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.

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:

Amnesty International, a London-based human rights group, released a report today accusing Israel of "wanton destruction" and the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas of "war crimes," each committed during the 22 violent days last December in the Gaza Strip.

But both Israel and Hamas deny the claims and are shouting, yet again, about why the other side didn't receive more of a rebuke for the atrocities committed.

Said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, "Things presented as facts are untrue and have no connection to reality." He was most likely referring to the high death toll the report cited and the judgment that Israel's attacks could not "be justified on grounds of military necessity."

On the other side, Hamas rejected the report because it did not chastise the Israeli military enough for the actions it committed against Palestine.

The report, as with the United Nations' inquiry that is currently gathering evidence on the conflict, sought to dispel the myths and rumors that have added to already high tensions in the region, particularly the assertion that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields (a claim the report said had no basis in fact). Instead, the report said Israeli soldiers effectively turned Palestinians into human shields by forcing them to stay in the homes that soldiers used as makeshift military bases.

As with any dispute between Palestinians and Israelis, there was no admission of shared fault, no statement that "we both committed war crimes, killed civilians and launched rockets across borders." That seems hard to contest, yet each side tried its best to do so -- as it always does. A microcosm of the larger conflict, the reactions to the report show why no progress is being made, and why this event will leave a scar on the relationship for years to come.

Photo: Palestinian children play in front of their ruined houses, hit during Israel's 22-day offensive over Gaza, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip today. Credit: Said Khatib / AFP/Getty Images

In the Waziristan province of Pakistan, a stronghold of the militant Taliban group, a U.S. drone killed more than 40 people and wounded dozens of others attending a funeral for a Pakistani who was killed earlier that day -- by a drone. 

Though there are conflicting reports over whether these casualties were civilians or Taliban militant fighters mourning the death of their comrade-in-arms, the fact remains that such an attack on a funeral will have a backlash, no matter who was hit.

The drone, according to Reuters, was gunning for Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban movement and the alleged plotter behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Of course, he escaped unharmed -- a familiar tag line in these tales.

Though the drones -- pilotless, missile-packing aircraft that patrol Pakistan's treacherous terrain -- are amazingly capable of spotting and hitting their targets, doing so at a funeral is only fanning the flames. Funerals are no less important a ceremony to Muslims and Pakistanis as they are to Americans. Is desecrating such an important cultural occasion -- Taliban or not -- a smart thing for the United States to do? 

While the drone's sortie Tuesday could be seen as making a dent in the Taliban militia, perhaps even more dangerous than the militia itself is the passionately angry sentiments that may come from such an attack -- and the retaliation that anger provokes.

Photo: Supporters of Islamic political party Jamat-e-Islami shout slogans in Peshawar Pakistan on April 24 during a protest against US drones attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border. Credit: Arshad Arbab / EPA

In Thursday's editorial pages, the Times focuses on the continuing fallout from this week's controversial election in Iran. 

The editorial board comes down hard on the Islamic republic, dismissing its absurd allegations that the United States is behind the current unrest, and blasting the Iranian government for its efforts to squelch coverage.

While it's true that the U.S. may have urged Twitter to keep its global network functioning, or opened its Voice of America site to video and messages from Iran, those were efforts at the margin. The real Iranian fight is internal. Until now, elections in Iran have given legitimacy to the religious government, but this time the vote is widely believed to have been stolen, and that has divided the country's ruling elite along with its citizens. Today's conflict is between factions in the religious elite.

On the Op-Ed page, Judith Lewis gives a shout-out to a sometimes intriguing, often annoying medium that did allow some information to get out: Twitter.

It's important not to get carried away here. There is no revolution being Twitterized, as some have reported, only a possible desire for one. There is certainly no direct line from Twitter to democracy. But Twitter is, by its very nature and architecture, destined to at least democratize information: Google and Yahoo executives can help Chinese authorities censor and rout out opponents with only minor public relations damage. But if Twitter betrays its base of millions, it ceases to exist.

See Lewis' previous op-eds for the Times here.

Also, writing from Iran, UC San Diego professor Babak Rahimi -- who has also studied the role of new media on Iranian politics -- compares this revolution to the one in 1979, which overthrew democracy and established the Islamic republic. This one, he says, is different:

This time, the protesters seek a more democratic state, transparent in structure and accountable only to its citizens.

But we're not only about Iran; we're also thinking about the Uighurs. The editorial board looks at the resettlement of Guantanamo detainees and argues that the best way to get recalcitrant Europeans to open up their countries to Uighers and others who can't be returned to their homes is for the U.S. to set the example:

Obama seemed to make such a commitment in a speech last month in which he reminded nervous members of Congress that hundreds of convicted terrorists are already held in "supermax" prisons from which no one has escaped. The president mustn't waver from that position.

The board also calls for an increase in Community College fees, and columnist Meghan Daum tries to get Barack Obama to light up.

Photo: AP / Getty Images

The Times editorial page today points out that General Motors' bankruptcy filing is a chance to make a formal, forceful break with a history of inferior workmanship and design that has tattered its reputation. The public is willing to forgive a car company for its financial failings, but only if it makes cars people want to buy.

We also weigh in on the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which is being used by pro-choice groups as an opportunity to bash abortion opponents -- suggesting that the responsibility for his death is shared by the entire pro-life movement. Some arguments from anti-abortion groups are thinly veiled incitements to violence, but "it's unfair to ask abortion activists to muffle their message because it might inspire an unbalanced individual to commit an atrocity."

Finally, we note that the election of Mauricio Funes as president of El Salvador, who represents a party that was once a Marxist guerrilla group that fought for 12 years against U.S.-backed governments, isn't quite the grim news for American interests that it may appear. Funes is an admirer of President Barack Obama who has stocked his cabinet with economic pragmatists.

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg says the hubbub over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statements about her superior wisdom as a Latina gives liberals the chance to have that dialogue on race they're always saying they want to begin -- yet they're running away from the issue as fast as they can.

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, gives President Obama some tips about what to say and do during his Middle Eastern trip. Such as: Don't fall for the illusion that there's such thing as the "Muslim world," and focus instead on practical country-by-country strategies.

Finally, Gina M. Solomon, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, bemoans the Schwarzenegger administration's proposal to shut down a small state agency -- the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment -- that costs next to nothing to run but that has made dramatic strides in protecting Californians from dangerous chemicals.

Monday's Los Angeles Times Opinion pages feature Palestinian parliament member Mustafa Bargouthi, who calls on President Obama to be firm in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Don't be like Clinton, Bargouthi writes, and don't be like Bush:

I am increasingly convinced that if Obama fails to speak out now, it will doom the two-state solution forever. Further fiddling in Washington -- after eight years of it -- will consign Jerusalem, the West Bank and the two-state solution to an Israeli expansionism that will overwhelm the ability of cartographers to concoct a viable Palestinian state.

Bargouthi was runner-up to Mahmoud Abbas for president of the Palestinian Authority in 2005 voting. He has written for the Times opinion pages before, here and here.

A quite different view is offered by Netanyahu's former ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold, who argues that -- two-state solution aside -- the U.S. and Israel are on the same page. Dore says the Israeli prime minister wants something, if not statehood, for Palestine:

The reality is that although Netanyahu has not embraced this formula, he has stated that Israel does not want to rule over the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He has added that he wants the Palestinians to have all the power necessary to rule themselves, but none of the power to undermine the security of Israel. What that means is that if a Palestinian state were to arise, it would have to be demilitarized and could not sign defense pacts with, say, Iran, allowing it to receive a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards (as Lebanon did in 1982).

Dore Gold, who heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was in the Los Angeles Times opinion pages in 1998.

More Obama: The editorial page applauds the U.S. reversing a Bush policy and joining the United Nations Human Rights Council. Now, how about setting a human rights agenda, and following it at home?

Obama administration decisions last week to withhold photographs of detainees being abused and to continue Bush-era military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects cast doubt on the president's commitment to cleaning house. So too does a threat to halt intelligence-sharing with Britain if a British court makes public details of interrogation techniques used against a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner.

More torture: What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?

And, oh yeah, elections. Again. Gregory Rodriguez checks out tomorrow's election day and says enough is enough. And it's true, enough is enough, but that doesn't stop us from telling you how we think you should vote.

Photo: AP Photo / Amar Awad / pool

Echoing today's Times editorial comparing the poisonous effects Fidel Castro and Dick Cheney are having on the administrations that succeeded them, Al Gore this morning called on Cheney to stand down and quit the fear-mongering over President Obama's torture ban:

In a CNN interview this morning, former Vice President Gore got involved in the political feud over his successor Dick Cheney.

Gore said he wished Cheney would have given President Obama more time in office before criticizing national security policy. A stern critic of Bush policy over the years, Gore told CNN's John Roberts that "I waited for two years after I left office to make statements that were critical, and then of policy."

Gore may be speaking up in defense of the current Democratic administration, but his words can also be taken as free strategy advice for the GOP. As an article in the Washington Post Thursday pointed out, the guy who serves as the public face of the Bush administration's failure (and was never very good at public relations to begin with) isn't the best one for the GOP to spotlight right now. A Gallup poll released in early April shows that a nearly filibuster-proof majority of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of former vice president. Quoth an unnamed GOP strategist in the Washington Post piece:

"Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger," this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. "We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it's going to be."

In the same article, former Cheney spokeswoman Mary Matalin speculates that his principles led him to speak out, and that he was provoked by Obama's precipitous move to reverse policies that he strongly believes in:

"If Barack Obama had come in and done what he said he was going to do and look at the stuff and see what is working, then Cheney would have continued to do what he was doing -- working on memoirs, finishing his house," she said. "He's got a good life. He's got stuff going on. He doesn't care about being on TV. There's no more politics there. He's not settling any scores. He just wants people to understand."

Torture works, in other words. With the ex-VP motivated by such ghoulish "principles," the GOP may be dealing with its Cheney problem for far longer than it wants.  

Cheney photo credit: Karin Cooper / AP
Gore photo credit: Eric Piermont / AFP/Getty Images  

Dick Cheney is pressing for the release of memos that he claims will vindicate the usefulness of "enhanced interrogation tactics," including waterboarding. Even if he's right, his gambit is a reminder of a flaw in the argument that, say, waterboarding can be justified because it produced information that could avert another 9/11.

The problem, as lawyers say, is that the argument proves too much. It justifies not only waterboarding, sleep deprivation and pushing prisoners into a wall -- the sort of tactics Bush administration lawyers strained to exclude from the definition of torture -- but also even more horrific measures.

Let's assume that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who, like JFK and LBJ, is often referred to by his initials) produced information that allowed the U.S. government to avert a planned attack on Los Angeles. Why, given the thousands of lives at stake, should the CIA have stopped there if KSM hadn't capitulated? Why not pluck out one of his eyes or castrate him to prove that we meant business? In the moral calculus the Cheneyites are urging on us, abusing a couple of terrorists is an acceptable price to pay for vital intelligence. The logic of the argument doesn't distinguish between waterboarding and blinding or amputating a limb.

If Cheney and his apologists had the courage of their convictions, they would repudiate George W. Bush's repeated assertions that "we do not torture," because their efficacy argument trumps that position regardless of how "torture" is defined.

President Obama is receiving both praise and criticism for promising not to prosecute CIA interrogators who followed the Justice Department’s perverse legal advice. But Obama’s decision may be less consequential than it seems. Congress already has anticipated the possibility of prosecution and has erected a significant barrier to it.

In the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act Congress provided as follows (it's worth wading through the legalese):

"In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. "

But wait -- there’s more! The DTA also says that the government "may provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses" for interrogators."

In 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which preserved legal protection for interrogators -- indeed, strengthened it by requiring, instead of just permitting, legal aid for interrogators. The Supreme Court found fault with the act for other reasons, but it didn’t object to protection for interrogators.

Granted, interrogators haven’t received total immunity. But Congress has erected a high hurdle for prosecutors to clear even if they do a better job than the Justice Department team in the Ted Stevens case. Obama’s "look forward, not backwards" mantra also reflects Congress’ attitude – and probably a jury’s as well.