What keeps alive a story that could keep you alive? On Sunday, José Holguín-Veras' article, "The 1,000-year-old warning," explained how a venerable tale led the people of Murohama, on the east coast of Japan, to safety after last year's Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. The ancient story told of a massive earthquake and tsunami that killed villagers who headed to high ground nearby but were nonetheless swept away. The particulars matched geologic and historical evidence, but what the people of Murohama remembered wasn't corroborating science but the story itself -- and a roadside shrine, tended for generations, near the site where the tragedy happened.  When the Tohoku earthquake hit, most of the people in Murohama heeded the story and headed to safer ground on the other side of town.

One commenter on our website, "clxLAT," said, "A picture of the shrine would have been nice." Holguín-Veras was happy to accommodate that request with a shot  he took of the roadside shrine on his research trip to Japan.  He also included a GPS map based on  Google Earth.  The "directions" on it start at "S" in the village and lead to "E" -- close to the roadside shrine. The safer high ground is south and west  of "S."  

ALSO:

Raising cyber-children -- safely

How will it end in Afghanistan?

Texas' solution in search of a problem

--Susan Brenneman

Photo: Murohama's roadside shrine. Credit: José Holguín-Veras’ / For The Times

Matt Kirby takes on Robert H. Nelson's recent Op-Ed, "Free the American West." Kirby works on public lands policy for the Sierra Club and is an avid outdoorsman. If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed and would like to participate in Blowback, here are our FAQs and submission policy.

The recent opinion article decrying public lands, "Free the American West," by Robert H. Nelson, is out of touch with the current Western economy. Much has changed since Nelson's days at the Department of Interior in the 1970s.  

In the last 40 years, the fastest growth in the West has occurred in areas that are directly adjacent to protected public lands. Safeguarding and highlighting the quality of life offered by these special pieces of America's natural heritage draw new residents, tourists and businesses. Together the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service see an average of 591 million visitors every year -- visitors who stimulate local economies and support jobs. Visitors aren't coming to see mines, oil and gas wells, and clear-cut forests, the activities for which Nelson says these lands should be "freed up." They're traveling to hunt, to fish, to hike, to camp, and for a hundred other sustainable activities that require protected public lands. Outdoor recreation generates $730 billion for the U.S. economy each year and supports almost 6.5 million jobs.

In November, more than 100 eminent economists sent a letter to President Obama asking that he protect more lands, not less. The letter states: "Today, one of the competitive strengths of the West is the unique combination of wide-open spaces, scenic vistas and recreational opportunities alongside vibrant, growing communities that are connected to larger markets via the Internet, highways and commercial air service." This is further supported by an independent analysis conducted last year by Headwaters Economics regarding the economies of communities in 11 Western states adjacent to recently established national monuments. Of the 17 national monuments they studied, the local economies in every single case grew following the creation of the monument. All of these communities either saw a continued or improved growth in employment, real personal income and per capita income. Even during the economic downturn, our protected lands have continued to provide consistent tourism revenue for local communities. Coconino County, for example, home of the Grand Canyon, set a record in tourism revenue in 2010 even as statewide tourism was down.  

Nelson claims that our federal lands policy was created in a different time with different needs. And with that claim I agree. But the truth is that our protected public lands are more important today than they were in 1910. The modern world has made those lands more easily accessible for all Americans than at any point in history. And Americans are clearly taking advantage of all the opportunities they afford.  

Today Americans of all stripes benefit from more than a century of conservation efforts.  If industry had been "free" to do as it wished in the early 1900s, we would not be able to enjoy the Grand Canyon or Grand Teton National Park as they are today. Early efforts to abolish protections for these special places today seem unthinkable.  

A recent Colorado College poll of Western voters showed nearly unanimous agreement that public lands are "an essential" part of their state economies. Even in tough economic times, Western voters overwhelmingly agreed that we should continue making investments in conservation. 

People realize that the benefits of public lands are far-reaching. Outside of the recreation economy, the services that natural areas provide range from air and water filtration to storm protection. These services create real savings with a $1.6 trillion annual impact. Farmers, ranchers and city dwellers all rely on the clean air and clean water that protected places provide, just as they rely on our protected public lands for opportunities to recreate, retreat and recharge.  

America's ability to thrive and safeguard jobs in the conservation and outdoor economy depends on maintaining strong federal protections for our public lands. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen the lands legacy we leave for future generations, not subdivide it.  

ALSO:

Is that a fracking earthquake?

Michael Mann's counterstrike in the climate wars

Sherwood Rowland, the scientist who saved the world

--Matt Kirby

Photo: Cathedral Rock in the Coconino National Forest. It is a landmark of Sedona's skyline and one of the most photographed sights in Arizona. Credit: Charmaine Noronha / Associated Press 

It is easy, and not altogether untrue, to think of James Q. Wilson as a conservative. He wrote extensively on morality, social order and duty. He was skeptical of gay marriage, supportive of the war in Iraq, and he was the most influential intellectual in the development of modern policing. But he was not foremost an ideological figure. As he told me in 2007, he wrote not to dictate answers but rather to explore problems. "I write," he said, "in order to figure out for myself what I think about the subject."

I knew Wilson for almost 20 years, our paths crossing rarely but, for me, always memorably. Never in our many conversations did I hear him answer a question by rote; he listened, thought hard, questioned his own assumptions as well as those of others. He would often give something to both sides of an argument. He was, unfailingly, too genuine to embrace slippery reasoning, even when it favored his side of an argument.

For many years, Wilson was a regular member of one of Los Angeles' most exclusive book clubs, which met at the home of then-Mayor Richard Riordan. It was Riordan who suggested I get to know Wilson, and I am profoundly glad that he did. Wilson, said Riordan, "is the most intellectually honest person I've ever known." Riordan could be wrong, but he was right in this case. Wilson leaves a great legacy of wisdom and curiosity, but his greatest contribution to his culture was his unswerving honesty.

 A collection of Wilson's work for the Los Angeles Times over the years appears after the jump.

ALSO:

Rewriting the rules on how to fight crime

Political scientist James Q. Wilson dies at 80

James Q. Wilson: The power of his written word

--Jim Newton

Photo: James Q. Wilson is seen near his office at UCLA in November 1996. Credit: Anacleto Rapping / Los Angeles Times

On Sunday, Charlotte Allen, who describes herself as a conservative somewhere to the right of Pedro the Cruel, and Diana Wagman, a pacifist, vegetarian, Prius-driving, NPR-listening liberal, explained in separate Opinion articles why they have trouble talking to people with different political views. ("Liberals vs. conservatives," "Conservatives vs. liberals.") But we've asked them to try, conducting an exchange of emails on the issues of gay marriage and healthcare. Here is their correspondence on healthcare.  On Sunday, we featured their exchanges on gay marriage.  

Charlotte Allen to Diana Wagman:

The most crucial issue in the November election, bar none, is repealing "Obamacare." For starters,  the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance policies is probably unconstitutional, and it's certain to be rendered pointlessly expensive by all the medical and quasi-medical bells and whistles shoved into the 2,000-page "affordable care" act by various advocacy groups. Under Obamacare we the public have to pay 100% of women's contraceptive costs, even though the vast majority of Americans can't possibly need women's contraceptives (all males, nearly all females younger than 15 and older than 40, plus everyone who either doesn't believe in birth control or finds it creepy to stuff your body with powerful hormones for 25 years). Birth control pills are already cheap at about $30 a month, $5 more than the cost of a pedicure. They're free to many poor and near-poor women.

There's also all the other therapeutic pork. Under Obamacare we've got to pay for "mental health" counseling for those who are feeling blue, and drug and alcohol counseling for those who can't stay off blow and juice. We almost had to pay (until the Health and Human Services Department rescinded its rule) for "end of life" counseling designed to ease old folks into early graves. We've got to pay for "community health centers," some of which will spend taxpayer dollars to treat illegal immigrants no questions asked, and others of which will spend more taxpayer dollars to combat "obesity" (my no-cost advice to the obese: Quit huffing junk food and get some exercise). We're obliged to pay for "visiting nurses" -- i.e. registered nurses paid registered nurses' salaries -- to drop by the homes of welfare mothers and tell them to please change their babies' diapers every now and then and not hit them when they cry.

Yes, we desperately need healthcare reform in America. But we need to go back to square one and start over. Obamacare was a measure that nobody really wanted. It was a Senate compromise measure that was supposed to go back to the House for even more compromises -- until Scott Brown was elected Massachusetts senator in late 2009, making possible a likely Republican filibuster, so the House hastily turned the Senate bill into law under a rules finagle. We need to devise a way, preferably independently of the current employment-based model, to allow people to buy cheap, individually-tailored insurance that covers genuine health emergencies sans politics-driven Christmas trees of politics-driven goodies, and not to have to worry -- via a reinsurance setup? -- about coverage of preexisting conditions when they change jobs.

 Wagman to Allen:

Let's first begin with a basic premise: that all Americans should have affordable healthcare.  We are the richest country in the world and the only First World nation without universal healthcare.  What is so terrifying about every sick child getting penicillin, or every nearsighted person getting glasses?  Because someone can't afford the astronomical costs of private health insurance doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

A 2009 study by Johns Hopkins Children's Center said that lack of health insurance was a factor in the deaths of nearly 17,000 children. That's criminal. Talk about class warfare!   

The problem isn't the Affordable Care Act paying for contraception (much cheaper than paying for pregnancy and delivery) or mental health and addiction programs, or even private nurses for welfare moms (I can't even respond to that without laughing -- are we back to President Reagan's welfare mother in a Cadillac?). The problem is insurance companies have way too much power and have effectively scared Americans into thinking universal care means we won't be able to see our regular practitioner, we'll have interminable waits and that -- horrors -- some poor person will get the medicine he or she needs and we'll have to pay for it.  Blue Cross, Aetna and the rest aren't in the business of wellness; they're just in business.   Yes, unfortunately there will be some fraud, but because some people abuse the system is no reason to cancel it for everyone.  Some drivers run red lights.  That doesn't mean we should make every intersection a free-for-all.

The Affordable Care Act is a great first step.  It's not perfect.  Social Security wasn't popular when first introduced.  Opponents even called it socialism.  It was refined over time.  President Obama's plan is the right idea.  The good far outweighs the bad.  Starting over will just give the insurance companies the time they need to keep any reform from happening.

Allen to Wagman:

Deciding to hand out contraceptives -- not just to poor and near-poor women, who already qualify for free birth control, but to middle-class and even wealthy women (the 1%!) with no co-pay -- is not a healthcare decision but a policy decision. Deciding that it's cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for pregnancy is also a policy decision. Feminists decided that it was sauce for the goose, since men can qualify for free (or at least cheap) Viagra. It's an example of the kind of non-health-related goodies that politicians, egged on by lobbyists for interest groups, have hung on the Obamacare Christmas tree, ballooning the law to its current 2,000-page size.

As for penicillin for sick children and eyeglasses for the nearsighted, they're poor examples of the deficiencies of the pre-Obamacare system. Nearly all states operate programs that provide free penicillin and other life-saving drugs for uninsured sick children whose parents can't afford antibiotics for them. Eyeglasses are dirt-cheap at outfits such as Hour Eyes -- and if you're farsighted, you can buy reading glasses off the rack at any drugstore or supermarket.

Moving on to your allusion to "welfare mothers in a Cadillac." You need to update that figure of speech to "welfare mothers with 103-inch flat-screen TVs." What I was trying to say wasn't that women on welfare get treated to luxuries such as private nurses that most people can't afford. It's that it's a waste of money to send registered nurses (who command high salaries) to the homes of welfare mothers to show them how to take care of their (healthy) babies. Anyone can do that with a modicum of training. I could do it myself because, even though I've never had children, I enjoyed looking after my baby brother when I was 17. But a couple of years ago "nurse-family partnerships" were all the rage as cure-alls for social ills, so they got into the Obamacare law. They're an example of the huge number of pet projects worked into that law that someone has to pay for, either taxpayers or premium payers who are going to find that the Affordable Care Act suddenly isn't so affordable.

Now, about those demon insurance companies. I think you're thinking back to 1994, when insurance companies fought tooth and nail to defeat "Hillarycare," the last Democratic administration effort to impose a government-regulated healthcare scheme on the public. This time around, the big insurance companies did zero to fight back. Indeed, they donated huge sums of money to both Barack Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaigns, and they essentially supported both the House and Senate bills as they became law in 2010. The reason is that healthcare demand has soared so far out of control that health insurance companies can't make any money. They've been more than happy to turn themselves into intensely regulated public utilities (under Obamacare) in which the government would ensure them modest profits in return for federal governance. This means that when the government starts to ration care, as it inevitably will, the insurance companies won't have to take the heat.

Finally, those 17,000 dead children whose families lacked health insurance. That study examined the medical records of 23 million hospitalized children. So the 17,000 represents only 0.07% of the total. The study found that children whose families lacked insurance did die at a higher rate than those whose families didn't. But the researchers concluded only that lack of insurance "may have" contributed to the deaths.

Like you, I believe that all citizens of prosperous America should have access to affordable health insurance. One way to start would be to turn health insurance into real insurance -- covering ruinous medical catastrophes, not routine doctor visits or Plan B for college girls who forgot to take their birth control pills. Such insurance would be cheap for the young people who constitute the largest group of those who go without coverage today. If health insurance were decoupled from workplace benefits, people would not have to worry about being denied coverage for preexisting conditions or forgetting that they consulted an acne doctor years ago but forgot to include that on their applications. That would be the beginning of genuine healthcare reform, not the $2-trillion mess that we're stuck with now.

Wagman to Allen:

I agree that healthcare should not be work-related.  I agree that all Americans should be able to afford to be healthy.  But it's not catastrophic coverage we need but to make routine doctor visits available for everyone.  We've made huge strides in preventive medicine.  Pap smears, blood tests, mammograms, etc. can catch disease early, before it turns deadly.  Preventive care saves pain as well as money.  It costs a lot more money to treat someone sick with cancer than to provide him with a colonoscopy and removal of a suspicious polyp. 

As for birth control, it is another preventive and used by women across the political and economic spectrum. Why shouldn't it be free for anyone who chooses to use it?  That's very egalitarian.  And young women are the ones who most need birth control and are most likely to "skip" it if it costs too much.  Thirty dollars might not be much to you, but that's a lot to a high school student.  Should she be having sex?  That's not our business.  Should she have a baby?  Most definitely not. 

I can't even discuss whatever you said about the 0.07%;  17,000 sounds like a lot of children to me.  I guess those kids should stop "huffing junk food and exercise."  If their "welfare moms" weren't such slackers --  buying TVs instead of antibiotics -- they would be alive today.  I'm glad you took care of your baby brother when you were 17 and didn't need any training.  I know how to sew; does that mean I should give my son stitches the next time he falls off his bike?   No child should die because of lack of health insurance.  Not one. Period. The end.

"Welfare mom" is not a pejorative.  It is not code for some kind of loser. With the levels of unemployment in this country -- now beginning to turn around thanks to our president -- I know you don't assume every woman on welfare is there by choice.   Thank God we have welfare.  And we should have open, universal healthcare so anyone, regardless of her financial status, can go into the doctor for a regular checkup and whatever tests she needs.

When you talk to Canadians or Brits they might grumble about their systems -- mostly about waiting in line.  But not one would give them up.  They absolutely appreciate their ability to go to the doctor, the dentist, a specialist, whenever it's necessary.  Most Americans want universal healthcare, and a majority thinks the federal government should provide it.

ALSO:

Goldberg: Free healthcare? That's rich

Conservative vs. Liberal: Gay marriage

Contraception and women's rights -- it's still a man's world

Illustration by Wes Bausmith / Los Angeles Times

On Sunday, Charlotte Allen, who describes herself as a conservative somewhere to the right of Pedro the Cruel, and Diana Wagman, a pacifist, vegetarian, Prius-driving, NPR-listening liberal, explained in separate Opinion articles why they have trouble talking to people with different political views. ("Liberals vs. conservatives," "Conservatives vs. liberals.") But we've asked them to try, conducting an exchange of emails on the issues of gay marriage and healthcare. Here is their correspondence on gay marriage.  On Monday, we'll feature their exchanges on healthcare.  

Charlotte Allen to Diana Wagman:

I don't care whether two men or two women want to get married until the cows come home. What gets up my nose is having to pretend that they really are married. Do I really have to say "you and hubby" (as one of my libertarian friends did just recently) when I'm talking to a gay guy about his domestic affairs? That's the problem with the federal Prop. 8 ruling: It's not about the kind of relationship that gays have -- California's domestic partnership law gives them all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy -- but about what other people are going to be forced to call that relationship. Gay marriage is coercive.

Wagman to Allen:

I can't quite figure out from your email what bothers you about gay marriage.  It seems to be the word "marriage."

Do you call Kim Kardashian's 72 days with her "hubby" marriage?  Is Newt Gingrich really married -- this time?  I'm offended by what a lot of people call marriage, but not by my friends Rachel and Deena.  They've been legally married for eight years and have two children.  And yes, Deena is Rachel's wife and that's how I introduce her.    

What's coercive is someone telling me what marriage must be.  It's between me and my partner.  If it bothers you to call Rachel and Deena married, then don't.  It's not up to you or anyone else to label their relationship.  

Don't Republicans want to get the government out of people's business?  You don't want the government telling me I have to buy health insurance, but you do want government to mandate who I can and cannot marry.  

Allen to Wagman:

1. Yes, it's the word "marriage," the same word that "bothers" the vast majority of Americans who believe that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman and who vote to uphold that belief and that definition whenever they are given a chance. Marriage reflects male and female sexual union and the complementary nature of males and females. Since male and female sexual unions are procreative by nature (if not always procreative in effect), marriage is the social recognition of that union, and the vows of fidelity that accompany it are supposed to guarantee that the children of that union know who their biological parents are and are raised and supported by them. This is something that every human society has recognized since time began, long before there were any laws regulating marriage. Even societies that have tolerated and even idealized homosexual unions (e.g. the ancient Greek world) have never purported to attach the name "marriage" to those unions. Same-sex marriage is a conceptual novelty of the last 20 years or so. It's coercive for a branch of government, in the case of the 9th Circuit, the federal judiciary, to force people to abandon a definition of marriage that has held for millenniums and to adopt a new and unprecedented definition. The 9th Circuit's majority opinion was all about the word "marriage."

2. Since I don't know what was going on inside Kim Kardashian's head (if she has one -- just joking!), I have no idea whether hers was a real marriage or just an excuse for a big party. I can't even remember her "husband's" name. As for Newt and his three wives, we do have liberal divorce laws in this country, whether we like them or not, and whether we think it's right for a man to be fooling around with Wife No. 2 while still married to Wife No. 1 and with Wife No. 3 while still married to Wife No. 2.

In short, yes, heterosexual couples have mucked up the institution of marriage quite a bit, with no-fault divorce being one of the chief culprits. That doesn't mean that the institution itself has disappeared or been radically redefined.

3. I'm sure that Rachel and Deena are wonderful people. But what do they have to do with the issues at hand? You are essentially making an argumentum ad misericordiam, an appeal to pity: "You're talking about my friends!"

4. Applying "labels" to things, people, abstractions, ideas and relationships is what human beings do when they think and then express their thoughts verbally with their power of speech. Animals don't "label." That's because they're not human.

Wagman to Allen:

Actually, Charlotte, according to a May 2011 Gallup poll, 53% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by federal law as valid.  Opinions have progressed since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  And of course you can't even talk about procreation. Women aren't property anymore and kids aren't the reason people get married.  Many heterosexual marriages are child-free by choice, and many gay and lesbian couples have children.  It doesn't matter what they called it in ancient Greece. We don't sacrifice goats to the gods anymore either.  Society evolves.  People -- including the ancient Greeks -- used to own slaves, but we figured that one out.  I hope we as people are getting smarter and more empathetic and even "in the last 20 years" have learned a few things.

I'm not sure your definition of marriage has held for millenniums.  Marriage has been around -- as a business contract -- since before Christianity. Love had nothing to do with it; it wasn't really marriage as we know it. Here's the definition of marriage I like:

"In its essence, marriage is a selfless act. It is the act of giving oneself to somebody else and becoming one. Of course, it is impossible for two people to unite and remain separate. And since the essence of marriage is selflessness in a self-centered society, it faces opposition from today's popular culture."

Guess who said that?  Rick Santorum in a 2003 speech to the Heritage Foundation.  And that has nothing to do with children, or the generations who have come before, or whether that selfless act is between opposite-sex or same-sex partners. 

Same-sex marriage is the last civil right prohibited by the federal government.  A  domestic partnership recognized by the state of California offers no protections federally.  If a soldier dies in Afghanistan, his or her same-sex spouse cannot receive a military pension, or Social Security benefits or any other federal advantage.  If a soldier falls in love with an Afghan while in the service -- as has happened -- only a heterosexual Afghan is allowed to immigrate and be with the person he or she loves.

All the studies show marriage is good for society, good for children and good for the health and well-being of the people involved.  Don't you want that for everyone?  Shouldn't everyone -- and by extension all of society -- reap the same benefits? 

As to labels, you're right, only people label and I have to label you as selfish.  No one else's marriage, as you rightly state about Kim's and Tom's and Newt's, reflects on yours in any way.  So why should you get a federal benefit my friends, as examples of countless homosexuals who pay taxes and vote and fight for this country, are not entitled to?   

Allen to Wagman:

If, as the 2011 Gallup poll indicates, 53% of Americans believe in recognizing same-sex marriage, why not put the matter up to a vote in the democratic process? Then, Americans would be able to redefine marriage as they see fit. Why not rerun Prop. 8 in California instead of relying on razor-thin judicial majorities to declare it null and void?

Otherwise, your email seems to consist of a mishmash of topics that I never raised: Christianity, women as property, the romantic thoughts of Rick Santorum. None of this has anything to do with the definition of marriage that I offered, which is:

"Marriage reflects male and female sexual union and the complementary natures of males and females. Since male and female sexual unions are procreative by nature (if not always procreative in effect), marriage is the social recognition of that union, and the vows of fidelity that accompany it are supposed to guarantee that the children of that union know who their biological parents are and are raised and supported by them. This is something that every human society has recognized since time began, long before there were any laws regulating marriage."

This is a definition that hardly depends on social context. It has held for people who sacrificed goats to the gods (some still do that today!) and for people who thought that God was a goat. Some societies practice polygamy, some essentially sell daughters to husbands, and some require fathers to pay large sums of money to have husbands take their daughters off their hands. In some marriages, mutual love isn't an element; in others, mutual love is the very essence. All of those arrangements are grounded in the ineluctable biological reality that men instinctively need assurance that the children they raise are their own, and that women instinctively need the support of a man while they are bearing and raising young children. This is marriage.

I suppose that you could say that in just the last 20 years (when gay marriage suddenly became the numero uno issue for gays) we've "evolved" to a higher plane -- or at least we in the West have evolved, as there's been no such revolution in the Islamic ummah. Yes, lots of people now get married with no intention of having children. Other people, same-sex couples, "have" children (typically by importing the gametes of some outsider into the household and then pretending that the resulting offspring is both of theirs, an arrangement that undoubtedly works well for some but can go haywire if the couple splits).

If this is so, and there is now suddenly a "right" to same-sex marriage, let's have a vote on whether the institution should be redefined. This may be already happening, as some state legislatures (and the council of my own District of Columbia) have done that very thing. Yet to date, when same-sex marriage has been put up to a popular ballot initiative, it has failed. In any event, the decision of what marriage means ought to be a societal decision, not the coercive fiat of progressive federal judges.

Finally, I don't understand what is "selfish" about wishing to retain the age-old definition of marriage. I personally don't have anything to gain by it. But society has a great deal to lose when it disconnects marriage from the most stable and durable social institution that human beings have ever invented, the biological family.   

ALSO:

Why gay marriage is inevitable

Prop. 8 simply can't justify itself

Conservative vs. Liberal: Healthcare

Illustration by Wes Bausmith / Los Angeles Times

The Komen controversy isn't over yet. When the breast cancer research and awareness foundation pulled its funding from Planned Parenthood, it didn't just provoke backlash; it brought other issues to light. For instance, in an Op-Ed from Wednesday's pages, author and breast cancer survivor Peggy Ornstein points to a new report by Reuters on how Komen allocated its 2011 funds. Only 15% went toward research, less than the amount for fundraising and administrative costs.

In her Op-Ed, Ornstein also takes Komen to task for spending too much of its funds on promoting mammography, which does not provide a cure, and then urges readers to keep the pressure on Komen to do better. She writes:

From all of this, one can draw two conclusions. First, the same pressure that made Komen change its policy on Planned Parenthood needs to be brought to bear on its other policies, such as its indiscriminate partnerships (remember those pink buckets of KFC?). Alternatively, we could take our donations elsewhere. There are plenty of other, less well-known groups doing worthy, effective advocacy on breast cancer, groups that don't shy away from looking objectively at the science of screening, that more aggressively push investigation into causes of cancer (such as potential environmental links) and refuse money from corporations whose mission, products or policies are antithetical to women's health.

Here, Ornstein recommends three such organizations: Army of Women, the National Breast Cancer Coalition and Breast Cancer Action, which, she says, "fight[s] the good fight over the cancer industry, the politics of breast cancer, social injustice in cancer and environmental issues." BAC is also known for the concept "think before you pink," which addresses "pinkwashing." See for yourself:

ALSO:

An antibiotic wake-up call

The pink ribbon's ugly new image

Why Chris Brown is no role model

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Nancy Brinker, founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is seen during the Komen Community Challenge rally on April 26, 2007, in Washington. Credit: Karen Bleier / AFP/Getty Images

It's been 2 1/2 months since the police rousted hundreds of stalwart  Occupy L.A. protesters from their City Hall encampment, and for all those weeks, the  beat-up grounds surrounding the seat of L.A. government have  been cordoned off, ringed by concrete barriers topped with chain link, awaiting The Decision: Which way will  the City Hall lawn go -- native or not?

In mid-November, before the eviction but after the grass was long gone, Emily Green, former Times staff writer and former Times Dry Garden columnist, weighed in with an Op-Ed. She called for a "test garden" that would "give City Hall a chance to walk its talk" about water conservation.

If felling the non-native figs around City Hall is a non-starter for sentimental reasons, we should at least be irrigating the magnificent old trees with drip instead of lawn sprinklers -- a move that would reduce trimming needs by slowing the trees' growth.

Even strategic use of turf could be preserved, though it should be the hardiest variety irrigated in the smartest ways requiring the least frequent grooming. Rather than lawn on the northeast side of City Hall (which has been wet enough in past years to grow mushrooms) and sweeping down the berm on the other flank, there should be hardy and fragrant natives that can survive with little water and no mowing or blowing.

Green got a lot of what she hoped for.  This week the City Council voted 14 to 0 for a Goldilocks design -- not too much grass, not too little grass, but something it thought was just right: a 51% reduction of turf, and plants such as succulents, salvias and California holly added. 

The Times news story, however, included a surprising fact: It will cost more to maintain this predominately native (and presumably low-water) landscape, not less -- $50,000 a year more. Green, who attended public discussions about what the new garden should look like, said in an interview: "The city and Rec and Parks have done an admirable thing, though it's not clear why it will cost more to maintain. In any event, that's not a message home gardeners should heed. Native plants are cheaper than turf."

To see for yourself, Green suggests checking out the online documentation of a sustainable versus  traditional experiment in Santa Monica: Garden/Garden.  On the website you can see demonstration landscapes for two side-by-side houses, peruse the plant lists, the water use and the amount of time and effort each requires.

Guess what? Sustainable wins hands down.

By May, we're promised, the experiment begins at City Hall.

ALSO:

Daum: Tiger Moms vs. 'Bébé' moms

McManus: Those mudslinging Republicans

Will more money buy an Alzheimer's cure?

--Susan Brenneman

Photo: The north lawn at Los Angeles City Hall is seen after crews cleared the tents of Occupy L.A. Credit: Los Angeles Times

My column on Monday looking at a proposed change in the way the Los Angeles Police Department handles cars it seizes from unlicensed drivers drew the predictable response: Scores of readers wrote to complain that this is just another misguided attempt to make life easier for illegal immigrants, while a smaller number wrote to praise the idea as a moderate way to handle an overbearing and unjust system that deprives those immigrants and others of their vehicles for relatively minor traffic violations.

First, I should note that my larger point was not the policy itself but rather the question of what it says about who makes policy for the LAPD. It's my view that these proposed changes represent a change in policy and that the Police Commission, not Chief Charlie Beck, should therefore make them. That said, the proposal that the chief has advanced is one I agree with, despite the objections of some readers.

Take "divewizard," who wrote: "Anyone driving without a license should be arrested and the car impounded." That's true, but it avoids the question. The real question is this: Should everyone who drives without a license lose their car for 30 days, or should there be different standards depending on the offense? If the unlicensed driver also is uninsured or has been in an accident or is charged with a serious offense (driving drunk, for instance), that driver would continue to lose the car for 30 days under the chief's proposal. But if the driver carried insurance (yes, it's possible to get insurance without a California license) and was merely pulled over for speeding, shouldn't that be treated differently? Under Beck's suggestion, such drivers would have their car impounded but could pick it up the following day if they arrived with a licensed driver.

Similarly, "mypapa" argues that Beck's job is to enforce the law, and that because it's illegal to drive without a license, Beck should make sure his officers enforce the law. Simple, indeed, but Beck's broader responsibility is to protect public safety. The effect of seizing cars for 30 days for even trivial offenses is that it encourages those without licenses to drive inexpensive cars and discourages them from registering them or obtaining insurance, because they will simply walk away if the car is seized and they can't afford to get it back. Los Angeles would be safer if more cars were registered, insured and well maintained. And since Beck's job is to look after that safety, I think he's right to pursue this policy. I still think the commission should have the last word, though, and I respectfully disagree with Beck on that issue.

Finally, to the reader who argued that I was incorrect that the council can't override the chief, it's the reader who's incorrect. The council has the power to take over any action by a commission and veto it if 10 council members support that veto -- that's one reason supporters of this policy prefer not to have the commission act. The chief, on the other hand, does not report to the council, and it has no power to review his changes in LAPD procedure.

ALSO:

L.A.'s wasteful sprinklers

GOP candidates' immigration fantasies

The energy industry's disturbing influence on politics

--Jim Newton

Photo: Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Serves me right, really, for trying to get my news by just scanning headlines.

There it was on The Times' homepage Wednesday: "Pelosi, Gingrich trade shots again."

Wow, I thought: So the two former House speakers have been throwing back Jägermeister?

Maybe Newt Gingrich is a miracle worker. I mean, I know he appeared with Pelosi in a 2008 ad in which they urged action on global warming. But who knew they were drinking buddies?

Uh, no. Turns out Pelosi was asked about Gingrich's presidential prospects in an interview this week with CNN's John King. Her response: 

"He's not going to be president of the United States," Pelosi said. "This is -- that's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it. It isn't going to happen."

Asked how she could be so sure, Pelosi said: "There's something I know."

Naturally, inquiring minds wanted to know what that "something" was. Including Gingrich:

"Who knows? Who knows?" Gingrich chuckled [when asked about the Democratic leader’s suggestion by NBC’s Ann Curry on Wednesday]. “She lives in a San Francisco environment of very strange fantasies and very strange understandings of reality. I have no idea what’s in Nancy Pelosi’s head. If she knows something, I have a simple challenge: Spit it out; tell us what it is. I have no idea what she’s talking about."

And then Pelosi's office, asked to clarify, pointed reporters to the four-part House ethics report on the former speaker.

Aw, c'mon, congresswoman. You imply there's a "January surprise" or somesuch coming, and that's all you've got?

It's fine for TMZ to tease, but ... 

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons to not vote for Gingrich. But as Jonah Goldberg argued in Tuesday's Opinion pages,  "conventional weapons are useless against Newtzilla …. Everything bad about Gingrich -- the flip-flops, the wives, the ego -- is known. Once voters have convinced themselves they can overlook that stuff, it's hard to change their minds simply by repeating it."

And in a massive upset, I find myself agreeing with Goldberg.

I'm still not convinced that Gingrich will be the nominee, nor do I think he could beat President Obama. But a musty old ethics report certainly won't do him in.

And the 24-hour news cycle that makes stories out of comments like Pelosi's isn't doing us any favors either.

As for me, I'm going back to scanning headlines. Hey, how about that "Headless body in topless bar" update?

ALSO

McManus: Obama's common touch

Newt Gingrich has a real chance to be president

Mitt Romney doesn't want a tax break from Newt Gingrich

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich at a campaign event with his wife, Callista, in Naples, Fla. Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Readers of my column know I'm fascinated by the basic, eternal comment-board questions: "Why are people so mean?"  "Is vitriolic spewing on the Web just another sign of the apocalypse?"  

Of course, plenty of others are just as interested in the way "instant response" (you know, typing fast and then clicking a mouse, rather than getting a pen, finding the paper, writing a letter, sticking it in the U.S. mail) has changed the nature of reading, writing and just being a person.

I heard from some of them last week via Patt Morrison's KPCC radio show. I was on it because I wrote a 5,000+-word essay, "Haterade" -- about the vituperative nature of certain forms of online interactivity --  for the January issue of the Believer magazine (which, by the way, doesn't allow for comments on its website).  Cheryl Cox in Woodland Hills posted this on Patt's KPCC page, "With all due respect to you authors, I learn as much from the discussion that follows an article as from the article itself."  Ryan Johnson  said,  "I'm horrified by the hate that people freely express" and added that "genuine discussion rarely happens in a comments section." Meanwhile, "Eleanor in Los Feliz" wrote that she appreciated the "meta" aspect of "comment-conversing on a story about comment-conversing."  Me too. 

Offline, lots of people  have told me they would like to take part in online discussions but that the ugly rantings of the few too often drown out the good intentions of the many, and it ultimately doesn't seem worth the trouble. Others pine for the days, pre-blogosphere, when conversations about political and cultural issues generally took place in person among friends or colleagues who knew how to combine vehement disagreement with respectful listening. Meanwhile, many young people, some of them fledgling writers, admit they sometimes censor their most original, daring ideas out of fear of the "haterade." 

No one wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, not that we could  at this stage in digital history. As we learned last year, the anonymity of the Web can help topple dictators, but there's no foolproof way to prevent people from also using that cover to air their most venomous, gratuitous grievances in a manner they wouldn't think of doing in real life. Even comment-by-comment monitoring doesn't help much. It's impractical, and besides, whose standard should prevail; where do you draw the line?  

At The Times, comments on some blogs are implemented through Facebook, which may engender more civility than utterly anonymous threads. But is it fair to force people to join Facebook if they want to post a comment? (Personally, I think not.) Moreover, if someone is determined to spew invective while hiding behind a false identity, don't The Times' Facebook comments prove it's  pretty easy to do?  (Not to give you guys any ideas. ) 

If  you think you have the key to civil discourse, by all means let us know.  Meanwhile, read the piece, if for no other reason than to snicker over the embarrassing opening anecdote, which describes an ill-conceived, messily argued and (rightfully) lambasted (without benefit of comment boards) article I published in the mid-1990s when I was a fledgling kulturkritic/opinionator/navel gazer. No doubt my loyal haters will appreciate the opportunity to make up for the online pummeling I dodged back then.

Oh, and here's a comment footnote:  What's the real derivation of "haterade"?  I always thought it was coined by young, snarky blogger types, but I'm hearing that it is actually a hip-hop expression (the Urban Dictionary’s first entry calls it "a figurative drink representing a modality or thought" and doesn't mention hip hop). So if you know the answer, please speak up. Just try not to use all caps if you can help it.

RELATED:

Daum: Mitt Romney's dog days

Daum: Think first tweet later #duh

Daum: Christopher Hitchens gets the last laugh

--Meghan Daum

Photo credit: Christina House / For The Times