neoconservative who, with his cohorts in the American Enterprise Institute and the Pentagon's Department of Special Plans, may have deliberately lied us into an unnecessary and murderously brutal invasion of a country that could have done us no harm. Some people might see that as treason.

I've just cancelled my subscription to the Times, the periodical that has been my first and main source of news and other information for over 40 years.

David Morgan
Dallas TX

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks California's a pretty big deal this election season. With Iowa and New Hampshire out of the way, papers from around the state (and even one in the U.K.) are looking hopefully for a starring role on Super Tuesday. Here's a roundup:

"California mail-in voters a primary target," The Times punned yesterday.

The Sacramento Bee eyes Golden State independents, who could make or break the Democrats this year:

A twist in California this year will allow the state's "decline-to-state" voters to cast ballots for Democratic Party candidates in the state's Feb. 5 primary – but not for Republicans.

This could make a difference. In New Hampshire on Tuesday, analysts said nonpartisan voters significantly boosted the tallies of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. There, independents can vote for candidates of either party.

"But," today's L.A Times reports, "some strategists believe California's Latino voters could boost Clinton, who is more popular in that group than Obama."

That's good news for Clinton, who may have to place a lot of her eggs in California's basket. According to the Huffington Post:

A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.

At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.

Panicking about Obama's head start with the mail-in crowd?

The San Francisco Chronicle remarks on how the GOP race is shaping up:

At this rate, California Republicans - and only Republicans because those not registered with the GOP are forbidden from voting in the state's primary - will have the chance to cast the decisive vote to crown the party's nominee.

"California will be voting before the nominee is decided," said California Republican Party chair Ron Nehring.

Only two Republican campaigns - Giuliani's and Romney's - have organizations of any size in California. And analysts said McCain had to win New Hampshire to generate enough buzz - and the ensuing campaign donations - to allow him to continue. [...]

McCain won't be able to attract independent voters, or those who register as "decline-to-state" in California. They're not allowed to cast Republican ballots in the state.

Even Britain's Guardian weighs in on the Golden State:

For many Californians, the unusually early date for the primary corrects what they see as a historical wrong: the clout of the "pipsqueak states" over the might of California.

While California has the largest population and the highest number of delegates of any state, it has in the recent past been reduced to the role of bystander as smaller, early-voting states have decided the destiny of the presidency.

To make matters worse, California is also the bankroller of the campaigns, the place where chequebooks are open and supporters ready to endorse with money, not just kind words.

But not this time.

Damn right.

In the other Times, Bill Carter takes a look at gabshow hosts who are keeping their writers[non-writing staffers] off the public dole. But he leaves what looks to me like a major variable out of his equation:

David Letterman of CBS’s “Late Show” (who has to support two CBS shows because his company, Worldwide Pants, also owns “Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson”), Conan O’Brien of NBC’s “Late Night,” Jay Leno of NBC’s “Tonight,” and most recently Jimmy Kimmel of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” and Stephen Colbert of “The Colbert Report,” have all committed to pay their staffs out of their own funds.

Estimates of what it is costing the hosts range from about $150,000 a week to as high as $250,000 a week, depending on the size of the staffs. The question the hosts are struggling with is how long they can continue to stay off the air and subsidize their staffs, and what happens when they decide they cannot do it any longer.

It's not the main focus of the story, but since we're getting the weekly price range for this largess, shouldn't we also get some indication of the size of the staff in question (and if this is writers only or all staff)?

I have no idea what the size of the Late Show or Tonight Show writing staff is, but wWe can make some interesting extrapolations from these numbers.

Assuming the actual weekly payroll throughout the year is somewhere in Carter's range, it appears you could maintain a staff of 250 writers making an average of $52,000 a year, a staff of one writer making $13,000,000 a year, or something between these two.

If you maintain a staff of 20 writers, and you are at the cheapest end of this scale ($150,000 per week), that means your average writer[staffer] is making $390,000 per year. If you're at the generous end ($250,000 per week) with the same-sized staff your average writer's[staffer's] making $650,000 per year. That's the average, not the top-performers. (If Carter's figure is counting all staff, including support, clerical, stagehands, etc., that's another story of course.)

Can these figures possibly be right? Is the world wrong or is Bill Carter?

Update: NO, I can be wrong! Thanks to reader Sam for reading the paragraph I skipped, which explains that the chat shows are in fact paying their nonwriting staffs some figure between $7.8 million and $13 million per year.

What a second, their non-writing staffs? These numbers are getting screwier by the minute. So let's say it takes, not counting the gag writers, the labors of 50 people to fob Craig Ferguson or Jimmy Kimmel off on the insomniacs every night. To get to that roster I think you'd have to include all the artistics, technical staff, clerical, janitorial, security, food prep, etc. and I still think you'd come up short. But let's figure they need that large a non-writing staff. This would put the average salary somewhere between $156,000 a year and $260,000 a year. Something still doesn't make sense here, though it seems more likely to be explained by personnel bloat than by Bill Carter's numbers. Jay, talk to your accountant; you're getting hosed by your own employees.   

The editorial board says Garden Grove's Felix Kha should get his weed back:

The California Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision ordering the police to give back the marijuana seized from a driver during a routine traffic stop. This is likely to generate a wave of "Only in California" jokes, but just because it's wacky doesn't mean it's wrong.

In 2005, Garden Grove police officers stopped Felix Kha for failing to yield at a red light. Kha consented to a search of his car, and police found one-third of an ounce of marijuana that Kha explained was for medicinal purposes. Orange County prosecutors dismissed drug charges against him after contacting his doctor, and Kha sought the return of his property. The police refused, saying that returning the drug would violate federal laws against marijuana distribution and possession....

Can a city invoke federal law to justify its recalcitrance in complying with state law? This is where things could have gotten sticky. But the court correctly found that in this case federal law did not take precedence over California law.

The board says Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is still a threat, even if voters said no to his reforms. And the board addresses the FCC's claim that easing the cross-ownership ban won't curtail diversity.

LAPD officer and author Will Beall writes an ode to late daredevil Evel Knievel, and columnist Jonah Goldberg notes Mitt Romney's JFK moment. Author Karen Dawn says seals and people can get along in La Jolla, and U.C. Santa  Barbara senior research fellow Nathaniel Frank argues that we no longer need "don't ask, don't tell."

This frontpage La Opinion headline goes out to tireless commenter Mitchell Young, who spanks us whenever our love of border-jumpers becomes too clear:

No hablar ingles afecta a latinos

Here's the interesting Pew Hispanic Center report that generated that story, as well as coverage, with fairly different emphases, in the Times and the O.C. Register.

Okay, so probably no public personality can compare in influence and power to Oprah, who has thrown in her lot with the unbelievably lucky Barack Obama. But 'tis the season for celebrity endorsements, and it seems like this year anyone and everyone is taking a primary interest in the candidates — who in turn are more than happy to take advantage.

Hillary's still standing tall, even though Oprah passed her over:

The Clinton campaign, in an e-mail to The Associated Press, said of Winfrey: ''We're fans and we think it's great she is participating in the process. Everyone has wonderful supporters, and we're proud of ours'' — such as Steven Spielberg, Magic Johnson and Barbra Streisand, who threw her support behind Sen Clinton on Tuesday.

Then again, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark is siding with Obama. You're not out of the woods yet, Sen. Clinton.

It's got to be frustrating, what with so many political celebs shopping around. Earlier this year, the reverend and former White House candidate Jesse Jackson declared, "I reaffirm my commitment to vote for Sen. Barack Obama.... Any attempt to dilute my support for Sen. Obama will not succeed." But in a meeting with The Times' editorial board, he flip-flopped, admitting, "I have very strong feelings for Hillary because we've worked together 30 years." Now, he's even giving a nod to John Edwards, apparently at Obama's expense. In an op-ed for the Chicago Sun-Times, he wrote,

"The Democratic candidates — with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign — have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country."

Your more garden-variety stars are also prone to sowing their political wild oats. According to the Huffington Post, before she settled on Hillary, Barbra Streisand "covered her bases and [gave] $2300 to Obama, Edwards and Clinton. "

On the Republican side, forget Pat Robertson backing Rudy Giuliani. Mike Huckabee is milking his Chuck Norris endorsement for all it's worth, even as he flaunts one of his most recent prizes — former pro-wrestler Ric Flair, aka The Nature Boy. Meanwhile, according to AP, brothel owner Dennis Hof decided to throw his lot in with Ron Paul, adding, "I'll get all the (working girls) together, and we can raise him some money...I'll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1, $5 contributions."

For all you pundits wondering what fueled the Huckabee and Paul surges, look no further.   

With the Dec. 14 cutoff for temporary funding looming, it's time to take another look at what's happening to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, since President Bush refuses to sign Congress' reauthorization bills. Remember those worst-case scenarios? Looks like they're close to becoming reality.

According to Congressional Quarterly:

The Congressional Research Service reported Oct. 25 that 21 states face combined shortfalls of $1.6 billion in their children’s health insurance programs this year. The first of those states will run out of money in March. 

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Unless there's an infusion of cash - and quickly - California will run out of federal money to pay for its program in June. To prepare for the shortfall, state officials will decide in the next two weeks whether to stop enrolling new children and send letters to 56,600 families telling them their children will lose health coverage on Dec. 31.

"These are horrible options," said Lesley Cummings, who manages the state's Healthy Families insurance program for low-income kids. "We never thought we were going to be in this place."

And if you think this state is screwed?

California isn't alone. The Congressional Research Service estimates that 21 states will exhaust their federal money next year - nine will run out of money in March - if Congress simply keeps the program funded at the current levels.

Georgia's program is already running a deficit, and is surviving only with a temporary grant from the Department of Health and Human Services. ...The state is pulling the medical records of kids to determine who are the sickest, so if they have to drop children from the program they'll start with healthier children.

"Georgia is on the edge of the cliff," said Dr. Rhonda Medows, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Health. "We don't want to think about kids having cancer, but how do you schedule someone for six weeks of chemotherapy if they only have four weeks left in the program? Does the oncologist start the therapy or do they wait? How do you plan? You can't."

From the Los Angeles Times:

The Wirkkalas, with an income that for five years has hovered around $70,000 and a home they bought in 2004 for $535,000, are a family many would call middle class. But they have been priced out of the private health insurance market, and their circumstances illustrate the core of a political battle over how much a family can earn for their children to qualify for a federal-state partnership called the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. If the outcome of Washington politics goes one way, the children could remain uninsured. If it goes the other way, the children might get health insurance.

On a larger scale,

If Congress fails to act, or even if funding is held to present levels, or increased to administration-recommended levels, the California HealthCare Foundation estimates that up to 600,000 children in California could lose their health insurance beginning in 2008. Because of healthcare inflation, California and many other states would have to begin closing off new enrollments and disenrolling some insured children, according to the foundation's projections. "The funding wouldn't allow California to maintain its present caseload, and keep up with inflation," Finocchio says.

As The Times' editorial board said last month,

This bears repeating: President Bush's bullheaded insistence on sabotaging reauthorization of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, will hurt the very people -- poor and middle-class Americans -- he claims he wants to protect.

I'd hope that the bitter realities starting to hit many American families would finally bring Bush around, but seeing as stories of children saved by SCHIP don't seem to have moved many Republicans, I doubt that a few million more kids will make a difference.

Amazon, that fearsome Internet peddler of all things — particularly all things media — has consistently led the pack in marketing and distributing products, whether it's selling eBooks or digital movies through Amazon Unbox.

But eBooks never really took off, partly because there's never been an appealing reader. Now, according to Larry Magid of the Mercury News, the online store has taken matters into its own hands:

Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos wants it both ways: He wants to change the way we read without making us feel that we have to change the way we read. The manifestation of this lofty goal is the Kindle - the company's first electronic book reader.

Wall Street seems to think Amazon's new venture is a winner, judging by the way the company's stock rose after the announcement. It's not too surprising: The handheld Kindle has a number of advantages over previous attempts. It's not backlit; the battery lasts for days; and it has a built-in receiver that allows you not only to download books but also surf the Web. And of course, choice and cost don't hurt:

...Amazon has something none of the other players can match - the world's largest online bookstore and a powerful position with the publishing community. Its library of 90,000 e-books includes almost all the bestsellers. And, unlike typical e-book pricing, Amazon is selling electronic books at a very reasonable price - $9.99 for most new books and as little as $3 for older titles. I was on the verge of spending $18 for "Boom," Tom Brokaw's new book about the '60s but am instead reading an electronic version that I bought for $9.99.

And the two-ton gorilla lurking around this blogpost: If it ignited a real change for print media, how would the Kindle affect the newspaper industry?

Right now, newspaper readers can be pretty firmly placed into overwhelmingly online consumers, or dogged print readers. There's something to be said for being able to take in a whole page, complete in its design, providing you information you wouldn't necessarily know to look for. Then again, there's also a whole lot going for the efficient, updateable and individually tailored digests you can get from the Web.

If used for newspapers, the Kindle could change that. When you downloaded the day's paper, what would you see? A page from the print edition? The Web-based news feed? Or would it be some hybrid, an apparently print page featuring clickable ads and active links? Nothing so exciting yet, unfortunately. The current format gets lukewarm praise from Newsweek's Steven Levy:

It's also exciting to get a daily dose of The New York Times and other papers. But the interface for newspaper reading is disappointing—you have to painstakingly go through article lists, and often the stories are insufficiently described. Still, getting the Times in one burst on a daily basis, no matter where you are, is closer to getting a hard-copy delivery than picking out articles on the Web, and it costs $13.99 a month, compared with the $50-plus I pay for home delivery. Do the math.

Then again, not much is likely to happen with the price tag sitting at a pretty $399. Granted, Amazon's first run sold out. But if they really want the Kindle to catch fire, they'll market it less as a luxury item and more as a convenience. Intriguing as this new device is, novels will never rival music in sheer sex appeal and consumer attraction. The Kindle is no iPod. It can't rely on the pop-culture-chic to get people to pay up. Though perhaps they can tap into the Prius effect and market it primarily as a paper-saver. Green is the new cool, after all.

Speaking of iPods, they'd better do it fast, before Steve Jobs works out the kinks and makes a real bestseller out of Amazon's idea. As Magid points out, "It wouldn't take too many Apple programmers to turn an iPhone and an iPod into an iReader."

The L.A. Times employee formerly known as Matt Welch goes directly to the competition to scream "Go Ron Paul!" before hanging up. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Welch and Reason editor Nick Gillespie explain Dr. No's cross-cultural appeal. No report on the Ron Paul phenomenon would be complete without swipes at the mainstream media's long silence on his campaign (to which there were some honorable early exceptions) and the really loathsome terms with which the new right has attacked this avatar of the old right:

Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals." Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."

When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.

And little wonder. In the 1990s, conservative Republicans rose to power by relentlessly attacking Big Government. Yet the minute they took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they kicked out the jams on even a semblance of fiscal responsibility, signing off on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and building literal and figurative bridges to nowhere. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays will have grown by an estimated 29 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The biggest Big Government expansion during the Bush era is the one that Americans now despise most: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose direct costs are already an estimated $800 billion, plus 4,000 American lives. Paul's steadfast bring-the-troops-home stance -- not just from Iraq, but Korea and Japan as well -- is the major engine powering his grass-roots success as ostensibly antiwar Democrats in the majority can't or won't do anything on Capitol Hill.

But if war were the only answer for his improbable run, why Ron Paul instead of the perennial peacenik Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic congressman from Ohio whose apparent belief in UFOs is only slightly less kooky than his belief in the efficacy of socialized health care?

The answer, and the rest of the article, here.

One of the more nauseating parts of the housing bust is the New York Times editorials that the "crisis" has spawned. The Times' typical justification for government action goes something like the following opening paragraph in Monday's editorial, "Keeping Americans in Their Homes":

The nation's housing market is in a deep recession, and further declines in new construction, sales and prices are imminent. By the end of next year, falling home values, combined with rising payments on adjustable mortgages, tighter lending conditions and, in all probability, a faltering job market, will have unleashed mass foreclosures — estimated at several hundred thousand to two million — unless something is done to help keep Americans in their homes.

To me, "further declines in new construction, sales and prices," "falling home values, combined with rising payments on adjustable mortgages, tighter lending conditions," and "mass foreclosures" sound like a market correcting itself after an unsustainable bubble. But this is the same editorial board that in September decried the "absolutist notion that self-policed markets self-correct."

Let's get one point out of the way: High foreclosure rates should not be held up as Exhibit A if your argument is that free markets cannot correct themselves and that more federal regulation is needed. Crude as it sounds, people losing their homes is market correction, and after-the-fact federal intervention would help prevent real estate values from their march downward. This market correction just happens to involve people losing their homes, a sad and understandably touchy subject that engenders free-market distrust.

Today is the annual Great American Smokeout, the 24-hour period of the year when all bets are off on anti-smoking pontification. Newspaper editorial pages get into the act, and why shouldn't they? The anti-tobacco editorial practically writes itself: Establish that "everyone knows" smoking is bad for you, acknowledge the "progress" in reducing smoking rates yet point out that current regulations and programs are clearly "not enough," call for people to kick their addiction and/or some government body to do something about it, and if you're really on a roll, shame the great unwashed who still do smoke despite mountains of evidence proving the habit's deadliness.  Check out a few examples from smaller newspapers.

But an especially offensive editorial in a big Chicago newspaper? Isn't Chicago the city of fat waistlines, bratwurst sausage, beer and a team of fictional smoking, suds-guzzling "Superfans"? Indeed, the Chicago Sun-Times on Wednesday decried the historically low smoking rate as not low enough, called for the mother of all "do somethings" — federal regulation — then expressed annoyance that people would even choose to smoke at all, calling them "fooled":

Smoking is very, very bad for you. After more than 40 years of surgeon generals' warnings, reams of research and scores of public awareness campaigns, you'd think we wouldn't have to state the obvious. But just before Thursday's "Great American Smokeout" — the annual effort to get smokers to quit — along comes discouraging news that the message still isn't getting through ...

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the issue, part of larger congressional efforts that would for the first time allow federal regulation of cigarettes. It can't happen soon enough.

It's amazing smokers still are fooled by light cigarettes. Then again, it's amazing people still smoke, given all we know about the health risks.

Up the coast, the Ventura County Star contributed its own anti-smoking editorial, and though it doesn't call for more regulation (we have more than enough of that in California), it expresses a bewildered sentiment similar to the Sun-Times':

Today is the Great American Smokeout, sponsored by the American Cancer Society. It has only one goal: to show smokers the benefits of quitting. The only question to ask, then, is why haven't all smokers quit? ...

The effort to prevent smoking deaths comes down to those who smoke — they must want to stop. Yet, despite all the warnings, some 63 million people, or 21 percent of the population, in the United States still smoke. In 1965, a year after the first surgeon general's warning, 81 million people, 42 percent of the population, smoked.

Good progress, but not enough.

Particularly striking was that neither the Star nor the Sun-Times made any mention of second-hand smoke, the great menace to which anti-tobacco activists often point to justify government intervention. Instead, both editorials were most annoyed by the very fact that people who smoke have made that choice. At that point, the anti-smoking argument becomes one of personal preference, not of public safety and policy.

I used the occasion today to assess the sad state of smokers' rights and remind you that, yes, you still have a choice whether to smoke. Read the Opinion Daily here.

Trouble seems to come in threes (or fours, or lots) for the University of California. A proposal to raise UC campus chancellors' salaries by 33% has raised the ire of the state — according to the Sacramento Bee, Lt. Governor John Garamendi snapped:

"The students get to pay more so the chancellors get to have more," Garamendi said Monday. "I am really astounded that the administration would propose a salary increase of this size to the highest-paid executives in the entire system."

I have to say, kudos for having this discussion out in the open, but major minus points for having it so soon after the pay perk scandals of last year.

Meanwhile, UC Regent John Moores abruptly and tersely quit his post — which is too bad, since he was a prominent voice of dissent on the board. He famously called the regents "about as relevant as furniture when it comes to governing;" tried to pass a proposal banning schools from accepting research funds from tobacco companies and wrote an editorial for Forbes supporting anti-affirmative action policies, getting a lot of flak in the process. In a blogpost, Chris Reed thinks UC's handling of affirmative action sealed the deal. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he just reached the end of his tether.

Apparently, the ex-regent sent out a one-line resignation letter. Short, probably not so sweet.

Perhaps the 33% proposal got his goat. Or, maybe it was a possible plan to slash the 12.5% guarantee (that is, the top eighth of eligible California seniors are promised a spot in UC) to 4%. Granted, the plan actually aims to increase diversity at UC campuses, which only serves to make it more controversial.

UC's got it's fair share of problems right now. It seems to be wearing some state officials thin: State Treasurer Bill Lockyer recently suggested that the state should cut the university system loose, and let it run itself as a private institution.

That's unlikey to happen. Still, even voicing that suggestion has to raise UC officials' blood pressures to critical levels. Sooner or later, someone had to bust a valve.

Here's what we've had at Opinion L.A. over the past few days:

Pakistan's and the stock market's unhappy upheavals prompt some digging through the old archives.

Past boards on healthy international relationships:

It comes hard to blame the Pakistanis for breaking off their affair with the United States.

Pakistan has given the United States whole-hearted support from Korea on, siding with us in hot and cold crises.

We have failed to back Pakistan as stoutly in the dispute with India over Kashmir. India's Nehru has broken his pledged word to allow a decision by plebiscite in Kashmir. He has temporized, brushed off the recommendations of neutral commissions, and still hangs on to the province.

On nationwide money woes:

This country has withstood graver dangers than the present, and when it was not half as strong. Stand fast! The Republic lives! Long live the Republic!

Catholic author Gregory Popcak objects to Garry Wills' argument that religion has nothing to say about abortion:

Scripturally, the basis of Christian condemnation of abortion comes not only from the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as Wills asserts, but from the fact that the Bible considers children a supreme gift and blessing from God. One does not reject a gift from God lightly. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knew us in the womb, and Exodus 21:22-23 imposes a penalty for those who cause the miscarriage of a fetus.

Web editor Tim Cavanaugh, in a Swift turn of logic, argues for restrictions on problem-breeders like himself. Editorial researcher Paul Thornton, meanwhile, bonds with Stalin over their shared atheism.

Finally, LAPD superstar Chief William Bratton joins the editorial board to chat about overtime, drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and, or course, crime. Some candid remarks on that last topic:

I don't think it has anything to do with warmer weather, it has nothing to do with lead poisoning, it has nothing to do with abortions, and if it does those are very minor influences on the crime rate. What does influence crime is people deciding to break the law, or unintentionally finding themselves in violation of the law.

Tell it like it is, Chief.

California is finally suing the federal government. That's only slightly less awesome than Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers suing God to put a stop to "terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons." (He later named former Husker coach Tom Osborne as the defendant.)

At issue are the state’s more stringent emissions standards. Back in 2002 Gov. Gray Davis signed a law designed to cut the state's emissions by a quarter by 2020. The one big kink in this plan? The federal Environmental Protection Agency has to sign a waiver allowing the Golden State to regulate itself. The EPA resisted, saying states don't have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but this April the Supreme Court nixed that argument. Nearly half a year later, though, the EPA still hasn’t issued a decision. Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope snipes, "[I]f the Bush administration isn’t going to take decisive action itself, the least they can do is step out of the way."

This suit has been a long time coming. ("Bring it on," the San Jose Mercury News cheered recently.) And if you think this is just another crazy California stunt, think again: According to the governor's office, 14 other states are slated to join the suit today. Just one more reason why the Golden State rocks.   

Blogger David Ehrenstein performs last rites for Barack Obama's "relevance to gay and lesbian African Americans":

Now a gospel star may have driven a wedge between Obama and his gay supporters and roiled others as well. For, by putting McClurkin in the spotlight, Obama has broken black America's 11th Commandment: "Don't talk about it in front of the white people!"

Environmentalist Andrea Kavanagh finds a National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition very fishy, and Rollins College professor Paolo Spadoni advises the While House that if it wants to free Cuba, it "should stop pandering to a shrinking group of Cuban American hard-liners and start listening to that world he claims to represent." Sharon Browne, Linda Chavez and Ward Connerly condemn a Caltrans plan to "use race, ethnicity and gender when awarding contracts under the federal highway program. What are the agency and the governor up to?"

The editorial board shakes its scandalized head at the news that State Department officials, apparently acting without authority, promised Blackwater USA contractors immunity; and plays down the significance of class-action attorney William S. Lerach's guilty plea. In the wake of a new report on healthcare in South L.A., the board states its case on King-Harbor Hospital:

To be clear: We do not trust the county to run this hospital, and we will oppose, as anyone should, any recommendation that would involve the county in its future management. But we will insist, and others should as well, that the county find alternative ways to care for a population whose needs are so profound.

Readers react to Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky's Op-Ed on dividing Jerusalem. "In reality," writes George Epstein, "giving up a part of Jerusalem will not solve the problem, nor will removing settlements from the West Bank." George Saade reframes the idea: "It's not about 'dividing' Jerusalem; it's about sharing it."

Columnist Jonah Goldberg critiques liberals and conservatives who place rhetoric over policy:

...both sides are certain they have staked out the intellectually superior ground. So they fixate on tactics, packaging and spinning. A lot has been written, including by myself, about how liberals consider political strategy more important than ideas. But it's worth noting that conservatives fall prey to such lines of thinking too, even as we take pride in our squabbles about liberty versus virtue.

Duke University professor Henry Petroski follows the evolution of the toothpick through human history. David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks decry the Los Angeles City Claims Board's award of $95,000 to Gloria Jeff, linking it to "a worldview in which racial/ethnic identity is more important than any other factor in judging a person." Meanwhile, Mark Weisbrot cheers the role of Argentina's powerful first couple in their country's economic upswing.

The editorial board tips its hat to the Georgia Supreme Court for freeing Genarlow Wilson, originally sentenced to a decade in prison and branded a child molester. The board eyes upcoming water and power rate changes, and reminds NBC Universal and News Corp. that while joint project Hulu "seems to want complete control over the programming lineup ... the Net isn't television. Content may be king, but the mob rules."

Spooked by Joel Stein's recent column about tomorrow's sexed-up All Hallow's Eve, readers ruminate about the nature of sluttiness. Estin Stewart wonders, "Since when did underwear become a costume?" while Erin Tavano retorts:

Either Stein's column on Slutoween is unbelievably retrograde and sexist — a serious assertion that any woman who wears a sexy costume is a slut or a whore? — or a childish and tiresome attempt at being shocking.

Ever since the dawn of man, us monkeys have been staring slack-jawed at the awesome sight of flame. For almost as long, we've been making up terrible poetry to describe it. What happens when the doggerel blends with, say, the perennial east coast desire to interpret the land of fruits and nuts for the civilized natives back home? Pure comedy gold, that's what!

From the letters section of the New York Times:

There was an eerie silence as I stood there in the orange smoky haze, ashes falling like snow on Mercury, and blinked two or maybe three times.

By motivation, this had absolutely nothing to do with the fire -- it just seemed like something that would happen in Southern California. As I quietly closed the door, I thought about Joan Didion; she would understand this.
Tom Impelluso

How could you not close the door "quietly" with all those heavy thoughts rattling around your noggin! Letter-writer Martin Kruming also added: "White ashes rain down from blackened skies; residents wear surgical masks outside; estates and homes crumble in seconds and tens of thousands flee."

Lest you think I'm being unkind to Seaboard proles, I give you Janet Fitch of the Washington Post:

All week, it has been like a funeral here in the city. The moon rose orange through the smoke. Although surrounded by miles of concrete, we could feel the million trees burning, taste the fear but even more the sadness in the air [...]

The funeral we Angelenos feel is the periodic funeral of all our illusions about the nature of this place. [...]

California is so dry now, a wet towel hung over a shower bar will be usable within half an hour. Street trees have been looking stressed all summer.

I come not to bury Fitch (or Didion, or Raymond Chandler, or Mike Davis), but to salute the whole lot of 'em for giving it the old college try while fighting an ultimately losing battle -- using the wholly inadequate medium of words to describe a force of nature that's all about the visuals. Like this one, by The Times' phenomenal Wally Skalij:

To see and celebrate the poetry no words can convey, keep on reading after the jump.

Philip F. Mangano and Gary Blasi argue that money spend dealing with homelessness in L.A. could be better spent combating it:

When we add up the arrests, incarcerations, emergency medical care and other crisis interventions, the true costs of chronic homelessness are staggering: $35,000 to $150,000 per person per year. By contrast, the annual cost of supportive housing for a person with serious mental illness or addiction disease is between $13,000 and $25,000. And once stabilized, many can qualify for federal disability and health insurance or get jobs that will further reduce local costs.

Yet Los Angeles seems stuck maintaining the expensive and ultimately unproductive policies of the past. On skid row, for instance, the Los Angeles Police Department deployed 50 additional officers and also expanded its drug enforcement effort. In the first year of that initiative, the LAPD issued about 12,000 citations for minor offenses and made about 9,000 arrests -- in an area with a population of about 12,000, about 5,000 of whom are homeless.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez explores America's reliance on religion during a disaster and dueling tendency toward more worldly finger-pointing in the aftermath. UC Davis professor emerita Sandra M. Gilbert muses over the meaning behind Halloween and other fall celebrations involving the dead.

The editorial board worries that the CIA's inspection of its own inspector general's office "has created the impression that a watchdog is being muzzled." It gives a thumbs-up for filmmaker Ed Burns' decision to distribute his new movie through iTunes, and laments Congress's well-meaning but ineffective move to expand the definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation.

Readers react to Rosa Brooks' column regarding the White House's sanity. Ronald Jones counters, "Rosa Brooks implies that the Bush administration and its leaders are the psychotics, but are they any crazier than those she would conciliate with?"

Local and non-local bloggers warm up to the fires raging throughout Southern California. Topics range from bad-taste wildfire cash-ins to who qualifies as a blogger (hang in there long enough and we may even get back to the old who invented blogging controversy), and there's some real public service going on as well.

The Fishbowl points out The Times’ continuous coverage, remarking,

The LAT's fire blog is exactly what newspapers will be doing with all breaking news coverage some day. And that's not a bad thing.

Thanks, we think. Meanwhile, a Times columnist finally gets his weblogging wings courtesy of Central City East:

Steve Lopez is even submitting his own photos, which in my opinion, by doing that, makes him a full fledged blogger.

Twitter Love gets kudos from Big Action for its role as

a valuable emergency communication tool.  People who probably had no clue about Twitter three days ago are using it to stay abreast of fire evacuations and the latest news. [...] Go Twitter.

LA Observed is also staying abreast of fire news, and posts a photo of a phenomenally dismal scene at Long Beach.

LA.com links to a post about a sushi chain that “turns tragedy into publicity”:

A good portion of the state of California might have been burning yesterday, but that doesn’t mean high-end sushi chain Nobu couldn’t turn tragedy into publicity by deciding to selflessly offer their delicious Miso Hamachi to Malibu firefighters looking for a little raw fish break from the flames swallowing the nearby homes. Nobu’s good deed was made even better by their just so happening to mention it to TMZ, who whipped up this cheeky little photoshop, slapped an “EXCLUSIVE!” on it, and gave it a hilarious headline (”Hottest Reservations In Town” - Get It?) for you to enjoy if your internet connection wasn’t on fire. Too bad the Tribeca Grill didn’t think of this during 9/11.

Laist.com wonders whether Orange County’s got the short end of the matchstick when it comes to resources, concluding,

The federal response is so shaky and unreliable that even Michael "heckuva job" Brown had the nerve to offer himself up for interviews on the fire respon