October 2007 Archives

Hollywood star, former senator, and would-be president Fred Thompson campaigned in California Tuesday, where he proudly announced the endorsement of the state's most important Republican.

No, not Arnold. State Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks.

Gov. Schwarzenegger might have the celebrity, the top job, and the better overall approval ratings, but when it comes to the party faithful who will be casting votes in the February primary, McClintock carries much more influence. Unlike Arnold, he's seen as a solid conservative, one whose values and priorities are more in line with the average California Republican. Tellingly, Thompson claims he hasn't even sought an endorsement from Schwarzenegger, but he did lobby to get one from McClintock -- Schwarzenegger's toughest critic, left or right. Thompson's Sacramento campaign stop also featured various other top GOP legislators who have fought to thwart the efforts of both Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats these last few months.

Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger has yet to endorse anyone, although John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have all reportedly sought his support. Giuliani would be a natural choice, being a fellow hands-on, flamboyant executive with liberal leanings. But it's not certain that Schwarzenegger's support would actually help him.

Although still in first place nationally and across the state, the former New York mayor has seen his numbers gradually shrink over the last few months. In California and elsewhere, it seems, the more Republicans get to know Giuliani, the less they like him. Among the party faithful, the endorsement of a less than reliably conservative politician like Arnold could possibly do more harm than good.

Apparently that's how Thompson sees it, anyway.

As for Arnold, he might just decide the best way to help his fellow Republicans in 2008 is to hold his endorsement until after the primaries.

It's official! The O'Connor Blog is up and running! Check it out here. Bookmark it! Subscribe to the RSS feed! Write an angry comment! Tell your friends if you have any!

That along with "Leave Britney Alone" are the two phrases that seem to have stuck in the public's mind, or at least in the minds of the Daily News editorial department. You can buy t-shirts and bumper stickers with the saying. But will it have the staying power of "Where's the beef?" or "It's the economy, stupid" and "Hasta la vista, baby"? We hope so, because "don't taze me, bro" is so rich in potential usages.

Incidentally, Meyer will be speaking about his tazing event tomorrow on some MSNBC show.

Here's the original video:

The ongoing battle in New York over granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants spillled into national politics last night at the Democratic candidates' debate. The following excerpt from the transcript is highly amusing -- and telling, too:

Tim Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

Hillary Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license? ...

Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

Chris Dodd: No, no, no. You said -- you said yes...

Clinton: No.

Dodd: ... you thought it made sense to do it.

Clinton: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving ...

Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?

You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

Williams: New subject, Senator Edwards....

John Edwards: ... I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago. ...

Williams: Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?

Barack Obama: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it....

So, to recap: Hillary Clinton first affirmed her comment that licensing illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense." Then she denied it. Then she affirmed it again. All in a matter of minutes.

Meanwhile, it's all George W. Bush's fault. (Because, you know, Bill Clinton did so much to reform immigration when he was president.)

That's what I'll be doing Wednesday Nov. 28 at the Armand Hammer Museum when I host a panel discussion on the Valley's porn industry, called "Dirty Business: Should the Porn Industry Be Saved?" The idea came after the Daily News published a series on the Valley's porn business, which you can find online here.

One of the more popular parts of the series was the map of porn studios in the Valley, and it got me thinking that people are really interested in knowing more about this huge but mostly shunned industry in LA. I wish I could link the map for you, but the weird way we've done the online package means I can't find a link. You'll just have to poke through the series (which is still ongoing) and read for yourself. I'm also not posting a photo for this because I don't want to be accused of looking for porn on the company computer.

Here's some more info about the event.

Moderated by Mariel Garza of the Los Angeles Daily News

Los Angeles' dirty little economic secret is its $12-billion-a-year pornography industry, located primarily in the San Fernando Valley. Competition from amateur porn on the Internet, piracy and other pressures are cutting into profits. The question is: Should we care? How much should the industry's health risks weigh against its economic value? And how important is the issue of morality when we're talking about jobs, sales receipts, and tax dollars? Zócalo brings together a panel of experts—porn producers and former actors Nina Hartley and Ira Levine, economist Jack Kyser, and Sharon Mitchell of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation - to discuss whether or not L.A.'s porn industry is a boon or a burden.

Click here to find out more about the lecture series and to reserve your FREE seat for this exciting panel.

Please excuse the following tangent:

I've just sent a message to the folks at CBS-2, begging them to let their audience see the match-up of the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts this weekend. It seems like a no-brainer to me -- the two best and only undefeated teams in the league, vying for #1status. But CBS-2 tends to coddle the social misfits known as "Raider fans" who heavily populate these parts, and as such will often show a dreadful Raider game no matter how badly the team is doing, or who else is playing.

The network has yet to announce its decision, so I just sent in the following beg:

Please, please, please show the New England-Indianapolis football game this weekend! This is a historic match-up of two undefeated teams!

I beg of you, please do not inflict Houston-Raiders on your viewers. These two teams combined do not have as many wins as either the Patriots OR the Colts.

There is no home team in the Los Angeles market. So please show us the best game -- not a lousy one just because one of the two teams used to play here more than a decade ago.

This week's Pats-Colts match-up may be the most watched game of the regular season. Please let your audience see it.

If you are someone who prefers good football to the atrocious variety, I urge you to send a note of your own. Thanks!

(Now back to our regular Friendly Fire programming.)

** UPDATE 11/1, 9:36 AM -- Just talked to the good folks at KCBS-2, who report that this Sunday they will be showing ... Patriots-Colts. Oh happy day!

Just in time for Halloween comes this photo taken by a hunter's camera last month, set up on a tree with an automatic trigger in Pennsylvania. The hunter was aiming to photograph deer, but snapped this thing instead. Sasquatch groupies claim it's a teenage Bigfoot. Game officials claim it's a bear with a bad case of mange. I think it's the first filmmaker who disappeared in "The Blair Witch Project" -- with a bad case of mange.

... when you have a pre-made sign ready to stick in the window to close quickly in case of earthquake, like this store in San Jose near Tuesday night's magnitude 5.6 temblor.

Totally badass Donald Pleasence battling Michael Myers (and battling him, and battling him...)

... at least as far as I'm concerned, is the annual pictures of zoo animals eating pumpkins. I have no idea where or how this tradition began, but I think it's a hoot.

On the off chance anyone else finds this as amusing as I do, the Daily News has a whole photo gallery of pumpkin-eating zoo creatures available online. Enjoy!

Why does the sexual orientation of a country's citizens even have to be a political issue? And why is it so often lumped with something so dramatic as abortion in describing a candidate's liberalism or conservatism ("pro-gay, pro-choice," "anti-gay, pro-life")? Seriously -- one involves the taking of a human life, and the other involves a person's dating habits that don't hurt anyone else. As Jules Winnfield said in "Pulp Fiction," not only are the two issues not in the same ballpark, but they're not even the same sport.

I suspect Jonathan meant for his questions to be rhetorical, but I'll take a shot at answering them anyway:

Will Nancy Pelosi’s abject failure to lead the House or end the war hurt women in general and Hillary in particular?

No.

Will Huckabee’s humor and charm make both right and left forget his policies?

No.

Will Edwards’ political tone-deafness of huge mansions and $400 haircuts annul his “Two Americas” rational for running?

No, Hillary Clinton will.

Can formerly pro-gay, pro-choice Romney and Giuliani be credible as conservatives?

Formerly "pro" Romney has a chance. Currently "pro" Giuliani does not.

If Obama can’t stand up to Hillary, how will he do with Ahmadinejad?

Badly.

Which is the Family Values party with 3 of 4 leading Republican candidates divorced and 4 of 4 leading Democrats still with first spouse?

No pro-abortion party can truly claim to be pro-family, whether it's the Dems or a Rudy-led GOP.

Ultimate question for voters: Are we willing to trade a president who can’t answer a simple question to one who won’t answer a simple question?

Do we have a choice? :)

Will Nancy Pelosi’s abject failure to lead the House or end the war hurt women in general and Hillary in particular?

Will Huckabee’s humor and charm make both right and left forget his policies?

Will Edwards’ political tone-deafness of huge mansions and $400 haircuts annul his “Two Americas” rational for running?

Can formerly pro-gay, pro-choice Romney and Giuliani be credible as conservatives?

If Obama can’t stand up to Hillary, how will he do with Ahmadinejad?

Which is the Family Values party with 3 of 4 leading Republican candidates divorced and 4 of 4 leading Democrats still with first spouse?

Ultimate question for voters: Are we willing to trade a president who can’t answer a simple question to one who won’t answer a simple question?

California's junior senator, Barbara Boxer, has never been especially popular, and has always seemed ripe for political defeat -- if only the California GOP could produce a credible opponent. Fortunately for her, it never has. And in a state that leans heavily Democratic, it would take a Republican with widespread appeal to knock off a Democratic incumbent.

Enter Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor, who is termed out of office, could do to Boxer what he did to Gray Davis back in 2003. At least that's the upshot of a new Field Poll. (See the story in the Sacramento Bee, where the graphic to the right originally appears.)

Head-to-head, Arnold already beats Babs -- and that's without a campaign, during which he could be his charming self, while his aides would have a field day running ads that highlight some of Boxer's goofier comments over the years. Should Schwarzenegger decide to run, I have little doubt that it would be hasta la vista, Barbara.

But that's the big question -- would he? Schwarzenegger likes to be the executive, the man in charge -- which he certainly would not be were he to join Congress' cast of hundreds. Plus, for a man who so loves L.A. that he commutes to Sacramento, the move to Washington seems unbearable.

That said, the Schwarzenshriver family has plenty of roots in D.C. Arnold could spend countless hours hanging (and probably voting) with Uncle Ted. He would also become the town's biggest celebrity, outshining even the likes of Hillary, Obama, or McCain.

Not a bad gig for a guy who likes the limelight ...

What do disgraced Senator Larry Craig and disgraceful Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in common? No, don’t go for some dirty joke involving them in any kind of intimacy. This is no joke, but a serious issue.

Both of them have been found guilty, in the court of public opinion and in the eyes of our own American government, of engaging in conspiracies to commit crimes. Senator Craig is believed to have signaled his availability for sex by foot tapping and hand swiping. He denies it. Ahmadinejad has signaled his desire for a nuclear weapons program by importing the industrial materials needed to build reactors and create weapons grade enriched uranium. He denies having the intent to create nuclear weapons. They are both, almost certainly lying.

The deeper and more important question is whether desire and intent should be crimes that call for the political version of the death penalty or the real penalty of the wholesale deaths that bombing Iran would produce? No, I have little sympathy for either Senator Craig or President Ahmadinejad. But we get on a very slippery slope when desire becomes a crime.

Were Senator Craig to have either offered money for sex or actually had sexual contact in the now famous men’s room, he clearly should have been prosecuted. Signaling however, seems to me to be another matter.

Go into any bar and you’ll see signaling going on. People, both men and women, are indicating their availability and desire for all kinds of sex acts, in all kinds of ways. Some tap feet. Others drum fingers. A flash of thigh, a toss of curls, a gaze held a fraction longer than half a second—and the pass is made. So long as it doesn’t involve money and isn’t completed at the bar or in the public space, we do not prosecute. Desire usually is not punishable by anything more than guilt—and seldom even that.

With his bellicose threats Ahmadinejad is signaling his desire to wipe out Israel—a position with which, both as a Jew and a Zionist, I have not a drop of sympathy. But do we start bombing because of his signaled intent and desire? The bar on the door to war has not just been dropped; it has been removed.

We went to war in Iraq because we believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction along with a record of being willing to use chemicals against civilians. He didn’t have the weapons. So, what did we learn from this experience in Iraq, if anything? We learned to lower our goals. Up till now the threshold of clear and present danger has been achieved by the intent to get the weapons.

Last week President Bush removed the bar completely by warning that the Iranians were trying to get “the knowledge” to build a nuclear weapon. By this standardless standard, the Internet is guilty of involvement in endless conspiracies. People can find instructions and the information to build nuclear reactors, bombs and IEDs. This is the blessing and curse of the Information Age and our almost magical information technology. Should every web hit on sites with nuclear information be followed up by a call from the FBI, Homeland Security and quick and trialess incarceration?

Remember that one reason for invading Iraq was the fear of a mushroom cloud over one of our cities. Our proof of imminent danger? Saddam was accused (falsely as it turns out) of having gone on a shopping trip to Africa in search of yellow cake uranium. He was not said to have nuclear weapons—only of wanting them.

Now for our next great adventure, desire equals intent and intent equals clear and present danger. Do I want to see Ahmadinejad get a hold of nukes? Of course not. Would I trust him? Don’t be silly. Then again, it would take a very cold night in the wilderness to get me to crawl into a sleeping bag with Senator Craig.

Certainly there is a threshold that we cannot allow certain nations to cross. But for the next five years Iran is not the nation that poses the greatest threat to us, or indeed to Israel. Loose nukes from the former Soviet Union or wholesaled out of Pakistan in the hands of terrorists are real and present threats. Iran’s rhetoric is far ahead of either its abilities or its interests as a state. Stateless terrorism is what keeps me awake right now.

We do not have either the bombs or the right to go after every violent despotic idiot who wants nuclear weapons—either to use (a pretty bad and self-defeating idea) or to enhance their international “street cred.” The list is just too long.

Many nations, led by tin pot dictators, want to do what North Korea did and that is to obtain even primitive nuclear weapons to forestall our pre-emption. Our fear provokes their fear, which in turn encourages them to hurry in buying or building a deterrent to us. The terrible truth is that our wide stance on terror is signaling to the world that we are frightened, dangerous and cruising for trouble.

There's always time to be Paris Hilton the jailbird, complete with stuffed Chihuahua stuffed in a prison-stripes handbag!

The Russians try to unravel the mysteries of gender differences:

"A woman does not have a man’s habit to scratch her noggin when she thinks of an answer to a confusing question, for example. Women do not like to show they are confused. They never want to ruin their hairdo with that gesture either.

Women will never understand why footballers stand in a line with their hands crossed before a penalty kick during a match. In addition, women never shudder when a male character gets kicked in the groin in a movie.

...After taking a bath, a woman grabs a towel and makes a turban on her head from it, at least for one minute. The reasons of such a weird Oriental ritual are unknown.

A woman does not get mad when her underwear gets stuck between her buttocks. Women joyfully wear those items of torture called bikinis."

As if things weren't already bad enough for W, what with his approval rating in the tank and all, now even dead people are making fun of him.

Ever since taking office in 2003 -- when he promptly struck down a short-lived law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain California driver's licenses -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been coy on the license issue. Trying to appease restrictionists among the GOP base while not alienating Latino voters, he has refused to oppose the licenses in principle. Instead, he's clung to a technicality, saying he's got nothing against licensing illegal immigrants per se, it's just that Washington has yet to establish standards for doing so under the Real ID Act. By claiming that his hands were tied, he's been able to continue opposing such legislation -- appeasing the restrictionists -- while leaving open enough hope to mollify pro-immigration groups.

But that excuse appears to have run its course.

In New York, which is moving ahead with controversial plans to start issuing licenses to illegal immigrants, the state has struck a deal with the feds to make the documents Real ID-compliant.

And if New York can do it, so can California. Which means that, sooner or later, Arnold is going to have to take a stand on the issue one way or the other -- something he has tried desperately to avoid doing so far.

But there may be a way out of this. Under them terms of the New York deal, illegal immigrants would get a different sort of license than everyone else, one that couldn't be used for federal ID -- and thus, couldn't be used to board an airplane. That leads some to conclude that there's no way illegal immigrants will seek out the license. After all, to do so would be to officially tag oneself as being here illegally.

They might change their minds, though, if the state -- as part of agreeing to issue licenses to illegal immigrants -- significantly increased punishment for driving without a license. If jail time, steep fees, car seizure and/or deportation were the consequences of driving while unlicensed, it's likely many illegal immigrants would accept the license -- even though it meant owning up to illegal status -- as the lesser of two evils.

A political solution for Schwarzenegger, then, could be to agree to the licenses, but only if the legislation included stiffer penalties for unlicensed driving. Immigration proponents would, theoretically, be pleased to finally get licenses for illegal immigrants, while restrictionists could be satisfied that, if nothing else, more law-breakers might be deported as a consequence.

It may be wishful thinking to imagine that all sides would agree to this, seeing that they're generally determined not to agree on anything, but it seems like the only workable answer. And with New York blowing a hole in his old strategy, Schwarzenegger is going to need to come up with some way to handle this explosive issue.

She was first lady, a senator, then she ran for president herself. Sound familiar? Thaty's where it ends because Argentina today elected Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner as president.

Here's a clip from the Reuters story:

First lady Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will become Argentina's first elected woman leader, but her husband, President Nestor Kirchner, is expected to stay active behind the scenes.

Fernandez's margin of victory in the Sunday presidential vote, seen as the largest in the history of Argentine democracy, will allow her to avoid a runoff next month.

But even if Fernandez had lost, Argentina was gonna get a woman in the top spot. The second voter getter was former lawmaker Elisa Carrio, who had 22.96 percent.

Teenagers of California now have the perfect excuse to give next time they're busted for smoking pot: "It's not a drug -- it's just a leaf! The governor says so!"

Then, they can point to this story on Fox News:

Arnold Schwarzenegger told the British edition of GQ magazine that he had not taken drugs. The former bodybuilder and Hollywood star has acknowledged using marijuana in the 1970s and was shown smoking a joint in the 1977 documentary "Pumping Iron."

"That is not a drug. It's a leaf," Schwarzenegger told GQ.

"My drug was pumping iron, trust me," he added.

So does that mean Arnold wants to legalize marijuana ... or ban weight-lifting?

Is it self-hatred to beat up the media? Well, not if the media are wrong, stupid and only looking to appeal to the prurient interests of the lowest common denominator of the audience. This is why I cheered when French President Nicholas Sarkozy, took off his microphone, got up, shook hands with Lesley Stahl and walked out of his 60 Minutes interview.

She had asked him about the controversy surrounding his then wife. He politely declined saying that if he were to talk about his wife, it wouldn’t be on 60 Minutes. Stahl persisted, modifying her original question only by adding, “There’s a great mystery and everybody is asking.”

There are lots of important issues in our world. Politicians frequently duck them. They should be held to account on matters of substance.

There are also lots of gossip shows, articles and web sites. Celebrities from entertainment, sports and politics are often queried on these matters of no intrinsic importance. There is no harm in this game for those who choose to play. There is harm, however, in not being able to tell the difference. The public gets confused between news and gossip. Now the news itself too often seeks the highly irrelevant to try to attract viewers.

More serious people have to say no to intrusively rude and irrelevant questions and the questioners. Sarkozy is my new hero.

I now feel the elation Jonathan felt at being quoted in the Wiktionary and Steve Martin's "Jerk" felt at being included in the phone book: Check out my Wikimmortality.

The craze among public officials to ban sagging pants got another boost in October when the city council in the majority black city of Opa-Locka, Florida passed a law outlawing the very public display of curb dragging pants. So far, the national debate over whether sagging pants pose a danger to safety, racially profiles young black males, or are just a harmless, though unsightly generational fashion statement, have bypassed Los Angeles. But that could change if there’s enough racket for some sort of public debate over whether a ban would make a difference in forcing young persons and their parents to abandon a style of dress that’s widely perceived as reinforcing the gang and prison culture. Meanwhile, the debate over sagging pants has torn other big cities. In the past couple of years, city councils in Trenton, New Jersey, Charlotte, North Carolina, Dallas, Atlanta, and Baltimore have fought pitched battles over whether to ban low-slung pants. In almost every case, African-American council persons have screamed the loudest to ban drooping pants.

The sagging pants laws have been the butt (pardon the pun) of jokes, and much ribald fun-poking. But stereotypes and bad social policy are no laughing matter. The city fathers and mothers in Opa-Locka and the other towns that have plopped the law on their books hotly deny that they are deliberately targeting young African-American males or are trying to control their dress or behavior. A sagging pants law, however, does exactly that whether intended or not. If L.A. city officials are tempted to take a look at whether a dress ban makes sense here or not, the issues of control, stereotypes, public morals, and free expression will be laid as bare as the lowest of low slung pants.

It's kind of a slow news day, hence I'm posting my computer wallpaper. "Rage Boy" is a perennial protester in Pakistan. He's been captured by many different wire photographers, on different days, different Kashmiri protests, with the same expression every time. He just screams to be on one of those inspirational "TEAMWORK"-style posters in offices, except his would be "ANGER." No one does it like Rage Boy!

From Moammar Gadhafi's Darfur "peace talks" today, which weren't really talks because rebel leaders didn't show up, and one side can't sit there and make peace with itself:

"'The government of Sudan is proclaiming as of now a unilateral cease-fire in Darfur,' said Sudanese chief envoy Nafie Ali Nafie. 'We shall not be the first ones to fire arms.'

...Chief U.N. negotiator Jan Eliasson and his African Union counterpart, Salim Ahmed Salim, told reporters several rebel leaders were expected to 'trickle in' during the next few days. While slow to start, the talks aimed to build a dialogue that could lead to a more solid peace deal, they said."

An editor here just wondered aloud if Boutros Boutros-Ghali ever went to Walla Walla, Wash.

Many thanks to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment for inviting me to speak (twice) at the Congress of Neighborhood Councils today at the Convention Center. I had a great time meeting everyone and discussing how councils can work with the media, and enjoyed hanging with my co-presenter Javier Angulo from NALEO. For those of you looking for the pages I showed on the laptop projector -- how to write a guest column, get your letter to the editor noticed, do press releases, etc. -- I've listed them here. Remember to watch out for the upcoming Neighborhood Councils blog, and keep contributing stories to ValleyNews.com.

We have clearly established the theme for the week—and possibly first quarter of the 21st Century: Truthiness meets fakiness meets fraud.

From the phony campaign of Colbert, to the feigned VP run of Dr. Pepper and now the faux FEMA news conference, nothing is as it seems.

Fake news is reported on faux news shows (and I don’t just mean Fox). Offers of peace we don’t mean and threats of war we can’t win compete with equally unreal threats from Putin whose popularity depends on the high selling price of Russian controlled oil.

Candidates for president in both parties lie about their flip flops and convenient epiphanies hoping to get nominated so they can move back from their respective edges of ideological perfection. The respective faithful pathetically want to believe that Romney is now a true conservative and Hillary really is anti-war.

These frauds would be funny, did they not lead us to dangerous cynicism—a kind of clinical depression of the body politic. If nothing is certain, if reality is fuzzy, we may cease to believe in our democracy—and that could be fatal. Democracy is not simply government built on votes and laws, but government that is agreed upon and processes that are believed. We live on political faith and not just pretty words on paper.

In the old, dead and unlamented USSR, the people had a cynical but apt saying. The largest newspaper was Pravda. This means literally “truth.” The largest, and sole news service was Izvestia, which means literally “news.” They used to say, “There is no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda." There is no truth in the news and no news in the truth.

Democracy works when people are given good information in order to make electoral decisions. When we cease to believe in the news, we can no longer believe in our own choices.

Considering the embarrassment of Katrina, it's not surprising the federal government would want to rush all over the Southern California to show how respond-a-wonderful now. But the truth is, the management of this disaster had little to do with Washington, D.C. And comparing it to Katrina isn't like comparing apples and oranges -- which are at least both fruits -- but more comparing fruit to the Italian Renaissance.

Credit Californians and California for the orderly evacuation, the firefighting with limited resources, the acts of charity and kindness and mutual aid. We've been through this drill enough times to do it right. Qualcomm stadium in San Diego was prepared for the thousands of evacuees right away, as people who showed up with their SUVs crammed with their family members, animals and stuff.

Part of it is that natural disasters are a way of life here. I have lived through three major earthquakes (Loma Prieta in 1989, Landers in 1992 and Northridge in 1994) and covered many many wildfires and even floods. I've carried ER supplies in my car since the Landers quake. And most Californians have either prepared for or experienced a quick evacuation. I know that I have a special box for important documents just in case I need to flee. I bet most of you do too.

It's great that FEMA responded midweek, promising federal fires fighters to give exhausted local fire fighters a break, and offering aid to fire victims, but that's what the agency is supposed to do and this was, as they go, a fairly easy disaster respond to. But this is no way proves that the lessons of Katrina were learned.

It's apples and Michealangelo.

Haven't the people of Rwanda suffered enough already? As though genocide, civil war, oppression, extreme poverty and misery weren't enough, now comes the devastating revelation that Paris Hilton has canceled her visit. The Associated Press bears the bad news:

"Due to the restructuring of the Playing for Good Foundation, the philanthropic trip to Rwanda that the foundation had previously planned with Paris has been postponed," the children's charity said Thursday in a statement.

Could this mark the beginning of the end of Paris the Philanthropist? Let's hope not. One likes to think the Rwandan people would be able to bounce back from this, but who knows? They've never experienced tragedy like this before.

FEMA almost made it through this disaster without making an ass of itself (or would that be asses?)
Anyhow, If you didn't hear about FEMA's fake news conference earlier this week, and the appropriate outrage to such a stunt, then don't worry. The apology just offered today is even more amusing. This from a recent Reuters story:

WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. government's main disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a hastily called news conference on California's wildfires that no news organizations attended.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, still struggling to restore its image after the bungled handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, issued the apology after The Washington Post published details of the Tuesday briefing.

"We can and must do better, and apologize for this error in judgment," FEMA deputy administrator Harvey Johnson, who conducted the briefing, said in a statement. "Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received."

Rather than be responsive to all those uncomfortable questions real reporters might pose. Instead, the staff asked questions that elicited such self-congratulatory quotes as this:

What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?

"I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership; none of which were present in Katrina.

“So, I think, as a nation, people should sit up and take notice that you have the worst wildfire season in history in California and look at how well the state and local governments are performing, look at how well we're working together between state and federal partners."

Jonathan writes kindly of Stephen Colbert, as is only fitting -- the man is a great talent and satirist. But I must say, running for the presidency is, quite frankly, beneath him.

No, I don't mean that the office is beneath him, soiled though it may be by the politicians who have occupied it. It's the faux campaign -- arguably the oldest gag in the cheap-comedy playbook.

Phony presidential candidates have a long pedigree: "Bloom County" legend Bill the Cat, Curly of the "Three Stooges," Homer Simpson, Weird Al, and even Darth Vader. And those are just the ones I could come up with off the top of my head. I suspect the list goes on much, much longer.

For a guy as creative and clever as Colbert, the mock campaign for president seems about as unoriginal as slipping on a banana peal.

Yet I can't help but be impressed by his would-be running-mate -- Dr. Pepper. The soda company has sent out a press release (click here to read it) trying to make its beverage Colbert's Veep (or at least cash in on some free publicity).

Now there's a candidate I could vote for. Someone (or something) cool and steely, yet bubbly and refreshing. Popular, but with outsider street cred. Sweet, but with a little kick. Unlike Coke, Dr. Pepper's not the real thing -- and Colbert isn't either. So it's a perfect match.

Besides, who wouldn't want a doctor one heartbeat away from the presidency?

Fiction is stranger than truth. Although, to be fair, it is sometimes fairly difficult to discern the difference. Imitation right-wing blowhard Stephen Colbert is running for president and wants to be a legal candidate on the South Carolina ballot. He wants to run both as a Republican and a Democrat.

I guess his comedic persona will be Republican and his actual self will be the Democrat. Should he be elected, he could form a coalition government all by himself. He could truly be a uniter and not a divider. Although most politicians exhibit the characteristics of a multiple personality disorder, Colbert will be the first to run on it as a virtue and not a guilty secret.

Now assuming that, unlike “real politicians,” he really has an actual self, we must ask if this is some kind of joke. If this is a joke, we may ask the burning, if rhetorical, question “So what?” Look at the other jokes who have been elected to office—or at least those who were at first taken to be jokes. Yes, Jesse “The Body” Ventura is easy pickings (Slim Pickin’s however never did run for office.) Arnold, Der Governator, is a little bit harder to figure. He may have seemed a joke at first. I would say that his election in the recall of Gov Davis was a joke—a desperate protest vote not so much for him as against a “real politician.” His re-election clearly was not a joke, and his second term has not been terrible—so far.