 Much -- might we say perhaps too much? -- has been made of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, especialy by the Senate Judiciary Committee considering her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today's Op-Ed page gives voice to four Latinas to interpret the meaning of that phrase through their own experiences. Antonia Hernandez writes, for example:
Many years ago, one of the first times I went to court, the bailiff stopped me and said, "Excuse me, you belong on the other side with the interpreters." At least he didn't think I was the defendant. You learn survival skills from this kind of experience. You learn how to bridge; you learn how to be entrepreneurial. It's a cliche, but we are framed by our experiences.
Also on the Op-Ed page, the author of a book on plague -- the literal disease -- argues that threats of bioterrorism (Need we say more than "anthrax"?) have been overblown and that too much money and fear is being wasted on biothreats.
On the other side of the fold, the editorial board chastizes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for wasting time instead of resolving the budget crisis and then saying that the wasted time actually accomplished something. The board also faults the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for failing to test its rape kits, collections of evidence on each rape case that have been found in other jurisdictions to dramatically increase arrest rates. The LAPD found the money to start clearing its backlog of untested kits, the board notes, and so can the sheriff.
And the board says thanks, but no thanks, to Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who has offered to investigate the execution-style killing of a human rights worker who was documenting Chechnya's political murders and kidnappings. Kadyrov is the same man who earlier threatened the worker:
U.S. and European officials must keep a spotlight on these cases and demand that the murderers be brought to justice. Only then is there any hope of reducing the violence in Chechnya. Only then will they quit killing the messengers.
* Photo of Sonia Sotomayor by J. Scott Applewhite / AP
 Some reaction in today's Los Angeles Times editorial pages to the coming deeper cuts to the state's higher education system, and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's assertions about welfare cheats.
Start with the University of California. UC Berkeley professors Robert Cooter and Aaron Edlin say it makes more sense to fire people (presumably their colleagues, not them) than to impose across-the-board salary cuts. Why?
Growth has led to bloat at UC. The bloat and bureaucracy stifle creativity and productivity. The bloat is in unproductive workers and unproductive jobs.Many jobs have little to do with our core missions of teaching and research.
Next, the Cal State system. CSU Long Beach geography professor and department chairman Vincent J. Del Casino Jr. says cuts to his schools are necessary, too, but beware the consequences:
So what is the cost of gutting the Cal State system? Fewer nurses. Fewer teachers. Fewer engineers. Fewer poets and artists. Fewer film and electronic arts experts. Fewer MBAs. Fewer people to drive the future of California, including fewer geographers trained in my department. These reductions in educated human capital will hit California at a time when the state needs 2 million additional college graduates by the year 2020.
Also on op-ed, Douglas MacKinnon shows why he's one of those conservatives that liberals love, when it's convenient, and that conservatives love to hate. He takes on the GOP for hypocrisy and calls on the party to shed the "morally bankrupt leaders who have violated the trust of their families and constituents" (think Appalachians and Argentina) and to embrace a wider base. Read more about MacKinnon here and here, and more from him here.
You've noticed those billboards about your right to have a pet? So has columnist Meghan Daum.
On the virtual pages, like this one, check out a response from Los Angeles County welfare chief Philip L. Browning to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attack, a couple weeks ago in the Times, on the CalWorks welfare-to-work program.
On the editorial page, the Times continues its Rehabilitating Healthcare series with a thumbs-down on the portion of the House bill that would fund reform with tax increases on the rich. Better, the page says, to roll back the tax exemption on health benefits.
The exemption is worth $3.5 trillion over 10 years, so even a modest reduction could raise a significant amount. Trimming the exemption would also discourage gold-plated insurance plans that promote excessive consumption of healthcare services. Such a move would face stiff resistance from unions and President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But it would send the valuable message that everyone pays for this reform because everyone benefits.
The editorial page also remembers the Apollo 11 moonshot and offers that clean and efficient energy is just as far away, and ultimately just as achievable. And we observe President Obama's brave willingness to acknowledge that he is a White Sox fan.
Photo: Alex Gallardo / LAT
 In today's pages: reform. Reform of the health care system, reform of immigration policy and reform of fire retardant laws. Let's start with health care.
The editorial board today takes a look at how to improve medical care while lowering costs in a reformed health care system, and suggests three ways to do so: invest in primary care, develop treatment standards for medical professionals and promote information technology that tracks patient care. One encouraging thing about healthcare reform, however, is that
improving the quality of care can help slow the debilitating increase
in costs. It's good for all. And although the changes required won't be
easy, they're essential to the crucial third piece of the healthcare
reform puzzle, which is providing coverage to all Americans.
The board is perturbed by the El Pueblo de Los Angeles historical landmark, and the businesses that are affiliated with it on Olvera Street. The site, which claims to be the location where Los Angeles was founded, has been costing the city money instead of paying for itself. The rents on the merchants' stalls along the back alley are much lower than market rate, and the board calls for the city to reset the rents and make this historical landmark cover its costs. On the op-ed side of the pages, health care again! Phil Lebhertz, director of the Foundation for Health Coverage Education, points out that many health care programs exist for lower-income folks, but many just don't know about it: If such a government health insurance option is implemented, will
people who are uninsured sign up for it? The question is valid because
one-third of the 47 million uninsured people in the United States --
that's 15 million people -- are eligible for government coverage plans
already in place but not signed up....
Perhaps a first step in fixing the current healthcare delivery system
is to create legislation that mandates an effective communication
system for any new program as well as the programs already in place.
And reform is again the word of the day, as Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III and Edward Alden
broach the issue of immigration policy and the outcome of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force they recently headed. Encouraged by President Obama's call for change of the immigration system, the three politicians propose to make it easier for some illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, reward businesses that use programs such as E-Verify to check applicants' immigration status, and align immigration policy with America's competitive interests. Russell Long, vice president of Friends of the Earth, urges California to stop requiring that fire retardant chemicals be used on baby products. Long says the chemicals are not proven to be fire-proof, and instead could be dangerous to the infant's, and their parents', health: Making matters worse, California's law has meant that baby products are
often treated with the chemicals even in states that don't require such
treatment. To avoid manufacturing two separate lines, one for
California and another for other states, many manufacturers make their
products sold in other states to California standards.
Finally, columnist Gregory Rodriguez tries to find a link between the recession and the declining divorce rate. His conclusion? Our society has yet to find (or create) a marriage model that incorporates all of society's changes and the choices both men and women have: This fits right into the fact that we're divorcing less in hard times.
In the context of this recession, we have fewer choices, and fewer
choices means we're back to a good fit with the marriage model of old.
Still -- and a little paradoxically -- the fact that there are
untraditional marriages may also be helping husbands and wives
withstand some of the emotional and financial stress of economic hard
times. During the Depression, the ego blow to a man who lost his job
caused marital problems. Today, if a man loses his job -- and his wife
is the breadwinner -- it's less likely to create as much unhappiness.
Photo: U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden (C) speaks as Health and Human
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (L), and President and CEO of
Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) Carol Keehan (R)
listen as Biden makes an announcement on health care at the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building of the White House July 8, 2009 in
Washington, DC. Credit: Alex Wong / Getty Images
 In today's Los Angeles Times editorial pages, race. Aren't we past all that? No. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court wants us to be.
But it's not clear how long this conservative court will hold off. In the Austin case, the court noted ominously that "we are now a very different Nation" and hinted that a new look at the constitutional issues surrounding race might be coming. In the New Haven case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court "merely postpones the evil day" when these issues will be taken up.
Your editorial writers also find themselves wondering what the folks at the Orange County Museum of Art were thinking when they flouted art-world protocol and did a quickie and quasi-secret sale of California Impressionist works.
Though OCMA officials may have meant well -- and Szakacs is a respected director who deserves credit for returning more than 3,000 works to the Laguna museum -- they have done their institution few favors with the sale. At least one museum in addition to Laguna's is miffed at not being offered a chance to outbid the mysterious buyer.
Lots to think about on the Op-Ed side today. Start with Times columnist Meghan Daum's look at Sarah Palin's resigna... -- no, wait! Come back! This is new and different! There's some good stuff here -- Daum checks out Palin through the lens of her Christian conservative Palin-fan friend, and offers some insight:
Palin doesn't just line people up on different sides of an issue; she turns them against each other. It's not enough to hate her; you also have to hate those who don't. Or, if you like her, the attacks on her make it difficult to imagine having any use at all for her enemies. Palin somehow makes the culture wars personal; she's their ultimate symbol. And war is hell, no matter what form it takes.
Check out more Meghan Daum here and here.
Former Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. president (and Jarvis' driver, back in the day) Joel Fox takes on the people who try to take on Proposition 13, and says that -- no, wait! Come back! Fox is not your typical anti-tax zealot; his arguments are cogent and fact-based, and Prop. 13 opponents have to take them seriously. If you like the way he lays out an argument, check out his site, Fox & Hounds Daily. It's more of a magazine than a blog, with articulate columnists and news updates on California.
Also on the page, writer Jaime O'Neill walks us through his personal struggle to quit smoking, and Ben Donenberg -- founder and artistic director of Shakespeare Festival/LA -- puts in a plea to save funding for the arts. Donenberg has been in The Times pages before, as news rather than as writer. Check it out here. This probably isn't the right place to mention that Saturday is opening night for this year's festival, featuring As You Like It, or that Donenberg will be leading a discussion of the play. So I won't mention it.
* Photo: Karen Bleier / AFP / Getty Images
Here's a look at the blogosphere's reactions to the work of the Times'
Opinion Manufacturing Division this week: The Real Clear World blog responds to Andrew Bacevich's op-ed on the White House's overlooking of strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq in favor of tactics: These commitments, and the expectations they produce both at home and
abroad, have successfully bound three post Cold War administrations and
look to be binding a fourth. They inherit a grand strategy by default.
Musings, a blog discussing culture, politics, and education, took offense at the Opinion L.A piece about Amnesty International's recent report that accused Israel of "wanton destruction" and Hamas of "war crimes" in the December conflict in the Gaza Strip. The writer disagreed with the post's assertion that both sides were blamed, saying that the report's full text put much more blame on Israel for the war. The Oy Vay blog, featuring the voice of a self-proclaimed Jewish conservative on various issues, liked Patt Morrison's post on her disgust with the cash-strapped city of Los Angeles' commitment to using taxpayer money to pay for the security detail for Michael Jackson's funeral. And the Opinion L.A. poll urging fans to boo Manny's return to Dodger Stadium on July 16 made it onto the Major League Baseball's Fanhouse blog: As for Manny, I'm sure there will be some Dodger fans who boo him when
he comes back to Los Angeles, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of
them will welcome him with open arms. The fact of the matter is that
steroids and performance-enhancing drugs are just a part of what
baseball has become these days, and with all the players who have been
outed as "cheaters" in recent years, nobody is very shocked by it.
Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged blog praised John Bolton's op-ed piece that stated the only way to fix Iran is to institute regime change in the country: Back when sanity was in order, fine, decent men governed. Today they
stand on the sidelines, hoping against hope that free men will wake up
and heed their words of caution, much like Churchill when he too was
cast into the wilderness. John Bolton wrote such words yesterday in the
LA Times in his exceptional op-ed: The only answer for Iran is regime change.
The War Victims Monitor blog re-posted, sans comment, Ahmed Rashid's op-ed on Pakistan's more serious commitment to getting rid of the Taliban and its influences, and the need for strong international support to complete a successful campaign against the militants. Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media was not a fan of the L.A. Times' coverage of I.F. Stone, both in the op-ed section and the book reviews, implying that the paper overlooked the unsavory parts of the journalist and radical's past. The Los Angeles Times proved to be the most sycophantic. First, it ran an op-ed
by Guttenplan himself heralding Stone as one of America’s greatest
journalists and radicals. Guttenplan charges that the news that Stone
was a Soviet agent between 1936 and 1939 was based “on the flimsiest of
evidence” and that he has been a “hate figure to the far right.” To
those who understand the past, Guttenplan writes, “he remains a hero.” The Guardian UK's Haroon Siddique included Michael Carey's op-ed on the beginning of Sarah Palin's end in a wrap-up of skeptical articles regarding the Alaska governor's motives for resigning abruptly. Finally, a few blogs picked up on Jonah Goldberg's column about the Washington Post salon, which charged $25,000 a ticket for dinner at publisher Katharine Weymouth's home and promised networking with top Obama administration officials and the Post reporters who cover them. The Open Secrets blog linked to Goldberg's piece in their rehashing of the Post's response that claimed they would amend any business practices that weren't clear. And Chicago Boyz, a blog composed of many different voices, said the following about WaPo after linking to the column: This sort of thing is done all the time by newspapers with their foot in
the White House press room door. But this time around it was just a bit
too blatant to pass the smell test. The wage slaves in the WaPo’s very
own bullpen, the ink stained wretches that are never invited to any of
the best shindigs because they are “gray people”, screamed bloody
murder. No one had asked them, they claimed. HA! Like anyone who spends their days in a newspaper’s board room on the top floor would ask what a reporter thought when bucks were on the line!
 The Opinion Manufacturing Division squeezes one more piece out of the Michael Jackson Farewell Tour: columnist Tim Rutten's rumination on celebrity. He contrasted Jackson's recent treatment with that of Sarah Palin (Jacko and "Caribou Barbie" in a single piece: double columnist gold!), arguing that the alleged sins of the former were washed away even as the latter was overwhelmed by the scrutiny. My own sense is that Jackson's death actually led to two competing lines of commentary about the man: he was a genius (the sentimental meme), and he was a pedophile (the "you can't libel the dead" meme), as famously enunciated by Rep. Peter King). That's not washing away sins, it more like carving them into his grave marker -- albeit underneath the "King of Pop" banner and the silhouette of Jackson hovering on his toes.
Elsewhere on the Op-Ed page, columnist Doyle McManus says don't hold your breath for another economic stimulus package. And economists Alan J. Auerbach and William G. Gale fret about the fiscal problems that are likely to be caused by the growing federal budget deficits:
The deficits projected over the next 10 years will accelerate our arrival at a debt-to-GDP ratio that for most countries would signal impending fiscal collapse. Indeed, Britain, with a debt-to-GDP ratio not appreciably worse than ours, was just warned by Standard & Poor's that its creditworthiness might be downgraded. The United States has traditionally enjoyed a favored status in this regard, as the supplier of the dollar, the world's reserve currency, and as a perceived haven in times of financial stress. But for how long?
In the editorial stack, the board expresses chagrin about the recent return to prominence of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, whose corrupt dominance of Mexican politics in the 20th century were so damaging to that country. (And by the way, how can you be both "institutional" and "revolutionary"? By advocating change so gradual, no one notices?) It urges the new General Motors, which may emerge from bankruptcy this week, to take lessons in openness and innovation from the computer industry. And it suggests a simple solution to the funding problem at the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center in Watts, which has run afoul of a new House Appropriations Committee dictum against grants for projects named after sitting members of Congress (in this case, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles): the center should drop Waters from its name.
A name change would involve some cost and inconvenience, but the investment would qualify the jobs center for funding now and in the future, while preserving a congressional rule that sets reasonable limits on pork. When Waters retires from public office, the program can honor her permanently.
Credit: Patrick O'Connor / Special to The Times
By now you may have heard the tittering and seen the finger-pointing in the direction of Missouri. A Republican state representative named Cynthia Davis offered several news commentaries in her June newsletter – including one questioning the value of free or cheap summer meals for public school students in summer school.
Davis wrote that "bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another." Why not "get a job during the summer by the time they are 16" to feed themselves? "Hunger can be a positive motivator." Such programs, she fretted, only increase government spending.
A positive motivator to what? For a 10-year-old to steal a candy bar because there’s nothing to eat at home?
Such programs, she fretted, only increase government spending.
Rep. Davis, you want to see what real increased government spending looks like? Take away the free lunches and breakfasts. Teachers find that hungry kids don't pay much attention in class over the rumble in their bellies. Their grades suffer. They get into fights. If they graduate, they may not go on to college. If they don't graduate, they float through lousy-paying jobs with little or no health insurance and maybe can't afford to feed their own kids properly. That's an expensive cycle to start when you might be able to stop it before it begins, with a banana and a peanut butter sandwich.
All this sounded familiar to me, in a California-flashback fashion, and sure enough, I found it:
In 1994, in a series on hunger, The Times wrote about some California school districts refusing, for politico-philosophical reasons, to serve free or discounted breakfast programs to their students – even though the money was already available, and not out of the districts’ pockets. Two-thirds of the money set aside for student breakfasts in California in 1993 didn’t get spent because not enough districts asked for it – and principals and superintendents like this one made it clear why: "The parents have some responsibility for these kids. It’s not the schools’ job to be all things to all people."
One Orange County principal asked, "What’s next? Are we going to provide housing for these people too?"
Mike Spence, a member of the West Covina school board member and future head of the conservative California Republican Assembly, said then, "The government is trying to usurp the responsibilities of the parent. There is a trend to take over aspects of what the family does." The one self-styled liberal on that board said his colleagues believed that "ultimately, God put parents on this Earth to take care of their children. By God, that is what they should be doing."
This sounded to me then as though parents chose not to feed their children: Oh honey, I thought about making you oatmeal and scrambled eggs this morning, but I just decided not to. Buh-bye, have a good day at school!
If kids don’t eat breakfast at home, it’s probably because there isn’t breakfast at home. Teachers and school nurses reported students fainting and crying from hunger. Some of them said they had only one meal a day, and sometimes two, if you counted the free school lunch. Teachers tried to keep snacks on hand, like peanut butter crackers, when kids couldn’t handle their hunger. And when they did eat, teachers saw the difference in attitude, performance – just about every metric they had.
Now Davis has revived the discussion – I won’t say debate because as far as I’m concerned, that’s like saying ‘’creationism’’ is worth debating vis-a-vis evolution. Just because someone poses a question doesn’t mean that question constitutes any basis in fact. Questioning the need for school meals doesn’t prove that there is no need for them – only that someone’s not paying attention, or chooses not to.
Comedian Stephen Colbert’s TV persona was so taken by Davis’ argument about hunger being a positive motivator that he suggested that Davis hadn’t climbed higher on the political ladder herself because of "the anti-motivating habit of eating." He implored the people of the Show-Me State to help: "If you see Representative Davis at a restaurant or a hot dog stand or even through the window of her own dining room, do the right thing and take her food away."
That goes especially as a motivator for all you hungry kids there in Missouri.  Updated at 3:49 p.m.: Rep. Davis responded with a statement explaining her stance, which you can download here. It's long, but the first paragraph provides an effective summary:
We all agree on the importance of feeding children, but we differ on who should do this. I believe this duty belongs to the parents. Instead of honoring this time honored jurisdiction of the family, the summer feeding program treats families like they do not exist.
Photo courtesy of Rep. Davis' website.
 In the same Nov. 4, 2008 election in which Barack Obama was elected president, Los Angeles voters defeated (but just barely) a $36-per-property parcel tax measure to fund youth and anti-gang programs. Measure A was spearheaded by Councilwoman Janice Hahn; as a local tax, it had to pull in two-thirds, or 66.67% of the vote to win. It got 66.27%. Times endorsements may not have the clout they once did, but I think it's safe to say that our opposition helped make a difference on this one.
Hahn wants to try again, and wants to know what it would take to win us over this time. Fair question.
The subject came up at Tuesday's City Council committee hearing, at which Deputy Mayor Jeff Carr reported on the last six months of the city's still-new Gang Reduction and Youth Development programs.
When the Times called for a "no" vote on Measure A, we said the city had not shown it was ready to use new tax money properly. We explained that Los Angeles had floundered with anti-gang efforts for years, throwing money at programs without knowing whether they were working or even defining what they were supposed to accomplish. Just months earlier, the city had scrapped L.A. Bridges and authorized the mayor to take charge of gang programs and to establish standards and evaluation methods. Carr was a newcomer. It was too early to tell whether the city had improved. Here's a snippet, in case you don't want to click on the link and wade through the while thing:
Read on »
 Today, July 1, marks Canada Day. "America's hat," as some have referred to the lovely North American behemoth, celebrates its 142nd birthday.
In honor of this special occasion, Ipsos Reid conducted a poll on behalf of the Dominion Institute to see just how many Canadians recognize their important political and historical figures. Turns out not too many. I'm imagining this playing out like Jaywalking, former late-night (now prime-time) host Jay Leno's signature segment where he interviews passers-by about basic facts that they get horribly wrong. While only four out of every 10 Canadians knew who their first prime minister was from a picture, nine out of 10 could pick out 90s pop sensation Celine Dion and eight out of 10 recognized hockey star Wayne Gretsky (the only two people I could identify as Canadian off the top of my head). Granted, some of the "top 10 Canadians" included the man named the Father of Medicare and 2004's Canadian of the Year, as well as the guy who won the Nobel Prize for discovering insulin. I wouldn't be able to recognize the faces of the American equivalents of those historical figures either. But not first Prime Minister Sir John McDonald -- whose face is on the $10 bill -- and your current ceremonial leader, Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean (whom only 50% recognized)? That's a little sad. I would seriously hope that most Americans could pick out George Washington and Barack Obama from 10 photos. But then again, the Jaywalkers could (and often do) prove me wrong. All joking aside, Canadian leaders seemed a bit dismayed by the results. "We put their faces on stamps or put statues up, but if the majority of
Canadians don't recognize them, what good is it?" said Marc Chalifoux, executive director of the Dominion Institute.
Some Canadians attribute these less-than-stellar polling results on the country's lack of storytelling, crediting the United States for having a great deal of national pride that has not immigrated north.
Perhaps for its 143rd birthday, Canada's goal should be to tout more of its history so its citizens can learn the stories behind the figures they celebrate on Canada Day.
Photo: Residents of Kimmirut, Nunavut, join crowds as they take part in Canada
Day celebrations on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday July
1, 2009. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Sean Kilpatrick)
 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republicans in the Legislature are playing hardball with their Democratic counterparts: No new taxes, balance the budget with cuts and -- as Schwarzenegger ordered earlier today -- force state employees to take a third monthly furlough day, further reducing their pay. According to The Times' article, thousands of public employees plan to show up in Sacramento today to protest the additional pay cut.
The third imposed furlough day opens a deeper divide in one of the more drawn-out battles of this year's budgeting process: the one pitting public-employee unions and their Democratic allies in the Legislature against Schwarzenegger and state Republicans, who seemed to have rekindled their relationship after the May 19 special election. It's a topic being debated in this week's Dust-Up exchange between Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and John Tanner, executive director of SEIU Local 721, which represents tens of thousands of government employees in Los Angeles County (their third and final exchange, in which they mull ideas to preserve state services in this budget crisis without reducing pay or laying off workers, will be posted later today). In the comments board for Monday's Dust-Up installment, several readers have come down on the side of Schwarzenegger and the GOP, posting comments similar the one left by "Pete": The unions are a major part of the problem. Even as a liberal Democrat
and a former union member, I can no longer support the entrenched
self-interest of the AFL-CIO and in particular the SEIU in California.
The millstone around the State's neck has many contributors to the
weight besides Labor. But the current union contracts and negotiating
positions are a huge impediment for California's [economic] re-development
in today's world, and I hope Gov. [Schwarzenegger] digs his heels in even
if he must suffer short-term political suicide. He will be seen as a
hero in the long run.
What do you think of Schwarzenegger's action on state employees? Leave a comment below, take our poll or throw caution to the wind and do both.
Photo: Service Employees International Union protest Schwarzenegger's proposed furloughs and state employee pay cuts Tuesday, June 30 (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
|
|
What is Opinion L.A.?