After signing up for the 2010 L.A. Marathon early this morning and studying the course map -- which was unveiled today -- I remembered a piece on the 2007 race by then-Times Deputy Editorial Page Editor Michael Newman, my boss at the time. After finishing the marathon, Newman panned race organizers for ignoring L.A.'s best asset (the ocean) in routing runners from Universal City through Koreatown, Boyle Heights and other inland neighborhoods on their way to downtown L.A. Newman garnered his share of provincial scorn for declaring, based on his race experience, that "much of L.A. isn't very pretty."

I thoroughly agreed with Newman at the time -- that much of L.A. is ugly -- and I still do. But having actually signed up for the 2010 L.A. Marathon, my thoughts on the "stadium to the sea" route are mixed; perhaps bipolar would be a better way to put it. As a first-time marathoner, I look forward to the beach finish providing a major psychological boost to those of us pounding our feet on pavement for 26.2 miles. But putting on my lifelong Southern Californian hat -- which comes with a deep "warts and all" affection for Los Angeles -- the new route strikes me as ... just not right.

Despite its Hollywood-inspired reputation, Los Angeles has always struck me as a city unafraid to put its gritty face forward. Past marathon routes -- which started and ended in downtown L.A. -- reflected this attitude. Sure, runners would bisect tonier neighborhoods such as Hancock Park and Larchmont Village. But this is L.A., a city whose wealthy enclaves are often adjacent to or surrounded by working-class neighborhoods. Running in Hancock Park and Larchmont Village practically requires passing through Koreatown or the yet-to-be gentrified areas of Hollywood.

Looking at the route closely, and how magnetically it seems to abut the Hollywood Hills and Santa Monica Mountains for much of the race, it's hard not to come away with the impression that race organizers deliberately avoided areas some may not consider "nice" (Rodeo Drive -- really?). You can call this the Los Angeles Marathon if you want, and come race day, I'll gladly run. But I won't be surprised if, for much of the race, some Southern Californians viewing the event from home on March 21 wonder what marathon they're watching.

-- Paul Thornton

Photo: The start line at the 24th annual Los Angeles Marathon on May 25, 2009. Credit: Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times.

  In today's editorial and opinion pages, the Times editorial board gives former Assembly Speaker Fabuan Nuñez a shout-out for being cleared of ethics charges arising from his lavish spending, and then gives him a shout-down for the underlying actions. No, he's not a crook. But he still relied too heavily on the largesse of donors with issues to press in Sacramento.

And we pair a shout-down of Philadelphia Eagles player Michael Vick's dogfighting operation with a shout-out to Wayne Pacelle of the the Humane Society of the United States -- for going on a, pardon the expression, dog-and-pony tour with Vick to educate communities about stopping cruelty to animals.

And shoutouts and shout downs abound for the food industry's Smart Choices program.

Columnist Meghan Daum weighs in on farming-chic, and two folks sack Sacramento's recent move to waive environmental laws to hasten construction of a football stadium in Los Angeles or, rather, the City of Industry. Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) worries that the Legislature "opened the floodgates" to future exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act. And sports author Dave Zirin sees just the latest in a series of sweetheart deals between unwitting taxpayers and tycoon team owners.

Photo: AP/Nick Ut

Matthew Continetti, associate editor of the Weekly Standard, gets the Op-Ed page rolling this morning by accusing President Obama of being organized labor's Santa Claus. The First Community Organizer may believe that unionization helps lift workers into the middle class, Continetti writes, but the numbers don't support that argument:

Speaking of a unionized workforce, columnist Tim Rutten urges the state Senate to waive some California environmental rules to let developer Ed Roski Jr. build a football stadium in the City of Industry. Why?

Alllll-righty then. Closing out the page, Anna Husarska, senior policy advisor at the International Rescue Committee, laments the "huge human cost" of the Taliban's operations in Pakistan's Swat Valley and the government's counteroffensive. The image above is an illustration of the psychic toll; it's a drawing by a schoolgirl in the Swat Valley named Sheema.

On the other half of the opinion pages, the Times editorial board blasts the L.A. Department of Water and Power for the fabulous parting gifts it's planning to shower on departing chief H. David Nahai. We like how Nahai defied union leaders (the Opinion page's méchants du jour) to bring in more renewable power from outside the district, but we still don't see the need to pay him his salary for the rest of the year:

The board also says the Federal Trade Commission's new guidelines for online advertisers could put too much scrutiny on bloggers and amateur product reviewers. And it warns that the Supreme Court's review of a case involving the giant cross in California's Mojave National Preserve threatens to "blow a gaping hole" in the 1st Amendment's wall between church and state.

-- Jon Healey

First Rep. Joe Wilson, then Serena Williams and Kanye West.

I think we've got the beginning of a twelve-step program here: Inappropriate Yellers Anonymous.

-- Patt Morrison

The Southeastern Conference (you know, the home of those really good teams that win all the national championships?) has decided to ban social media from college stadiums. No iPhone photos, no cell phone videos, no Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.

According to the revised policy on new media released Monday, ticketed fans are not allowed to "produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event."

The SEC believes that the dissemination of videos, pictures, tweets and other newfangled technologies will reduce the number of viewers who watch live broadcasts of the game on TV -- and they want to protect their contract with CBS and other television networks.

Meanwhile, the Big Ten Conference has taken the opposite approach, encouraging the use of social media sites and the proliferation of status updates and tweets. Coaches like Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald see Facebook as a way to communicate with fans, not a tool that could jeopardize mainstream media. 

So which approach do you think is best? Is there some merit in the SEC's approach to let broadcast handle the viewers' demands? Or is the Big Ten right to embrace new technology?

Updated August 20 4:15 p.m.: The SEC reversed its policy after this blog post was written. The SEC's revised policy now reads:

-- Catherine Lyons

Credit: Sun Sentinel Staff Photo / Robert Duyos

Michael Vick was conditionally reinstated on Monday by the National Football League, allowing the star quarterback and convicted dog-fight promoter to participate in practices and preseason games but not play in regular-season contests. NFL Police Chief, err, Commissioner Roger Goodell said he will re-evaluate Vick’s situation and may give him full reinstatement by Oct. 19, six weeks into the coming NFL season. 

Not surprisingly, PETA is against the reinstatement. PETA blogger Shawna Flavell writes, “The law says that he is entitled to walk free. But that doesn't mean it is acceptable to put him in the position in which children will look up to him as a role model and wear any new jersey that bears his number.” The battle lines are more clear-cut than the NFL trenches, with animal rights playing defense, Vick supporters playing offense and the all-powerful Goodall standing in the neutral zone.   

Vick’s actions were horrifying; no one denies this. But should his crimes keep him from pursuing work as a professional football player, provided he can find a team that wants him? Whether or not you believe his 23 month-prison term was a sufficient punishment, the law says it was. Of course, professional athletes being the demigods they are, there is the “role model” issue. But consider what USC sociologist Karen Sternheimer recently told me about the influence of steroid use in baseball on young kids: “If you ask kids who they trust most, it’s parents and teachers, but you’re not going to have a poster of your parent or teacher up in your room.”  In other words, the influence of good parents and teachers easily overshadows the behavior of bad athletes.  

Simply put, we overestimate the influence of athletes. Does anyone really believe that young boys will be encouraged by Vick's 23 months in jail and post-conviction NFL comeback to to start their own illegal dog-fighting rings? And it's not as if the NFL has had much of an aversion in the past to letting convicted felons back into the fold. In fact, this whole episode may very well have shed some needed light on cruel practices going on in damp corners. 

At great risk of receiving highly critical comments from PETA members, I'll put myself on record as believing that Vick, in a legal sense, has paid the price for his wrongs and should be allowed to pursue a career in any field his talents allow. It’s not as if he were running for public office. The NFL is not a democracy, and if there is an owner willing to pay and if Vick can still play an elite level, no one should stop him from playing. 

Fire away, PETA.

--Kevin Patra

Photo: Steve Helber / AP

Is the Mexican army the solution to battling the violent drug cartels, or part of the problem? The Times editorial board considers the question in light of allegations of rape and other abuses leveled against troops deployed by Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the front lines of the drug war:

Calderon was taking a gamble when he sent combat forces to fight the drug war, which involves police and intelligence work among civilians -- a role the Mexican military isn't fully trained to play. Now, U.S. and Mexican human rights activists say they have documented the murder, rape and torture by soldiers of scores of Mexicans believed to be innocent civilians, and the country's National Human Rights Commission received 559 complaints against members of the army in the first six months of this year. Although Mexican law calls for the military to prosecute its own criminal abuses, advocacy groups note that there has not been a successful military prosecution of a human rights case in the last decade.

The board also notes that U.S. government actions on behalf of religions might be constitutionally banned if performed in this country, but might be a necessary part of foreign relations in nations with state religion--such as repairing mosques damaged in the Iraq War. Still, the board cautions, the government must not see this as an excuse to fund missionary work or in other ways promote religion abroad.

On the other side of the fold, two trade specialists chide resident President Obama for what they call his "de facto protectionism." And the author of a newly published biography of baseball legend Leroy "Satchel" Paige remembers back to when the Negro League player finally won recognition from the Hall of Fame -- and how racism in baseball did not completely die on that day.:

Six months after they announced his election to the Hall of Fame, Paige was in Cooperstown for the induction. The public had weighed in with outrage at the spectacle of a segregated museum, forcing baseball's rulers to agree to hang his plaque alongside the rest. He quieted his competing instincts by siding, as he always had, with moderation over militancy. "Thank you, commissioner, and my fans and baseball players from all around as far as Honolulu, Mexico, and I don't know where the rest of 'em come from. I know they're my friends, I know that," Paige said as he looked out at the mostly white audience.

His remarks were touching and funny. He talked about barnstorming across the country in cars so tightly packed that his knees were "sticking up in front of me. For five years, I didn't know where I was going. I couldn't see."

Photo of Leroy "Satchel" Paige from MLB Photos via Getty Images.

Break out the fireworks, strike up the band and throw on a wig -- the Dodgers' hitting machine, Manny Ramirez, is back.  Tonight Manny will play in his first Major League game since his 50-game suspension for using banned substances.  Unfortunately for Manny fans in LA, unless you're willing to travel to San Diego, New York or Milwaukee (is any player worth going to Milwaukee for?), you'll have to wait until after the All-Star break to see him play in person.

I've never asked Dodger fans for a favor before, but I have one request now:  When that first home game comes on July 16, for one night, one at-bat or at least one swing, boo Manny. I'm not asking you to burn your coveted Man-wig, hide the name on the back of your No. 99 T-shirt under duct tape or torture yourself by watching Angels games. All I ask is that if you attend Manny's first home game, you boo. Once, at least.

I'm asking you to set aside the fact that the Dodgers will need Manny to win anything beyond the division crown, and to forget that with a Manny-free lineup, your Dodgers have been scoring runs less frequently than your daughter's t-ball team (eight measly runs in five games).

In an op-ed Thursday, Greg Burk wrote: "Fans will have their chance to transfix the black sheep with stares of disapproval. And they will. We love to pretend our team is shiner and holier than others."

I hope he's right, but I think he, like Dodgers hitters, is off base. It's hard to believe that Dodger fans who wore "Free Manny" shirts after the suspension was announced and continue to wear his jerseys will show any ire. But they should.

Dodgers fans should boo Manny for one at-bat to make sure he knows his actions were unacceptable. The obvious reasons are often floated about when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs: it might spurn younger kids to use steroids, it's selfish, and it is disrespectful to the game.

Those arguments and their counters are uttered almost daily. The main reason Dodger fans should boo, however, is to let Manny know they will not be had with a few home runs and a smile. They need to say to Manny, "We're the ones who pay to watch you, and we demand better."  What does it say about fans if out of the gate they embrace a blatant cheater?  Doesn't it tell him, "Hey, you have free rein to do whatever you want, as long as you put runs on the board"?

Steroids is not something that will easily be uprooted from baseball. Their use was a pandemic, one that (unfortunate as it might be) probably saved the league as it was tumbling in popularity -- or at least fueled its resurgence. But as James Earl Jones reminded us, the one constant in America has always been baseball. It will move beyond this troubled era.

Fans are tired of steroids, but they cannot eradicate their presence if they pick and choose what rule-breakers they back based on the name emblazoned across their chests.  If Dodger fans boo Barry Bonds, A-rod, Sammy Sosa and the like for their transgressions, they should also boo Manny.

I'm not asking Dodger fans to hate him for the rest of his career. All I'm asking is that, for the good of the game and team, for one night Dodger fans should "Think Boo."

--Kevin Patra

Photo: AP Photo / Gus Ruelas, File

The Op-Ed page revisits the turmoil in Iran, with Stuart A. Reid, an assistant editor at Foreign Affairs magazine, endorsing President Obama's "muted response" to the regime's blatant election-stealing. Reid's piece offers a counterpoint to yesterday's Obama-torching column by Jonah Goldberg, but he appears to have been overtaken by events -- note how the president sharpened his rhetoric Tuesday, possibly after considering Goldberg's ever-helpful words of advice. Meanwhile, columnist Tim Rutten writes about the "hybrid journalism" coming out of Tehran, i.e., the blend of grass-roots reporting and professional analysis. It's a perceptive piece about the impact of new technologies for gathering and sharing information, especially coming from a guy who neither blogs nor Twitters.

Elsewhere in Op-Ed, journalist Harold Meyerson promotes the indefensible position that the federal government should bail out California:

The feds should approach California as they did General Motors -- demanding a fundamental restructuring of state finances as a condition for loans. In return for proffering, say, $8 billion in loans, the White House should demand $8 billion in tax hikes and $8 billion in cutbacks. It should also demand changes to the state's Constitution that would upend California's dysfunctional system of finances, sweeping away the two-thirds requirement for passing budgets and raising taxes, restoring local governments' ability to fund themselves through property taxes and putting a stop to budgeting by initiative. The feds' loan could be conditional on the state's voters ratifying these changes in November.

Jeez, where to start? Do we really want the Treasury Department deciding the appropriate mix of tax hikes and spending cuts? Should Tim Geithner hold an $8 billion gun to the head of California voters, insisting they abandon the major provisions of Proposition 13 as well as the potential for future initiatives about government funding? And if this is such a good idea, shouldn't Meyerson be just as comfortable if a Republican administration in Washington were setting the terms? (For the record, the Times' editorial board has already weighed in against even a limited a federal bailout.)

Finally, baseball historian Zev Chafets sees trouble ahead for the Baseball Hall of Fame in the eligibility of numerous star Latino ballplayers who've been tarnished by steroid allegations.

On the editorial page, the Times board blasts a bill in Sacramento to increase the maximum payday loan from $300 to $500, and bemoans how a dispute over gun control has derailed a bill to give the citizens of Washington, D.C., a voting member in the House of Representatives. It also welcomes the full attention of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa back to our fair city (for the second day in a row!), just in time to deal with a thorny budget problem and an electorate that wants more for less cost:

Three out of four Angelenos polled rated the city's budget difficulties as a serious problem, but majorities oppose slowing down police hiring, laying off city workers or raising fees for city services. Two-thirds oppose a tax hike to pay for fire services, and nearly 60% oppose increased taxes for other services.

But hey, that's why they pay the mayor the big dollars.

Photo: AP/ Jim Buell

Hip hip hooray! The Lakers won the NBA Championship, and Kobe Bryant got his fourth ring -- this time sans Shaquille O'Neal (aka The Big Twitterer). The question remains, though, whether the city of Los Angeles should help pay for the Lakers' fourth parade of the decade. Private donors (including the Lakers) are picking up most of the tab, but the City Council is still considering a motion to bar any city dollars from being spent on the event. As the city continues to layoff workers, cut school hours and scramble for Federal aid, is a publicly subsidized celebration the right move?  Advocates for the parade may cite the opportunity for LA to show its diverse residents uniting in a celebration that will be seen on televisions worldwide. But critics may argue, "Do we really want to do that after the horrid display that followed Sunday's victory?" Although the excitement and enthusiasm the parade injects into local residents is not easily quantifiable, spending heavily on an extracurricular activity while the city struggles is no slam dunk. What do you think:  Should the city help pay for a parade? Should it at least have been toned down to a simple rally at the Coliseum?  How important is it to celebrate all of LA's accomplishments?

--Kevin Patra

Photo: AP Photo / Reed Saxon