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

The Times endorses an unusual idea being considered today by the L.A. Unified School Board: allowing assorted groups inside and outside the district to operate 50 newly built schools over the next four years. Yes, there are pitfalls to this idea, but it's still the most intriguing experiment to reinvent local education to come along in years.

The ongoing crisis in Honduras, meanwhile, is starting to look like it won't be resolved without some "superpower pressure" from the United States, The Times opines. It's time to impose sanctions on those behind the coup that ousted the country's rightful president, Manuel Zelaya, and take other actions aimed at restoring democracy. "Failure to return to constitutional order would send a signal to the rest of Latin America that once again political problems can be solved with an old-style coup."

And we celebrate the nomination of Regina Benjamin as surgeon general. This "angel-like" figure, known for her work bringing clinics to rural areas, rebuilding health centers devastated by Hurricane Katrina and leading medical associations, "has the potential to be one of the strongest voices in public health in decades."

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg raises an eyebrow over a recent comment in the New York Times from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

'Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,' Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, 'there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.'

Goldberg lists other prominent abortion backers, including former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who appeared to think that abortion was necessary to cull undesirable elements -- like the poor and minorities -- from the population. He'd like to see more questioning of such attitudes in the media.

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project says the Obama administration is breaking its promise to bring transparency to government surveillance programs. The administration is reportedly proceeding with a Bush-era plan to use the National Security Agency to screen government computer traffic on private-sector networks, a program known as Einstein 3 that has no intrinsic security value -- but will allow spooks to read e-mail communication between the government and private citizens.

And Deborah Doctor of Disability Rights California challenges Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to document all the fraud he claims to have identified in the state's In-Home Supportive Services program, a quarter of whose funds he says are wasted. The governor not only hasn't proven the accuracy of that figure, he has proposed fixes that could well cost more than they would save.

An international accord on global warming? The editorial board celebrates, even though the agreement falls far short of what's needed to make a real difference. Still, it represents a new willingness by industrialized nations to tackle the issue in a serious way. The board finds something else to celebrate in the new get-tough stance by L.A. schools chief Ramon C. Cortines, who sent out letters saying that teachers who don't perform basic job duties -- like giving required tests -- will be written up. A week later, the union suspended its boycott of the tests. Coincidence? The board thinks not. One final thing to kvell about: LAPD did a great job on security for the Michael Jackson memorial, the board cheers -- but what was going on with the rest of city government? Ordering sandwiches in from Wrightwood and posting a humiliating plea for pennies to cover the costs of the memorial? The posting didn't even work; the website went down.

It's not like the city is incapable of doing anything right. By all accounts, the Police Department and traffic officers handled their end of Tuesday's event flawlessly. But in so many other ways, City Hall bumbling makes Los Angeles look laughably low-tech, shamefully disorganized, simultaneously an easy mark and a swindler, and cheap and pathetic besides.

On the other side of the fold, former longtime legislator John Vasconcellos analyzes the ingredients that went into making the state budget crisis so bad (Hint: Proposition 13 gets dragged in by its tax-restricting toes), and offers his personal recipe for climbing out of the hole. And Miguel A. Estrada, a native of Honduras and member of the U.S. delegation to President Manuel Zelaya's 2006 inauguration, explains why Zelaya's ouster isn't the millitary coup people think. To understand that, he writes, you need to know a couple of quick things about the Hunduran constitution:

Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession.

Photo: The closing moments of the Michael Jackson memorial event at Staples Center. Credit: Mark Terrill-Pool / Getty Images

It's been interesting to watch the slowly developing concerns about Ritalin and other stimulants used to help children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). After a few reports of sudden deaths among children taking the drugs, the Food and Drug Administration asked drug manufacturers in 2007 to include better warnings with the medications. Now a new study is out that might concern some parents, although it provides no real answers for them.

The study, funded by the FDA and National Institutues of Mental Health, looked at the files on 564 children and teenagers who had died suddenly, with no real explanation for their death. They compared those files with those of an equal number of youngsters who had died in auto accidents. The findings: 10 of those in the first group had been taking Ritalin (other medications were not widely available at the time), while only two of those in the control group had been.

It sounds frightening at first glance-- five times as many? But the children taking Ritalin made up a small portion of either group, and sudden unexplained death is itself an extremely rare occurrence among children and teens. There were other possible factors the researchers couldn't account for. For example, teenagers with ADHD are more likely to experiment with illegal drugs. Could it be that those drugs, rather than Ritalin, caused some or all of the deaths?

The study's conclusion: That there is an association between stimulant use and sudden unexplained death in use. NIMH's conclusion: It always pays to remember that correlation does not imply causality. Just because there was an association doesn't mean that one caused the other. NIMH calls for further studies as well as better screening for heart conditions among youth. And parents are left, as always, to make the best judgment they can on whether to use these daily medications.

Photo by Robert Bukaly/AP

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:

On the Op-Ed page today, John P. Hannah, security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney during President George W. Bush's second term, evaluates whether Iraq is ready for the looming withdrawal of U.S. troops from its cities. His conclusion is that President Obama is effectively giving up on Iraq before the job is done:

While Hannah argues that Obama's focus in the Middle East has shifted to Iran and he'd rather be done with Iraq, isn't the pulling out of troops and the handing of power to a government we helped build part of getting the job done? Even Bush was not planning on staying in Iraq forever, but that's the track we've been on since the 2003 invasion. Retreating our troops so the Iraqi police can take over the security of Iraqi cities may be the right step to the conclusion for which Hannah is calling.

Criminal Justice Professor Eric J. Williams writes to another aspect of the Bush administration's legacy: Guantanamo Bay. Williams specifically responds to the surprise expressed by many Republican politicians over a myriad of rural towns asking for the Gitmo detainees, as prisons have become an economic remedy for such towns that have lost staple industries.

The two other Op-Eds today offer more hopeful ruminations.

The Times editorial page today comes to the end of the first year at Los Angeles Unified School District's troubled Locke High School under charter school operator Green Dot Public Schools and finds progress, disappointment and hope. And change:

What makes Locke different under Green Dot...isn't that the charter operator has the magic formula for successful schools. It's that the people in charge don't spend years obfuscating, defending and delaying when things don't work. They do something to fix it.

The Times has been following the Locke Green Dot experiment closely. See reporter Howard Blume's articles from earlier this week here, here and here, and the editorial page's year-long series, A Year at Locke, here, and its earlier editorials like this one at the birth of the Green Dot experiment here. And don't miss editorial writer Karin Klein's many blog posts, including yesterday's post from the graduation, with its chilling quote:

 "It's happy, but it's also sad," [a parent said]. I waited for the predictable next words - happy because his child had grown up, sad because...well, his child had grown up. Instead, he continued, "Because you know after today some of these kids are going to die. Some will go down a bad path and get taken out too young."

In Op-Ed, this just in from calbuzz.com's Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine: California government is hard to handle. The two bloggers probed and have discovered that the problems include Proposition 13, voter initiatives, gerrymandering, term limits, a volatile tax structure, and the two-thirds rule for adopting budgets and taxes. Who knew? And guess what? It turns out some people are calling for a constitutional convention.

They made me look up the word bibulous, and now I'm embarrassed I didn't know it before, so I deny it.

Roberts, by the way, is the former political editor, editorial page editor and managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, and was the embattled editor and publisher of the Santa Barbara News-Press before his well-chronicled battle with owner Wendy McCaw. He wrote about one episode here.

He and Trounstine last wrote for the Times Opinion page here in March on whether Dianne Feinstein would run for governor.

Trounstine is former political editor of the San Jose Mercury News, communications director for California Gov. Gray Davis and founder and director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University.

Elsewhere in the page, filmmaker Todd Darling writes in favorof the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, but says it's not enough. By the way, catch the trailer from his film, "A Snow Mobile for George," on YouTube here.

And columnist Meghan Daum wonderswhat the deal is with J.D. Salinger, who went to court to block publication of a book in Sweden about his Catcher in the Rye character Holden Caulfield. Say what you will about Salinger, who Daum points out has dabbled in (gasp) Zen Buddhism. But even at 90, he's no phony.

Photo: Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times

The universal chestnut about graduation days is that they're about endings and beginnings, joy and sadness.

But the sentiment was framed in a startlingly different way Wednesday at the Locke High School commencement, held on the expansive athletic field of the Watts school. Security was heavy; beefy guys wearing shirts that identified them as anti-gang detail looked out of place next to the beaming students in their pastel blue caps and gowns. Locke has been much safer during its first year as a Green Dot charter school, but a student was shot just outside the campus in April. Surrounded as Locke is by gang activity and violence, school officials were clearly aiming to keep any trouble at bay.

I was sitting in the bleachers next to proud dad Gregory McMiller, snappily dressed for his son Johnathan's big day, hanging on to a gigantic mylar balloon that he gallantly tried to keep from batting me in the head every time the breeze picked up.

"It's happy, but it's also sad," McMiller started. I waited for the predictable next words  -- happy because his child had grown up, sad because ... well, his child had grown up. Instead, he continued, "Because you know after today some of these kids are going to die. Some will go down a bad path and get taken out too young."

Not everything about commencement -- like the belief that the grads are headed to limitless futures -- is universal.

Earlier today, in a wing of the opulent Palace of Versailles -- a symbol of France's once-grand monarchy -- President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed Parliament for the first time in (yes) almost 150 years with a message just as old: France will keep its values, and those who come here must adhere to them.

Much to the chagrin of many French political parties (the Green and Socialist parties did not show up) and an already divided French population on this issue, Sarkozy once again condemned the wearing of burqas by Muslim women in France. According to BBC News, the president declared the following:

For at least the past five years, wearing the traditional Muslim headscarf, or hijab, has been under attack in France. In 2004, former President Jacques Chirac signed off on a ban on wearing all religious dress (including headscarves) at public schools. What lies at the heart of the French skittishness toward exotic religious garb isn't pure xenophobia, but rather the country's tradition of assimilation. Far more than most Western cultures, the French are known for insisting that all people, especially immigrants, subordinate their religious and cultural beliefs to a common French identity.

This approach differs quite drastically from both the United States and the United Kingdom, whose leaders speak eloquently in favor of freedom of religious expression -- even if that expression is extreme by Western standards. President Obama pointed out in his speech in Cairo earlier this month, "The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it." Likewise, Great Britain has supported its subjects' right to wear the hijab in public.

Sarkozy's motivation -- assuming a reasonable absence of political calculation -- is admirable: No woman should be forced to be hidden behind a veil. Still, many women choose to wear burqas as a show of respect for their religion, not out of subservience. Strangely, Sarkozy has put himself in the paradoxical position of appealing to modern Western ideals of universal human dignity to make the case for antiquated French values. The result is precisely the opposite of Sarkozy's rhetoric: By singling out burqas as an abomination to French culture, the president has reinforced the discrimination faced by many immigrants by contributing to their marginalization. These residents, after all, are simply trying to adhere to the beliefs they held long before becoming subjects of the French assimilation machinery.

Photo: Two women, one wearing the niqab, a veil worn by the most conservative Muslims that exposes only a woman's eyes, right, walk side by side, in the Belsunce district of downtown Marseille, France (Claude Paris / AP).