It's a combination of issues so hot, an op-ed about reopening King-Harbor hospital doesn't even make the top three! Leading off is a pair of op-eds about best-selling memoirist Sarah Palin -- one friendly, one not so much. Matthew Continetti, associate editor of the right-leaning Weekly Standard and author of "The Persecution of Sarah Palin," tops the page with an analysis of the many reinventions of Alaska's erstwhile governor: first culture warrior, then watchdog, reformer, would-be vice president and, now, celebrity:

But Michael Carey, a columnist for the Anchorage Daily News, retorts that Palin's new book shows her to be more of a whiner than a leader:

(Are you planning to help Palin's publisher recoup its advance? Take our poll!)

Rounding out the op-ed page, Times columnist Tim Rutten urges the University of California Board of Regents to approve a proposed partnership with the county Board of Supervisors to reopen and jointly oversee Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

On the other side of the Opinion divide, the Times editorial board gives Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown a dash of sympathy being "trapped in a political cage from which there will be no easy escape." The cause? His office just gave a pass to Brown's former communications director for surreptitiously recording interviews with reporters, and now liberals are pushing him to investigate a pair of independent filmmakers who surreptitiously recorded ACORN employees in California advising them how to set up a prostitution ring (or, in the case of ACORN's Felix Harris in Los Angeles, refusing to help after learning the prostitutes would be minors).

The board also urges the District of Columbia Council not to bow to pressure from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which has threatened to stop providing social services if the council approves same-sex marriages in D.C.

(True personal story to illustrate how conservative the Archdiocese of Washington is: I'm a Catholic, and I got engaged to be married while I was living in D.C. But when I asked a priest at my church if I could have the nuptials there in five months, he told me I needed to wait at least a year to receive the church's blessing. And if I didn't receive the church's blessing, my soul would be "lost to perdition." In other words, I'd spend eternity in Hell because I'd gotten married the wrong way. As it happened, my future mother-in-law lived outside Baltimore, and the diocese there accommodated us without hesitation. That was 19 years ago, and we're still happily married. Whether I'm on the road to perdition is a wholly separate issue.)

Finally, the board gives its support, with reservations, to the latest version of a proposed federal "shield law" to help journalists shield the identity of confidential sources.

Illustration: Ken Fallin For The Times

-- Jon Healey

The frat boys at Newsweek were probably chugging some brewskies when they came up with the idea for this cover. How pathetic. I don't care whether this is done to a woman who is conservative or moderate or liberal. A Democrat, a Republican, a Green Party member or a Libertarian. It's sexist as hell. "The problem," with Sarah Palin, is what? That she's fit and attractive? Are they kidding?

There are legitimate reasons to disagree with her politics and her positions on issues. But this is not the way. (On the other hand, if it turns out that she's actually wearing pantyhose with her running shoes in this photo, consider this defense null and void.)

Anyway, I may be underestimating Newsweek's cynicism in using a photo the ex-governor of Alaska posed for when she was featured in Runners' World.  Pictures of pretty women sell magazines, so maybe that's all it really cares about.

Here's Editor Jon Meacham's defense of the photo:

Right. I'm not a regular reader of Newsweek so maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe Newsweek really has run lots of out-of-context covers trivializing male political figures because of their looks.

-- Lisa Richardson

Top of the morning, Opinion L.A. followers! I thought I'd start off the day by gathering a snapshot of our readers' feelings on Sarah Palin's book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," which comes out today.

Take our unscientific poll, leave a comment or do both (my vote: I hope someone gives it to me for Christmas).

-- Paul Thornton

Photo credit: Matthew Cavanaugh / EPA

Columnist Tim Rutten notes the recent complaints about the California initiative process by the state's chief justice and a top fund manager and asks, what to do? The answer is, umm, unclear:

Also on the Op-Ed page, James D. Zirin, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, urges President Obama to hurry up and appoint a cyber security czar because the risks are so great. And hey, you can never have enough czars! And author Barbara Ehrenreich scoffs at a recent study, "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," that "purports to show that women have become steadily unhappier since 1972." Says Ehrenreich:

On the editorial pages, the board blasts the health insurance lobby for hiring PricewaterhouseCooper to do a hatchet job on the Senate Finance Committee's healthcare reform bill. But it admits that the insurers have a point: The bill falls critically short of the goal of providing universal health insurance. And it argues that the recent botched execution in Ohio, the latest in a string of similar incidents in that state, adds to the evidence that lethal injections don't pass constitutional muster.

Photo credit: Susan Tibbles / For The Times

-- Jon Healey

It has come to this: President Obama may not, in fact, support the troops.

First up, an excerpt from ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook post in response to Obama's address to Congress Wednesday on healthcare reform:

Second up is Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who I believe is only half-joking when he says Palin comes from "the University of Real America":

Two of my favorite bloggers -- Jim Ceaser of the University of Virginia, and Sarah Palin of the University of Real America -- were particuarly [sic] struck by one line in President Obama’s speech last night. As was I.

This is it: "Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars....”

What’s the implication? Apparently, that we shouldn’t have spent so much on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, perhaps, with respect to the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed. On the other hand, Obama has supported the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, he’s criticized the Bush administration for under-resourcing that effort. ...

For the president, in a formal address to Congress, to suggest even in passing that these struggles are merely distasteful burdens rather than worthwhile missions, is appalling. Sarah Palin is right: Obama’s “offhand applause line” was an insult to those who have fought and sacrificed, and to those who are now fighting and sacrificing, on our behalf.

The Plum Line's Greg Sargent has already discussed the tackiness of Palin using 9/11 to launch a political attack on Obama (much of her post, by the way, pushed her renewed death-panel argument, which Times editorial writer Jon Healey neatly debunked). Also note that Palin offers her interpretation of what Obama meant without bothering to quote him. By that same token, Kristol all but brands our president unpatriotic using a conveniently truncated Obama's remark as evidence. If editorializing were only so simple.

Here's what Obama said, complete sentence and all:

Here's my reading, and it doesn't involve a troop-hating president who has not "internalized the fact that he is now commander-in-chief," as Kristol says: The president was calling out as hypocrites Republicans who voted for President Bush's expensive tax cuts and supported two expensive (and off-budget) wars, but who now use deficits and excessive government spending to argue against healthcare reform.

Obama could have further argued that extending healthcare coverage to all Americans is a more worthwhile endeavor than dispatching hundreds of thousands of American troops to another hemisphere to fight two wars. But Obama didn't say that, and he certainly didn't go far enough for Kristol and Palin to accuse a sitting American president of disrespecting the memory of those who died fighting wars on our behalf. 

A disclaimer: I haven't made up my mind on Obama's proposed healthcare reform plan, especially in light of Medicare's impending insolvency and Washington's overall crushing debt burden. Infusing the debate with mindless death-panel claims and accusations that the president has a hard time supporting our troops only pushes me (and, I suppose, other fence-sitters) to the pro-reform camp, if only to see the likes of Kristol and Palin saunter home in defeat.

-- Paul Thornton

Top photo: AP Photo / Al Grillo; bottom photo: Alicia Wagner / Los Angeles Times

Sarah Palin popped up again today on the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page to renew her accusation that President Obama was advocating "death panels." Never mind that lawmakers have already abandoned the proposal that gave rise to the original "death panel" hysteria, namely, a provision allowing Medicare to pay doctors no more than once every five years to counsel patients about their options for "end of life" care. (Some top geriatricians think such counseling would actually give the elderly more control by encouraging them to declare their preferences while they're still capable of doing so. But I digress.) This time, Palin attacked Obama's proposal to beef up MedPAC -- the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. The 17-member MedPAC makes recommendations to Congress about how much doctors and hospitals should be paid for the services they provide. To insulate these decisions from political pressure, Obama has proposed giving a new version of MedPAC the power to set reimbursement levels, with Congress retaining the power to veto those decisions before they take effect. To Palin, though, this amounted to giving "an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts" the power to make life-and-death decisions about care.

As much as I appreciate the former governor's concern for her elders, myself included, her argument smacks of pandering to those who don't want the federal government to rein in Medicare costs. The program's trust fund for hospital care is going bankrupt; with no change in policy, it will be insolvent in eight years. In addition, the program's rising costs are consuming an ever-growing percentage of the U.S. economy. The ship is sinking, and Palin's solution is to cap malpractice awards and give Medicare recipients "vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage." That's just an invitation to a more vicious form of rationing than anything a beefed up MedPAC might do.

Think about it for a minute. The cost of private health insurance is rising faster than Medicare expenses (in part because private insurers pick up part of the tab for the uninsured and underinsured, such as Medicaid patients). If the government increased the value of the vouchers over time to keep pace with that growth, the program would cause a bigger financial headache than Medicare does today. But if Congress held down the value of the vouchers below the rate of medical inflation -- an idea that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President George W. Bush both backed -- the program would force seniors to pick up an increasing share of the tab or sign up for more restricted (i.e., more heavily rationed) coverage. Unless, of course, some meaningful changes were made in Medicare to limit the increases in healthcare costs -- like, say, Obama's MedPAC proposal.

It's dishonest to suggest we can bend the curve on Medicare spending without sacrificing something. It's past time for politicians to own up to the people who receive subsidized healthcare -- to wit, anybody with Medicare, Medicaid or a group plan from their employer -- that the system is unsustainable. Done right, the changes made to control costs will come mainly at the expense of those profiting from the inefficiencies of the system. Those inefficiencies, however, often translate into services that are desired but not really needed -- for example, having an MRI to make absolutely sure your orthopedist correctly diagnosed your joint pain as tendonitis. That's the part of the healthcare reform debate that neither Palin nor Obama seem willing to acknowledge.

Photo credit: AP Photo / Al Grillo

-- Jon Healey

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:

* 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:

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:

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:

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 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:

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

-- Jon Healey