Here's a look at the blogosphere's reactions to the work of the Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division this week:

The Opine Editorials, a blog in defense of marriage, disagrees with this week's Times' editorial about the California Marriage Amendment, chiding its remarks as "marriage neutering."

In this post, the No More Tobacco Taxes blog puts forth a different take on the proposed tobacco tax, arguing that tobacco should not be targeted because it's "PC." This -- and the press release from the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers also posted on the blog -- both mention the Times editorial, which favors the tax and the much-needed revenue it would generate for California.

Global Americana Institute President Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment, linked to Babak Rahimi's op-ed in its broader discussion of the media coverage of the political turmoil and protests in Iran.

John Brown's Public Diplomacy and Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 included Ben Ehrenreich's op-ed on torture as part of America's tradition in his roundup of blogs related to public diplomacy.

The Mahablog picked up on Douglas W. Kmie's op-ed that stated substituting the term "civil union" for "marriage" in the ongoing struggle for gay marriage legality would be a win-win situation. The Mahablog counters that the two terms are not the same, "marriage" implying that the status is backed by both the state and a religious entity while "civil union" only ensures the former's support.

American Chronicle cited the Times' June 17 editorial against the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny prisoners access to DNA testing, saying the editorial voiced the "dismay of millions within US and rest of the world on the subject."

Finally, KCET's blog used two of Tim Rutten's columns on traffic congestion and the implementation of toll roads in its discussion of the equity of congestion pricing in Los Angeles.

These are the depths into which $23 billion deficits will plunge you -- and the slashing has hardly begun.

Driving north on the San Diego Freeway in West LA on Tuesday I saw a huge orange Caltrans truck doing its assigned rush-hour tasks, whatever they were.

Displayed on the backside of the truck, in letters that had to be three feet high, was this message:

''Thank you for driving safe.''

Driving safe! Miss Houseman's first-grade class, of which I was a member, would have known better than that. Adverb, people, adverb -- ''safely,'' not safe!

Now that schools will be cutting back hours and increasing class size, little children will learn their grammar from advertising jingles and billboards and ... Caltrans trucks. And this was a big orange state-sponsored ad for subliteracy. What next, a bumper sticker reading, ''I Break for Sigalerts''? Too Freudian to be funny.

There was plenty of room for the missing two consonants. So the only reason they were not there had to be that someone in charge didn't know any better -- blame all that crummy, misspelled freeway graffiti the Caltrans crews have to keep reading. Either that, or they simply couldn't afford the paint.

I certainly hope it was the latter. The governor wants all of us to pitch in and do our parts during these trying times. Sign me up! Cut and slash, but no shortcuts on good grammar! Pluck the milk bottle from the gums of hungry infants, but do not let this abomination stand!

Tell me when, tell me where, and I'll be there to fix this. I'll even buy the paint -- just doing my part to help California out of this, one adverb at a time.

The Times received some 25 letters responding to comedian Bill Maher's Op-Ed about Republicans and the Tea Party protests.  We published a few in Wednesday's letters.

Wrote Rod Hallock, of Chino Hills:

Bill Maher makes the same mistakes as other pundits when he writes that he doesn't know what the "tea party" protests were all about and then goes on to imply that it is all about President Obama's race.

I went to the protest in Yorba Linda because I am concerned about the inevitable inflation that will result from spending trillions of dollars we do not have to spend. I am retired, after planning carefully to not need public assistance, and cannot afford a hidden tax increase disguised as inflation. The president and other advocates of irresponsible spending have picked up where the people who used their houses as ATM machines left off. Expect the same results.

Solana Beach's Paul Debban thought Maher could have done a better job arguing his case:

Come on, Bill. You know the "tea parties" were about too-high taxes and too-high government spending. So instead of defending these policies, you chose to write a name-calling rant.

This should be beneath someone who has his own political commentary show. We are laughing at you, not with you.

Linda Winders, of Culver City, loved the piece:

Bill Maher, you are so right. What is bothering Republicans is the plain fact that they lost the last two elections and haven't a clue what to do to clean up their sorry act.

Instead of acting like grown-ups and working together with the new guy, they can do nothing but pout and rant and call Obama silly names. The only "leaders" they have are a bunch of right-wing extremist radio and TV blowhards who don't care about the welfare of this nation and do nothing but incite hatred and prejudice.

Hey, GOP, I've got a flash for you: You were beaten fair and square by Obama, an intelligent, hardworking guy who will get this nation back on its feet, even if you won't lift a hand to help him do it. If you want to get back into power, the smart move would be to work with him so you get some of the credit.

If you want to become completely irrelevant, keep doing what you're doing. The only ones who will pay attention are your base, a group that is shrinking every day.

Letters about swine flu and healthcare for illegal immigrants, prisons and the mentally ill, the death of a pedestrian and the Wall Street bailout, too.

Photo: A protester in Atlanta, April 15.  Credit: John Bazemore/AP.

Today's editorial page leads off with kudos to President Obama for reversing the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but chides him for not calling on Congress to reverse its own restrictions. While we're at it, we helpfully point out that California would be a terrific place to invest some of that federal money, given all the facilities and scientists here thanks to 2004's Proposition 71.

We also call for more transparency on earmarks, as the Senate prepares to approve an omnibus spending bill that contains more than 8,500 of them accounting for $7.7 billion. And we urge Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder to reverse the Bush administration's position on medical marijuana research and change the culture at the Drug Enforcement Agency, whose rigid ideological position on cannabis is thwarting the advancement of science.

On the Op-Ed page, Santa Monica City Councilman Bobby Shriver and environmental lawyer Joel Reynolds plea for the state Legislature to fix what ails the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies, an organization whose devotion to toll roads is threatening mobility, the environment and recreation.

David Schenker, Arab politics expert at a Washington think tank, worries that the Obama administration's efforts to reach out toward Syria's authoritarian government will come at the cost of U.S. attempts to advance human rights.  And writer Charles Fleming, in an installment of the "Postcards from the Recession" series about the real-world impacts of the troubled economy, describes the wrenching effects of hard times on Southern California's self-employed creative community.

Finally, columnist Jonah Goldberg wonders why liberals think it's OK for the Obama administration to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to impose a far-reaching liberal agenda, when they excoriated President Bush for using 9/11 as an opportunity to encourage right-wing policies. "It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering," Goldberg says of Obama's style.

All that, and Letters too!

* Photo of a public hearing for the Foothill South toll road by Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times

Now that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that nobody's free speech is violated by Los Angeles' billboard ban, legislators are getting bold, or creative, or both, in ways to head 'em off at the pass (or the freeway, or the side street).

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), a former city councilman, has cleverly proposed a two-year statewide moratorium on those flashy, flashing, ever-changing electronic billboards -- on the grounds of safety.

The Federal Highway Administration already has a study in the works about how distracting the billboards are to drivers, measuring eye movement to see how long we take our eyes off the roads to take in the glittering panoply of advertising.

Next month, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program should be releasing its compilation review of a lot of existing studies on digital billboard safety.

The billboard industry is as relentless as kudzu. When LA enacted a three-month billboard moratorium at the end of last year, residents reported that crews were out there within a day or two, putting up yet more illegal signs.

Go ahead and harrumph about the nanny state, but remember -- this is the billboard industry we're talking about. It lost its free-speech court gambit; if the safety argument can stop a few of these monstrosities, so be it.

Think they're not so distracting as to be unsafe? Drive down a busy street with those billboards flashing, and then tell me what you think. Maybe you don't take your eyes off the road -- but you know there's always some jerk in front of you and another one behind you who don't have your driving skills, discipline, self-control and complete lack of interest in capitalistic exhibitionism. Take the poll:

Los Angeles Times photo.

If you've ever driven on the Marina Freeway, you've found that -- like a really great vacation -- it feels like it's over before it began.

"The 90,'' the Marina Freeway, can't be more than a couple of miles long, a stub that leads you off the San Diego Freeway and dumps you near, as the name promises, Marina del Rey.

The 90 is no stranger to name changes. It was known for about 15 minutes as the Richard M. Nixon Freeway, a name that, for obvious reasons, was quietly removed.

So it's time to change it again -- for good, and for good reason.

I thought about this as I was driving the Marina Freeway after Tuesday's ''Celebrate Ballona'' awards dinner. It honored some public officials as well as several of my journalistic colleagues and me for what we had done and written and said about the remarkable Ballona wetlands, the 600 or so acres of surviving coastal wetlands which are owned by the state and, Deo volente, eternally protected from development.

''The Marina Freeway'' isn't much of an improvement on ''the Richard M. Nixon Freeway.'' Instead of giving the freeway the name of a manmade feature -- the marina of Marina del Rey -- let's name it instead after something that's a reminder of California's vanishing natural beauty: that rare and radiant fragment of landscape that shows us what coastal Southern California once was like.

Let's call it the Ballona Freeway.

Commuters and tourists alike who will never see the wetlands will at least see the freeway signs, and ask some questions, and find out what they mean. And who knows? Some people might get curious enough about the name to decide to check the place out.

Who's with me on this? Mayor Villaraigosa? Councilman Rosendahl? Speaker Bass? I may just keep after all of you until this one happens. Will someone start making up those ''Greenlight the Ballona Freeway!'' buttons? With the presidential election over and done with, there's plenty of available space on people's lapels for some new causes.

The Transportation Corridor Agencies -- that would be the same group trying to build a toll road to nowhere through a favored state park -- is asking the government for a loan of more than $1 billion. But what the federal government really needs to take into account is the reason for the request: The existing toll roads aren't doing well. Contrary to what toll-road officials love to predict, higher gas prices do not make commuters switch to (less crowded) toll roads, where they pay an extra $4 to $5 or so each way.

The worst performer by far is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, or Route 73, which has never met expectations. Ridership last year was half the predicted level, and the numbers are sliding downward. This is significant because the 73 is the most similar project to the proposed Foothill South toll road through San Onofre State Beach; it doesn't actually lead to or from a population or employment center. It's a diversion route, intended to take drivers several miles out of their way to get around the traffic.

That hasn't worked with 73 -- which, because it hooks up with Interstate 405 farther north, actually follows a more sensible route than the Foothill South would. The proposed toll road would link up with another toll road, which would link up with another... well, you get it. The feds are considering the TCA's appeal on the Foothill South, after the California Coastal Commission rejected it. They should consider the chances that, after causing sizable damage to the environment, the toll road would end up  another asphalt elephant.

Photo by Don Kelsen/LA Times

Drop that pencil! Before you fill out your absentee ballot, you should know about what's in Saturday's pages--a handy election recap that provides you with a quick, user-friendly guide to the major issues, state and in L.A. county, city and school district, on the November ballot. You'll get the Times editorial board's recommendations on how to vote, and why. Confused by the two alt-energy propositions? Wondering about the gamut of bonds, state and local? All will be made crystal clear, sort of. And if you prefer voting the old-fashioned way, this is a great editorial to clip and store in your wallet for your date with the voting booth.

Today's editorial page leads you to that recap with the last two endorsements on L.A. ballot measures. The editorial board registered a regretful No on Measure A, the tax to fund gang-diversion programs. Much as the money is needed, the city has yet to operate and effectively evaluate gang-diversion programs. Once we know the money will actually keep kids out of gangs, the board argues, it will be time to pass the tax. In contrast, the board gives thumbs-up to Measure B ...

The California Coastal Commission has already said no way. Now the fate of the proposed toll road through San Onofre State Beach lies with the Bush administration--and given the administration's distaste for environmental protection and near-hostility toward parks, that can't be a good thing for the "Save Trestles" crowd.

But the feds aren't supposed to just decide based on how much they like the road. The criteria are supposed to be narrow--the road's supporters are supposed to show that it's in the national interest, overriding local and state interests.

The Transportation Corridor Agencies have come up with some creative arguments for why the road, which would travel the length of the inland canyon that's also part of the state park, as well as running through a nature preserve in south Orange County, is in the national interest. Like it would make coastal access easier. Actually, I always thought coastal access was supposed to mean people's ability to use the beach up to the high tide line, not to provide high-speed transit from, say, the desert. Another argument involved quick evacuation in case of an accident at the San Onofre nuclear plant. Not only has the plant been operating for decades without one, but it's odd to think that residents of San Clemente, by far the closest community to the nuclear plant, would escape it by driving south to the entrance of the freeway.

The editorial board has taken a stand several times against the toll road, and a new editorial is in the works. But the federal government's involvement raises different questions to address about the road. Exactly what should it mean for the toll road to be in the national interest? Here's a place for all of you who didn't get to speak at the big Del Mar hearing to have your say. A summary of the toll-road agency's viewpoint, sent to me by its public affairs person, is after the jump.

Photo: L.A. Times

It's against the law to use a hand-held cell phone while driving. A new state law bans text-messaging while driving. But it's OK to have any sort of live animal in your lap while you drive?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have said, sensibly enough, that pets--remember, unpredictable, moving animals that can go bonkers if they see another moving animal, or fly into the driver's face in the event of a short stop--can't be held in the driver's lap. Incomprehensibly, the governor's reason for this was that he sure had a lot of bills to sign and veto.

But there might yet be hope here. Schwarzenegger got enthusiastic about restrictions on cell-phone use in cars when his own daughter began driving. Maybe the kid needs a Great Dane.