You know you're pariahs when even the ACLU wants nothing to do with you. In my in-box this morning was this release:



--Michael McGough

Inasmuch as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors seems incapable of embarrassment at its own actions, I’ll have to do the blushing by proxy.

 

My colleague Garrett Therolf is one of the two or three reporters left who regularly covers the five enormously powerful supervisors and county officialdom. As he reported, even those few are too many for the Supes: they’re being banished from the hallways and back rooms where they have been able to buttonhole the county officials and department heads who buzz about there.

 

The reason for the ban?  Those two or three reporters are creating human ‘’traffic jams.’’

 

The noive. The sheer brass.

 

The county’s backstage is chock-a-block with, as Garrett wrote, ‘’the lobbyists, union representatives and other advocates’’ to whom the memo did not apply....

Now that covert videos have shown widespread law-breaking at gun shows, the Times calls for a couple of changes, including a federal law like California's requiring that all gun sales be channeled through licensed dealers who must perform a background check. The board also chides Cal State San Luis Obispo for caving in to pressure from the owner of the Harris Ranch beef company, who didn't like the idea of food reformer and author Michael Pollan speaking at the school. The school reduced Pollan's rule to panelist, a craven abandonment of the principle of academic freedom

On the other side of the fold, a senior fellow at the Council of Public Relations argues that there is value to opening dialogue with North Korea, even if that particular olive branch isn't going to bear fruit any time in the near future. And a board member of the Friends of the World Food Program explains why school lunches in developing countries could be our best tool against global violence. The food attracts hungry children to school, where their education contributes to a more rational society.

Finally, Times staffer Paul Whitefield worries about what he should do with the $100 bill he found on the sidewalk. It could have been money for a child's birthday gift from grandparents; it might be someone's last $100, meant to see him or her through for a week. But it's really mine, so Paul can just hand it over and feel at peace.

Photo: Dean Lewins / AFP / Getty Images

-- Karin Klein  

Not for use with small animals. (EPA/Peter Foley)

Credit Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the takeaway quote from the Supreme Court's oral argument Tuesday about a law punishing the possession or sale of depictions of animal cruelty. Questioning a lawyer for Robert Stevens, a pit-bull enthusiast sentenced to 37 months for selling dog-fighting videos, Alito asked if her First Amendment theory would protect people who wanted to watch the "Human Sacrifice Channel?" Other justices then riffed on the concept in the hypothetical-mongering for which the court is notorious.

Alito's hypo seems a bit less far-fetched when one considers the popularity of WWE, televised hockey games and even The History Channel (which one of my peacenik relatives calls The War Channel). Violence sells, But censors, with support from the courts, usually have  focused on sex instead. What puts obscenity outside the protection of the First Amendment is that it appeals to "prurient interest" -- that is, it's sexually arousing.

Patricia Millett, the lawyer for video vendor Stevens, ratified the "violence OK, sex bad" rationale. She conceded that the law might have survived a First Amendment challenge if it  had been narrowly drawn to punish only the phenomenon that provoked the legislation -- so-called "crush videos" catering to fetishists who are turned on by seeing a woman crush dogs with her high heels. A non-erotic, aesthetic appreciation of dog-fighting, however, is protected.

The sex/violence dichotomy has inspired the familiar joke about the differences between conservatives and liberals when it comes to censorship: Conservatives want to ban depictions of sex, liberals want to ban descriptions of violence. But it's rooted in the traditional justification for laws against obscenity: society's interest in preventing debauchery. As a 19th century British judge put it: "I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." In other words, keep reading this and you'll go blind.

That rationale arguably applies to "crush videos," but it's hard to see how it justifies prosecution of the sale of dogfighting videos, which means that Stevens likely will go free. Watching violence against animals is constitutionally protected as long as you don't enjoy it too much. If a Cable TV producer greenlights Alito's idea of a Human Sacrifice Channel, he should be careful to market it to anthropologists, not sadists.

-- Michael McGough

 

Today's editorial page casts a wary eye on former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, whose candidacy for governor of California has been shaken by revelations that she didn't register to vote until she was 46 years old, and only became a Republican two years ago. Is someone so seemingly apathetic about politics the best choice to govern what may be the most ungovernable state in the union?

With all due respect to the French culture minister, who said U.S. efforts to prosecute filmmaker Roman Polanski revealed the face of a "scary America," we on the Times editorial board think it's time the 76-year-old fugitive was brought to justice. Polanski's defenders ignore the simple fact that he fled the country while facing charges of raping a 13-year-old girl. Even for successful movie directors, that's not OK.

The editorial page also weighs in on plans to upgrade the sagging waterfront in San Pedro, which the Harbor Commission will consider today. There's much to like in the proposal, but something not to like as well: Plans to build terminals for cruise ships adjacent to San Pedro's only public beach. We think commissioners should proceed with the overall plan, but table the outer harbor cruise berths.

On the Op-Ed side, columnist Jonah Goldberg questions whether President Obama is living up to his centrist campaign rhetoric on the war in Afghanistan. While running for office, Obama tried to out-hawk Republican Sen. John McCain when it came to the war, but as the conflict becomes less popular he seems to be reconsidering. "What seemed like principled centrism in 2008 might simply be exposed as left-wing expediency in 2009."

Professor Christopher Layne and journalist Benjamin Schwarz ponder the waning of the Pax Americana, the post-war bargain in which the United States spent overwhelmingly on its military in order to secure world peace -- a practice that given current fiscal conditions is no longer sustainable. The result will likely be de-globalization as countries move more aggressively to pursue their financial and security interests.

Finally, civil rights lawyer Constance L. Rice bemoans the resignation of the head of the L.A. Unified School District's construction division, who was apparently forced out by district politics. The independent construction division was created to avoid more disasters like the spectacularly expensive Belmont Learning Center, and the increasing political interference doesn't bode well for the future.

Cartoon: Ed Stein / Newspaper Enterprise Assn.

-- Dan Turner

Among the famously rude moments of the last week -- and there were a lot of them, weren't there? -- probably only one speaker is really sorry.

Not that Serena Williams necessarily is feeling pain for the line referee to whom she reportedly said some truly, um, over-the-line things about the possibility that a tennis ball would find its way down the woman's gullet via Williams' hand. Though treated as a physical threat -- and to some extent it was -- the outburst sounded more like the tantrum of a woman who feels her stardom elevates her above the rank of mere tennis officials. Make a call against me, the message went, and you will feel how powerful I am and how I can destroy the lives of mere mortals.

Williams notably was without apology after the kerfuffle, though she apologized today. Of course she's sorry. Her loudmouthed queen-bee moment lost her the match and ten thousand bucks in fines.

There are no such consequences for Kanye West after he jumped on stage during the MTV Video Music Awards during Taylor Swift's acceptance speech to announce that really Beyonce's video was way superior. Because of course everything considers West the definitive arbiter in such matters, right? West is all about apologizing today, which gives him yet another day of the publicity he probably wanted in the first place.

And then, of course, there's Rep. Joe Wilson, from whom Democrats can never hear enough apologies for his "You lie!" outburst during President Obama's speech. The South Carolina congressman's apology was insincere, Democratic legislators insist, delivered only at the behest of Republican leaders, and therefore he should have to apologize on the House floor or face censure. Why, because his apology will be so much more sincere if it is forced by Democratic politicians rather than Republican?

We would include former Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned and issued an apology after his inadvertently public comments about sexual exploits, but even he doesn't seem quite clear about what he was sorry for. The day after, he said that even though he had made the comments for which he was sorry, it didn't actually mean he kissed (and supposedly spanked) and told.

Apologies, consequences, whatever, the proof of remorse is in future actions. Will any of these people act differently after their apologies, sincere or not? In at least one case, sure. Duvall will absolutely be checking to see whether the microphone is on.

Photos: Serena Williams. Credit Timothy A. Clancy / AFP / Getty Images. Kanye West. Credit: Noel Vasquez / Getty Images. Michael Duvall. Credit: Hector Amezcua / Associated Press.

-- Karin Klein

 

The article in today's Los Angeles Times about a Wells Fargo executive apparently living it up at a multi-million-dollar beachfront home repossessed from one of Bernie Madoff's victims seems to be fueling resentment on a Howard Beale-scale. My first instinct is to try to defend Cheronda Guyton, the banker in question, because there has to be more to this story than we've heard so far. Times reporters Scott Reckard and David Sarno couldn't reach Guyton, a senior vice president at Wells who leads a team of foreclosed-property managers, or the home's previous owners, and Wells has offered little on the subject.

So let me offer this admittedly lame defense for Wells not accepting offers on the Malibu Colony property or even allowing prospective buyers to visit the home: the housing market is so depressed, it will cost Wells less to hold onto the thing and wait for prices to go up than it would to unload it now at a (relatively speaking) fire-sale price. It's also conceivable that Wells can keep the cost of maintaining the property low by having someone live in the home part-time, picking up the beach litter and tending to the pool. Having the occasional soiree on a yacht moored out back boosts the property's mystique (although having the yacht visible during the day would be better for the curb appeal). And when Wells finally does decide to show the place, it will still have that "lived in" feel that so many buyers crave. I don't know about you, but when I look at a house on the market that's been vacant for a while, it makes me wonder what happened to the previous owners. And if you're trying to sell a $12 million house, do you really want to remind prospective buyers about (shudder) Bernie Madoff?

OK, enough with the sarcasm. Here's what I'm really curious about: there's something about Wells' repossess-and-hold strategy that doesn't add up. Reckard and Sarno's story said the previous owners -- Lawrence and Linda Elins -- refinanced the property with Wells for $3 million in late 2007. If it's a $12 million home, why not sell now and recover the $3 million and a tidy gain? Any real-estate whizzes out there want to hazard a guess as to the strategy here? Assuming there is one, of course.

Photo: The repossessed house is the one in the middle, between the pine tree and the palm. Credit: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman / California Coastal Records Project

-- Jon Healey

The Opinion pages mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by looking at two very different aspects. Author Rebecca Solnit writes about the failure of the terrorists to terrorize in New York on that day, as ordinary people reacted with calm, generosity and bravery under the most fearful of circumstances:

A young man from Pakistan, Usman Farman, told of how he fell down and a Hasidic Jewish man stopped and saw the Arabic inscription on Farman's pendant. Then, "with a deep Brooklyn accent, he said, 'Brother, if you don't mind, there is a cloud of glass coming at us. Grab my hand, let's get the hell out of here.' He was the last person I would ever have thought to help me. If it weren't for him, I probably would have been engulfed in shattered glass and debris."

The editorial board looks at another effort that isn't going all that well: the war in Afghanistan.

But today, the situation in Afghanistan is grim. Taliban insurgents have been regaining ground while U.S. military and Afghan civilian casualties are on the rise and the support of the American public is eroding. Far from vanquished, Al Qaeda is largely residing in the borderlands of Pakistan.

Afghans are increasingly fed up with the corruption and incompetence of President Hamid Karzai's U.S.-backed government. Now Karzai's reelection is in dispute. Government election officials say he won a first-round victory with 54% of the vote in last month's balloting, but the independent Electoral Complaints Commission says it has "clear and convincing" evidence of fraud, and it has ordered a partial recount. Karzai must win fairly or face a runoff. Simply stated, there can be no good argument for risking American lives in support of a government that is considered illegitimate by its own people.

Altogether, the board concludes, the burden of proof is on President Obama to show why we should have a continued military presence in the country.

The board also considers the case of former Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned after his, um, unofficial speech to a colleague about his sexual exploits. It's bad enough that a state legislator was voting in line with the interests of a power company while sleeping with its lobbyist, but why wasn't the assemblyman to whom Duvall was boasting disturbed by the ethical lapses and doing something about it?

Finally, on the Op-Ed page, an environment writer bemoans the loss of Van Jones from the president's environment team. Far from a radical, Jones has evolved into a pragmatic environmentalist, Judith Lewis writes.

Photo: A 2002 memorial for World Trade Center victims shines two columns of light skyward from where the towers stood. Credit: Peter Morgan / Reuters

--Karin Klein
 

Even if I hadn't covered the U.S. Supreme Court in a former life, I'd be looking forward eagerly to C-SPAN's interviews next month with members of the court, snippets of which are available now on YouTube. It's not often that TV viewers get to eye the mugs of The Nine.

But it's not never, either. Not counting their confirmation hearings, justices have been selectively subjecting themselves to TV interviews for some time, sometimes in connection with promoting their books. This fact renders even more ridiculous one argument against cameras in the courtroom, Justice Clarence Thomas' suggestion that, after 9/11, televising the court's aguments would let terrorists know what the justices look like. All they have to do is TiVo C-SPAN.

The more familiar argument against cameras in the Supreme Court is that they might alter the ethos of the court, perhaps by tempting justices into "saying something for a soundbite." (The quote comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy, pictured above.) Believe me, the Supreme Court arguments I've heard are eminently unsoundbitable.

Like the law that it interprets, the court should be open to evolutionary change. Television has been around for 60 years. The justices may still be camera-shy, but, as Justice Antonin Scalia once said in a somewhat different context: Get over it!"

Photo credit: AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite

-- Michael McGough

At the risk of being accused of complicity in a bogus trend story, I pass along two confirmations of the notion of "helicopter parents" who hover over their college-student children.

Waiting in line at the bookstore at the university where I teach part-time, I marveled at the number of people my age waiting to have their purchases rung up. Maybe the parents didn't trust their kids with credit cards, but I'm afraid the actual explanation is that they couldn't pull away from their children when they dropped them off. If my mother had lingered on campus when I was in college in the 1970s, I would have been resentful. If she had accompanied me to the bookstore, I would have been as mortified as the girl in the Verizon commercial whose mother posts "I Love You" on her Facebook wall.

A couple days later I heard from one of my sisters, recently returned home to Denver after driving her son to college in Iowa. One of the orientation activities was a jokey quiz called "Are You a Helicopter Parent?" If so, the college provides the propellers.

On its website is a checklist of "Six Ways Parents Can Help Students Have a Successful First-Year Experience."  No. 1 is not (as it would have been when I was a student): "Go home." Instead, it's: "Encourage them to establish guidelines with roommates early, and to talk regularly with each other about how they are getting along." My favorite is No. 3: "Stress the importance of effective time management, and discuss the dangers of spending too much time online."

The anthem of my generation, accurate or not,  was that college students were adults. I remember protests against sign-in books in opposite-sex dorms and the practice of sending report cards to parents (even though parents paid the bill). In general, if grudgingly, parents acquiesced in this liberation. Not anymore -- not on Facebook, and not in the flesh. That whirring sound you hear is the loss of the independence we Baby Boom students fought so hard for.

Photo credit: Emilio Flores / For The Times