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.

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.

As I've noted earlier, New York is proving to be a fascinating laboratory for the experiment of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- and what might happen should California follow suit. For starters, the decision created some nasty political divisions. But now, there's an even more interesting development -- counties that refuse to play along. The New York Post reports:

Two county clerks, including a Democrat appointed by Gov. Spitzer, warned yesterday that under the governor's new plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, they intend to report any such aliens to law enforcement for deportation.

Erie County Clerk Kathleen Hochul, who was appointed by Spitzer in April, and Niagara County Clerk Wayne Jagow, a Republican, said they have been in discussions with their local police departments and district attorneys to craft the new policy they believe will deter illegal immigrants from even applying for licenses.

Because they are agents of the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the two said they felt uncomfortable joining 20 of their county clerk colleagues in ignoring the Spitzer administration's new policy allowing illegal aliens to obtain drivers' licenses.

"But how can I look the other way when there are people coming in who are illegal?" Jagow said in explaining the plan to turn illegal aliens in.

Said Hochul: "I took an oath of office to uphold both state and federal law. I keep that oath on my desk and look at it every day."

Talk about unintended consequences! Procedurally and jurisdictionally, things are set up differently here in California, so I'm doubtful DMV officials could mount the same protests. But I don't doubt that someone somewhere would try. The result might just be to draw a sharper distinction between "sanctuary" cities (or counties) and those that crack down on illegal immigrants, concentrating even more of the illegal population into a few geographical areas (like Los Angeles).

Let's keep our eyes on New York. We could be watching our future.

By Cam Cardow, The Ottawa Citizen

Singer Marie Osmond drew a mix of sympathy and celebrity gossip when she fainted during a recent segment of ABC- TV’s Dancing with the Stars twice. Osmond fingerpointed the wildfires that raged throughout Souther California as the culprit that triggered her many allergies and caused her to momentarily lose consciousness on the show. A chargrined Osmond explained that the air quality is really bad, but Osmond quickly recovered.

Osmond’s fainting spell on the popular celeb dance show was the stuff of celebrity light chatter. But for thousands of children and older adults, mostly black and Latino, blacks, in South and Central Los Angeles the wildfires posed yet another dire threat to their health. The wildfires have have severely increased the risk of hospitalization and even death to those that suffer from chronic respiratory conditions. Scientists have long pointed to a direct connection between bad air quality and the increase in chronic respiratory ailments in poor inner city neighborhoods. The wildfires tossed into the air a lethal ozone stew of carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and other chemicals.

The grim stats on the toll that respiratory ailments take on the poor, and minorities are appaling. According to the Centers for Disease Control, blacks are six times more likely than whites to die from asthma, and are nearly four times more likely to be hospitalized for treatment for it than whites. Latinos and American Indians also have significantly higher rates of asthma than whites. That’s just the tip of the respiratory sickness iceberg for the poor.

Poor air quality in central cities also has increased coughing spasms, bronchitis, and chest ailments, and even tuberculosis. Even without the dire air quality threat posed by the wildfires to residents in South Los Angeles, children in these neighborhoods are at great risk. The estimate is that about one in four children in the U.S. are exposed to ozone levels that exceed the federal limits, most of those children reside in poor urban neighborhoods.
President Bush sent a phalanx of FEMA and Homeland Security officials, federal relief workers, fire fighting equipment to Southern California. He authorized millions to be spent on relief, recovery and rebuilding. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared that the state will commit full resources to aid the fire victims. Bush and Schwarzenegger said little about the health damage of the fires to the children and older adults in South and Central Los Angeles, let alone what federal and state resources they will commit to footing medical costs for treatment and prevention ailments for any increase in respiratory sickness in those areas.

The instant the fires began to rage out of control, Los Angeles County health officials quickly issued the standard health alerts that warned persons to stay indoors and avoid strenuous exercise. This was welcome and necessary but health officials did not indicate what if any extra steps they’d take to beef up medical personnel and provide additional treatment facilities and medicines at county hospitals and health clinics for the increase in fire related respiratory attacks.

Many residents in South and Central Los Angeles didn’t wait for federal and state officials to act, they took matters into their own lungs. They donned surgical masks for protection against the horrible air. But this didn’t do much good. The air contaminant particles are so small they pass through the filters. With each breath the tiny chemical particles in the smoke, burrow deep into the lungs, causing serious irritation, as well as mucous build-up and breathing problems.

But at least residents did recognize the severe risk, and were willing to take some action to try and protect their health. Bush and federal officials will pump millions into the rebuilding of homes and restoring personal property in the outlying areas of Los Angeles. The big question is will some of those dollars go toward meeting the needs of those hard hit by fire related respiratory ills in South Los Angeles? That’s not the stuff of glitzy photo-ops or sweeping declarations by politicians about beating back a crisis, but it is a matter of life and death for the poor.

Capitol Weekly speculates that California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner might follow the lead of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who laid the groundwork for his future gubernatorial run with a ballot initiative -- by coming up with a proposition of his own. The concept is still in the formative stages, but the idea is to try to take uninsured drivers off the road. The Weekly reports:

The proposal stems in part from Poizner's desire to cut down on the numbers of uninsured motorists--perhaps 3.2 million drivers, by one estimate--by expanding the state-backed, low-income automobile-insurance program statewide. The program, which began in 2000, currently serves 42 counties.

One possible provision is to crack down on uninsured motorists by removing the license plates from the offending drivers' vehicles. Another version includes attaching the "Denver boot" to the cars, a device commonly used against scofflaws, which locks one of the vehicle's wheels and prevents the car from being moved. Other possibilities, including consumer protections in the homeowners' insurance market, also have been aired.

The Weekly article, amazingly, makes no mention of one of the main causes of uninsured drivers in California -- illegal immigration. That's because under current law, illegal immigrants can't get driver's licenses, and if you can't get a license, you can't get insurance.

Seems to me that addressing this issue without addressing the immigration component is to tip-toe around the elephant in the room. Which is understandable, from a political standpoint -- Poizner surely doesn't want to take on that controversy.

But if his proposition has the effect of either a) helping illegal immigrants to get insurance or b) punishing illegal immigrants who are uninsured, he will surely offend someone. This is a controversy, it seems he's destined to stumble into, like it or not.

Remember when Hillary Clinton, a native Chicagoan and long-time resident of Arkansas, announced her abiding affection for the New York Yankees -- when she just so happened to be running for Senate in the state of New York? Well, not to be outdone in sports-related pandering, the GOP's top 2008 presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani -- former mayor of New York City and a professed Yankee fan -- says he's backing the Boston Red Sox in the World Series. And that's got nothing to do with the fact that Massachusetts borders New Hampshire, site of the nation's first presidential primary. Really.

Californians might not be able to understand just how outrageous this claim is, but as a Massachusetts native who lived for three years in the Big Apple, let me try to explain: It's worse -- much worse -- than an L.A. politician pretending to root for the Giants while campaigning in San Francisco. It's more comparable to, oh, some pol who graduated from SC donning blue and gold at a campaign stop in Westwood and shouting, "Go Bruins!" The animosity, the contempt, the outright hatred between Sox and Yankee fans is that deep.

It's why T-shirts like the one to the left are hot sellers in the Northeast.

It's also why, in July, "America's Mayor" had this take on the subject, according to Newsday:

"'I'm a Yankee fan,' Giuliani replied then. 'I always believe it's a sign of my being straight with people, about not wanting to fool them, that I was one of the first mayors to be willing to say I was a Yankee fan.'

"He went on to say he had 'great respect' for true Red Sox fans, but as for becoming a Red Sox cheerleader in a Devil's bargain, 'Probably that's a deal I could not make,' he said."

But, well, that was three months ago, and Red Sox mania is at a fever pitch in New England now. Can't risk alienating the good folks in Manchesta'. So now Rudy says:

"I will be rooting for the Red Sox because I am an American League fan."

Oh, Rudy, are there any depths to which you will not descend? Apparently not.

Every disaster has a story arc, and it has become predictable and clichéd. From 9-11 to Katrina, to our fires, we tell the story in stages.

First the drama: We show the pictures of the collapse of the building, the smoke and the fires of 9-11. We watch the waters rise and the winds roar in Katrina. We see the forests aflame, the houses burning and watch the eerie glow in the sky as the flames reach for the heavens above Malibu and San Diego.

Second comes compassion and human interest: We see the brave and resolute. We feel compassion for the victims, the refugees telling their stories with voices choked by both smoke and emotion. We feel proud that they will rebuild the towers, drain the city and come home and build new houses where their old ones burned.

Third comes blame: The blame shifts between the victims who should not build where there are floods and fires (the 9-11 victims get off on this one, though the survivors may not). Then the blame shifts to the authorities who should have known better, been better prepared, and come in far swifter. 9-11 should have been prevented by connecting the dots, not having the coordination center in the previously attacked towers, and the radios should have been able to talk to each other. Katrina blames both the victims for being there and the government for not being there. And now with our California fires, the games have begun. The National Guard and helicopters were in Iraq. The Feds are inefficient. San Diego has too few firefighters and won’t raise taxes to add more. And, of course, no one should live in Malibu and expect help since they know there will be fires.

This is a tragic but set in stone narrative. We would do well to take such story arcs with a great deal of salt—unless your medical care provider recommends otherwise.

This is NASA satellite imagery of us taken Monday afternoon.

Once upon a time, the GOP was seen as the party of fiscal responsibility, of fighting deficits and unchecked spending. Unfortunately, that all went out the window in the era of Bush-Republican rule in Washington. (Likewise, it's nowhere to be seen in Arnold's California, either.) And the results are devastating, not only for future generations that will be saddled with debt, but also for the GOP.

David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers has broken down the numbers to show that George W. Bush is the biggest of all big spenders -- bigger, even, than LBJ.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency...

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.

And it's not just war and homeland security -- costly as those are -- that are driving up the government's bills. Spending in all areas has exploded under Bush, which makes the GOP's claims to fiscal responsibility -- as well as Democrats' prattling about "cuts to vital services" -- fatuous:

Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, points to education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it's up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush’s No Child Left Behind act.

The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels.

Then there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest single expansion in the program’s history — whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion.

And the 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of “earmarks,” or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion.

“He has presided over massive increases in almost every category … a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents,” said Slivinski.

Politically, this recklessness has undermined Republicans' onetime electoral advantage on tax-and-spend issues. Now, when Republicans, say, oppose SCHIP expansion as needless and expensive, they have no credibility. After all, when has that ever stopped them from spending before?

Rampant spending is a great short-term political strategy, as it buys votes for the next election. But eventually, the bills come due.

Race, class and ethnicity play an unfortunate role in the coverage of the victims of disasters. You may remember from the tragedy that was Katrina that many of those who refused to leave were called foolish, stubborn and portrayed as dim or demented.

Some said that they were too poor to have transportation and were stuck. Others pointed out that even after the flood had fully hit, many stayed in their homes and on their roofs—refusing the boats and helicopters that offered rescue. Pundits held that the poor just had no place to go and were neurotically attached to their last precious possessions.

So, when Malibu caught fire and the North Valley Tehachapi Mountains started burning, I was waiting to see how the media would treat white people who were economically comfortable and had both transportation and places to go. How would those who declined both voluntary and mandated evacuations be treated by the news media?

The simple, though predictable, answer is: Not the same. White people making their heroic stands against the “roaring inferno” were courageous. Maybe they were stubborn but there was something brave and commendable in their refusal to give up.

They had cars. They had places of refuge. They were not poor people unhealthily attached to pathetic little possessions.

Now, I want to be clear that I am not diss’n the people of Malibu as some have. Everyone has to live somewhere and every location has its inherent vulnerability—flood, hurricane, earthquake, mudslide, riot. I am concerned by the distorting lens that too many in the media use to construct different narratives based on race, class and ethnicity.

I realize the title of this post might be self-evident, but I don't know how else to respond to the UN's trotting out the ever-popular, but unbelievably obtuse, theory that the Catholic Church's teaching on artificial contraception has anything to do with the spread of HIV in Latin America.

The theory goes something like this:

1. The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is sinful.
2. There are hundreds of millions of Catholics in Latin America.
3. Due to Church teaching, these faithful Catholics don't use condoms; thus
4. They are spreading HIV like wildfire.

Here's the problem: The Church teaches that all sex outside of marriage and not open to new life is immoral. Thus, for this scenario to make any sense at all, we have to presume that there are millions of faithful, practicing Latin American Catholics who disregard nearly all Catholic teaching about sexuality -- that is, they have sex before marriage, outside of marriage, with multiple partners, and with members of the same sex -- yet somehow cling fiercely to (and only to) the teaching on condoms. (Never mind that many of these people are also using other forms of illicit contraception, such as the Pill, and/or getting abortions, which, any Catholic should know, is also gravely sinful.)

Now, I've met many Catholics from many nations over the years who are selective about which parts of Church teaching they honor. Many, even, are adamant about keeping sex for marriage, but ignore the proscription on artificial contraception. But I have never met a Catholic -- not a single one -- who shuns artificial contraception while embracing fornication. Such creatures simply don't exist, and certainly not in sufficient numbers to spread HIV across an entire continent.

But if you really want to see how stupid the UN is, consider this quote, courtesy of Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica:

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region."

Well, Alberto, you may be right: If Latin Americans used condoms "in every relation," there would be no more epidemic. Of course, there would also be no more Latin Americans.

(I think I hear echoes of Margaret Sanger ... )

Geraldo Rivera is now down in San Diego County, and was just on Fox News in a tight black T-shirt standing in the middle of dry brush (crackling it between his fingers to show us how dry it is), dropping the ubiquitous phrase "tinder-dry," and hollering as the smoke coming over the ridge behind him turned to flame. All the while pontificating about how Californians are doomed to live with flames as a tradeoff for getting sun and fun.

It's just not a disaster until Geraldo's on the scene! You know he's just salivating at the thought of nice n' peaceful Qualcomm Stadium turning into Superdome Part Deux.

UPDATE: Geraldo just called the Santa Anas the "hair-dryer winds." Cool.

Yesterday I was working out of the home office when my three-year-old son walked in as I was looking at Friendly Fire. Immediately, his eyes were drawn to Patrick's cartoon of Al Gore, the one I had said bore a resemblance to Butt-Head. And my boy says, "Daddy, that's you!"

Thanks a bunch, kid!

Or something like that.

The following two videos are all the rage on YouTube and Google right now, and purport to show some sinister Clinton campaign fund-raising scheme involving Stan Lee and Peter Paul. Who knows, there may be some truth here -- the Clintons do have a long history of shady fund-raising -- but the movies' grand conspiratorial tones remind me all too much of certain Democrats' theories about Halliburton, Diebold and Building #7. Take it all with a grain of salt ...

H

Reader Dante has commented about today's two Daily News editorials -- Government at its best ... and at its worst. The pair compare the heroism and the planning of those fighting the wildfires to the cowardice and the cunning of those who arranged the $95,000 payoff for fired bureaucrat Gloria Jeff. Above are the links -- enjoy.

The Kaneko Sangyo Corp. of Japan has invented a product that could revolutionize life in Southern California -- the backseat car commode. Reuters reports:

Drivers stranded by tectonic movements or stuck in tailbacks simply assemble the cardboard toilet bowl, fit a water-absorbent sheet inside and draw round the curtain.

The product is small enough to fit inside a suitcase, the company said.

Imagine, no more having to leave the 405 parking lot to relieve yourself when, after hours spent idling, nature's call can no longer be ignored. This could be a life-saver!

That said, I shudder at the thought of motorists' careening down Ventura Blvd., cell phone in one hand, cheeseburger in the other, while, um, doing their business in the potty.

SoCal driving could soon be getting even uglier ...

As you know, the state Legislature is currently in special session, the purpose of which is for lawmakers to do the lawmaking they failed to do when they were in regular session. For this, they are paid handsome per diems, because doing the people's work is expensive.

Now you might think the purpose of this special session is to solve our water crisis and improve access to health care. If so, you are wrong. By all indications, little progress is being made on those two fronts. But great progress is being made in the area of giving pay raises to state bureaucrats.

That's right, the Assembly has used this special session to grant a 6 percent pay raise to all its staff. Plus, the politicians have magnanimously agreed to pick up a higher share of these employees' pension costs because, well hey, they're a generous bunch.

The session may be special, but what's going on is more of the same.

http://www.insidesocal.com/friendlyfire/2007/10/glen_beck_accidentally_hates_c.htmlChris scolded me in a recent comment for what he thinks is an unfair characterization of Northern San Diego County in my Glen Beck post in which I say the area is super conservative. I respond, what planet is he on? It's not a secret. In fact, it's something the area's residents are proud of. To assure him that it's not a random assessment (and in fact something I'm intimately familiar with as I'm from San Diego) I bring you these factoids about the area that is getting the heck burnt out of it right now.

= Fallbrook, one of the city's in No,. SD was for decades the home base of Tom Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance. He picked Fallbrook as a base for his racist movement because of the sympathy he found in the region which even then was engaging in anti-Mexican events.

= In 2006, the city council of Escondido, in northern San Diego County enacted an ordinance barring landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. It was extremely contentious debate that brought out a lot of immigrant bashing in the name of Americanism.

= Indeed, the area has gotten even more conservative in recent decades. The 50th congressional district, which includes alot fo the north county coast, used to be strongly democratic. Btu in 1992, this district elected Randy "Duke" Cunningham and even gave him a victory shrotly before the scandal the brought him down unfolded. The disgraced congressman resigned after admitting to taking millions in bribe from defense contractors.

In the last election, George Bush got 55 percent of the vote even though the district had been gerrymandered to include the more liberal parts of La Jolla.

= Lawrence Welk Village, a resort near Escondido, doesn't in and of itself signify conservativeness, unless you equate golf and affluence with conservatism. But I love the name and wanted to mention it.

= A big part of this region is the Marine base at Camp Pendelton. As such many current and former military families have settled in the surrounding communities which are adjacent to the base and was pretty affordable up until the last few years.

The point is that this is a region and a group of people that Beck would never accuse of hating America except by accident.

This clip is from Carlin's HBO Special "Life is worth losing." The finale is a riff on a small crisis that turns into a mega monster fire that consumes the Earth. Considering what's going on in the world outside, it's been resonating in my mind since Sunday.

"thounsands of identical homes burn in identical fires.."

I had never heard of conservative radio host and CNN talk show dude Glen Beck before he generated a minor firestorm himself by uttering nasty things about the people who've lost their homes. His Ann Coulterish comment was clearly calculated to get him some press, which it did. Sad that conservatives think you have to say something mean about people to get attention. This is the line:

I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today. There are a few people that hate America. But I don't think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that.

No. SD is a heavily ex-military area and republicans which includes a city that was one of the first in the nation to enact strong anti-immigrant laws (info about it in this NY times story. This is a place white supremacists call home, where Laurence Welk village still stands, that elected Congressman Duke Cunningham, where Reagan is, and will always be, the best president ever.

Just goes to show what uniformed and nasty comments will get you -- an unintended slam of your target audience. Oopsie.

However, Bbck's not the only journalist to be geographically challenged when it comes to California. This morning, I 've heard CNN news announcers and reporters say in various ways no less than three times about how Lake Arrowhead is either close to or part of San Diego. I guess it all seems the same on the big map.

Everything just changed in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Hillary is no longer the shoe-in the polls indicate. John Edwards has new life and is going to make a hard charge. At least that is the story in the Washington Post. To what do they attribute this new-found Edwardian vigor? Edwards has gotten the great presidential race guru Joe Trippi to sign on to his team.

Joe was the netroots innovator who got Howard Dean such great visibility. This visibility, excitement and money translated into…into…a screaming fall from grace. Still, Trippi is considered a real catch. He brings to the table not simply his association with Howard Dean but also his brilliant strategy that in 1992 guided Jerry Brown all the way to..uh…Oakland. Jerry hired him on because of his splendid record of taking Dick Gephardt all the way across Iowa in 1988.

With a track record like this Hillary is, I’m sure, quaking in her sling-back pumps.

Twice now, Earl has lashed out at Barack Obama for appearing with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, purportedly because of McClurkin's "anti-gay bashing views." Now, I must admit that I am new to this story -- I didn't know, before reading Earl's posts, that McClurkin aroused such controversy. So maybe Earl is aware of some hateful comments McClurkin has made that I am not, in which case I reserve the right to change my mind about the pastor/gospel sensation. But after some cursory Googling, I get the distinct impression that the bigger flap to which Earl alludes is really just a case of McClurkin's being tarred by the Clinton smear machine.

First, a little context is in order. As much as we hear about McClurkin's religious and moral opposition to homosexual conduct, we don't hear much about his life story. You can read about it here. When McClurkin was 8, his uncle raped him. When he was 13, his uncle's son -- that is, his cousin -- raped him again. Naturally, this led to profound sexual confusion and disturbance, which plagued McClurkin for the rest of his life, and included struggles with homosexuality.

The way McClurkin sees it, he was not born gay. He wrestled with sexual confusion because of his abuse. His life was tormented and full of suffering. Later, he found peace in his faith. And now he wants to share that peace with others who suffer the way he did.

No, McClurkin is not out to "change" anyone against their will. "If you're gay, and you're happy, if you don't think you need to change, stay just how you are," he says. "But there are some people who are in the gay and bisexual lifestyle that are broken; that's why the suicide rate is so high.'' And when he speaks of "change," he's not so much talking about a change in people's inclinations as much as a change in how they respond to them.

You might disagree with McClurkin's take, but you can't argue with his own, personal experience -- and there are many others he's ministered to who feel the same way. It's not "hate" to want to bring what has brought you peace to others who want it.

Moreover, as far as I can tell from my research, McClurkin has been nothing but critical of Christians who pick on gays, or denounce them, or pretend that their sins are any worse than anybody else's. "You've got the church people who are lambasting and so demeaningly preaching hard against the person and not the sin. You've got the preachers calling them names," he says. "We become harsh and we haven't portrayed the love of Jesus Christ."

Instead, McClurkin says, "we've got to address (gays and lesbians) and we've got to love them, we've got to nurture them and we've got to embrace them. And we can't judge them."

What about the quote, cited in Earl's original post, about McClurkin supposedly saying he's at "war" with homosexuals? Here's the full quote, in which McClurkin talks about the political battles he's unexpectedly found himself fighting: "If this is a war, we are willing to fight. Not a war of violence, but a war of purpose." That sure changes the meaning from when the word "war" is plucked out in isolation, doesn't it?

Finally, if it's really so disgraceful that Obama would even associate with him, what does it say that McClurkin performed at Bill Clinton's Democratic National Convention in 1992?

In direct response to my call that Barack Obama repudiate the anti-gay bashing views of Grammy winning gospel singer Donnie McClurkin and/or cancel his scheduled appearance with him in South Carolina, Obama quickly issued this statement on October 22:

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

"I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

This is a big, bold, and direct claim that he will fight anti-gay phobia, and aggressively challenge religious leaders to do the same. But the line that was missing from his disavowal of gay bashing was: I will not appear on stage with Reverend McClurkin unless he publicly disavows his rabid anti-gay statement and crusade.

Since Obama didn’t add that line, my call still stands. Barack demand that McClurkin publicly renounce gay bashing or cancel your appearance with him.

Not, as I swore I'd heard all day, the "Buckwheat Fire" that's burning by Agua Dulce.

Wookin' pa nub...

The butt-kicker penned a whole commentary explaining his endorsement:

"I won't leave you in suspense. Though Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, McCain tough enough to fight terrorism and Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee."

No word yet on the 2008 endorsements of Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme.

In politics, personality trumps all else. Americans loved Ronald Reagan, just as they loved Bill Clinton, less for ideology than for personality. It's why Arnold is a star and Davis was a bum; why Villaraigosa is a hero and Hahn a goat. It's why W beat Gore and Kerry, and why Obama is even a contender. More often than not, the likable pol wins.

That points to Hillary Clinton's biggest problem -- she's not very likable. She works at it, and has done a good job these last few years of making herself look more like a human being and less like a politician. But deep down, people will always harbor the suspicion that she's just a cynical, calculating manipulator; every smile or act of home-spun decency the product of focus-group testing. Unlike her husband, she's just not a natural charmer.

And all the efforts at sincerity and compassion come undone whenever a story like this comes out:

As the “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks anymore. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky....

Clinton wrote a crowd-pleasing book "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets," in which she claimed that only with the arrival of Socks and his “toy mouse” did the White House “become a home.”

Being Clinton, she also lectured readers that pets are an “adoption instead of an acquisition” and warned them to look out for their safety.

Will Socks be seen as a metaphor for Clintonism? Will all the groups Hillary has adopted into her campaign -- gays, Chinese-Americans, middle Americans, women voters, moderates -- be dumped as soon as their political utility has expired?

A cat is just a cat, you say. Who cares about such trifles? We're at war!

You may be right, but little things mean a lot in politics. That's why Socks was brought into the Clinton limelight in the first place. The Clintons have long understood that symbols matter much more than platforms to much of the electorate. Socks was a way to show just how human they really are.

Now, it seems, he may have served his purpose all too well.

And now for some shameless self promotion...

My Sunday column on why I feel bad for Ann Coulter was sent out on the NY Times wire and picked up in at least three papers across the country that I know of (I rely on mail from readers of those pubs or if a paper sticks it on their web site, which they are not supposed to do), the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Sun-Herald in southern Mississippi and the Aspen Times.

I'm sure the headline, thought up by my colleague Chris Weinkopf, "Sympathy for the She-Devil," had something to do with its popularity.

See if you can follow this: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney enacted a universal health-care plan, the centerpiece of which was mandatory coverage for those who can afford it and subsidies for those who can't. Later, Sen. Hillary Clinton offered a national health-care plan based on the same model -- and Romney denounced it as "socialized medicine."

Meanwhile, here in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has crafted a plan based on the same general idea. But the unions that have been supportive of Clinton are fighting Schwarzenegger's health-care efforts. They've even hired Chris Lehane -- a former (Bill) Clinton aide -- to lead their anti-Arnold battle.

I now find myself almost hoping for a Romney-Clinton general election, just for the sport of watching both sides twist themselves into knots trying to explain why one is evil and the other heroic for endorsing the same thing.

Had an interesting conversation with other single, thirtysomething women at the wedding I went to this weekend (which was wonderfully "anti-wedding" -- five-minute vows, no poufy Cool Whip dress, no tiaras, no bouquet or garter toss, and fudgy cake instead of a tasteless white confection with plastic bride/groom topper). You know that stereotype that, after crossing the age 28 or so threshold, women become desperate for marriage and kids and embark on the husband hunt? Anecdotal evidence I've heard and witnessed over the past few years seems to indicate that's reversed, and instead single women intent on waiting for nothing less than love keep meeting men who are desperate to get married and have kids. And the women with whom I was speaking at the wedding related similar experiences: Men bringing up marriage on a first date. Men complaining they're just "tired of dating," as if the women they're telling this to are actually going to rejoice in this statement, rather than thinking they're the last resort of a man with a ticking biological clock of some sort. One 37-year-old woman at the wedding told me that one man she was dating asked if she would just have a baby for him, then he would take care of it.

It's like the dating "Twilight Zone." Every woman who ever pressured a man or acted desperate is to blame, because now all women are getting it back tenfold! Eeeeek!!

As I listen to the news station (Channel 7) drone on about all the many fires, I have to give credit to the TV people. It's not easy to have to yak for hours as happens during these periodic crises when at times you don't have much news but non-stop coverage. As such, you get the inevitable platitudes like "we all hope everyone gets out of there," and "This is really something to watch," and "The firefighters really have their work cut out for them."

Then there are the empty and sometimes amusing cliches such as this I just heard as I was writing this: " A double edge sword that cuts both ways."

But what I do want to complain about is how editorial objectivity seems to get pre-empted along with regular programming. In the service of filling time with meaningless talking, so often TV news people turn to their own opinions and words that imply subjectivity "unfortunately" "terrible" "horrible" "devastating." As someone who has covered many fires first hand, I understand they often cause strong feelings. But their jobs is to deliver reports, not reviews, nor lecture people about what they should and should not do, which I find offensive coming from a talking head. We should be getting the facts, not their insincere sympathy.

This is refreshing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has publicly chided fellow Democrat and California Rep. Pete Stark for his outrageous remark on the House floor last week. Here's the comment in full, in case you missed it:

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Pelosi has called the comment "inappropriate" and said it "distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand." Good for her.

Typically, the way things work in Washington, politicians love to denounce offensive remarks made by the "other side," while giving a pass to their own partisans. It's nice to see Pelosi break with that tradition, and judge someone's words by the words themselves, and not by the party affiliation of the person who uttered them.

Consider it one giant leap for civility ...

In non-fire news, actress/model Sophie Monk is the latest starlet to shed her clothes for PETA'a longstanding eat-vegetarian campaign. The purpose of these ads, I suppose, is to make men think: Wow, I could score with a supermodel if I ate more soy! Or something like that. Or maybe it's to get women to think: Gee, if I would stop eating chicken-salad sandwiches, I could look like that! But with this latest ad, I suspect the response will be ver different.

This shot is a screaming ad for a carnivorous diet: Eat meat, or else you'll waste away to the point that the world can count your ribs!

Sophie, do yourself a favor. Put down the wheat-grass smoothie, and go get yourself a pork chop. You need it.

No pristine-yet-parched hillsides in your backyard to go up in flames.

A house in Rancho Bernardo burns (Associated Press photo)

While we in L.A. are consumed with our little wimpy Buckweed and Malibu fires, turns out the party is really going on down in San Diego land where there are seven fires burning, and the Harris and Witch fires are chewing up more scenery than Keanu Reeves in all the Matrix movies. More than a quarter million people have been evacuated from SD county and officials are preparing for the worst fire ever. Yes, ever -- which includes that devastating fire in 2003 that killed people and leveled forests.

The San Diego Union-Tribune has better coverage, natch. And this scary quote:

“This fire will probably be the worst this county has ever seen – worse than the Cedar fire,” Sheriff Bill Kolender said.

The real question is, what does one do with 250,000 displaced people, their dogs and cats, and SUVs full of stuff?

Rumors of war, hurricanes, floods and now fires. All we lack, at this writing, are earthquakes and we’d have the complete picture of the Apocalypse. I can understand my more orthodox friends of all faiths wondering at this conjunction and trying to read divine signs from the devilish events that swirl around us in currents of flood and flames.

Last night's sunset was incredible as the setting sun reflected off the particulates suspended in the atmosphere. Quite a show. Not so entertaining for the people being burned out or forced to evacuate. We have friends who can't get home and may not have homes when they do return to their neighborhoods.

We, here in Southern California, can turn our attention from lingering results of floods and hurricanes in other parts of the country back to ourselves. We have arrived at our own fire season. End of October and we have both “Local Warming” and the Santana winds. Some scholars hold that the name is not related to the town of Santa Ana, as popularly believed, but from Satana, or Satan’s wind. I'm inclined to accept this etymology.

I turned on the news Sunday evening to watch Southern California burn. Then I watched 60 Minutes to find out why. Last nights' edition was of particular interest us SoCalsters: How we are living in the age of megafires thanks to a combination of our 100 years of history putting out anything that burns and global warming, which makes fire season even worse. One of the long-time fire fighters noted that in just the three decades he's been doing this the fire season has lengthened two months due to earlier spring, less rain/snowfall and warmer temperatures.

Last fire season was the worst in recorded history. This year is already a close second, with two months to go. More than eight million acres have burned this year already. The men and women facing the flames are elite federal firefighters called "Hotshots."

And this was produced before current fires broke out this weekend.

This is sobering information considering how hundreds of thousands of people from San Diego to Santa Clarita have been evacuated by out of control fires that threaten to turn into the worst megafire we've seen yet. Perhaps now the connection between climate change and bad things will start to become clear as American lives, homes and property are lost.

Yeah, I'd like to hear the spin from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is the chief climate change denier.

Typically, we pay more for products that are smoked, whether it's deli meats or liquors that boast of "smokey" accents. By this standard, then, I must be living in the lap of luxury. A hearty smokey aroma lingers in my nostrils. A soft blanket of ash covers my home and car. For much of the afternoon yesterday, our clear blue sky turned dark gray, with the fiery orange sun barely able to poke through. And last night I even dreamed of cigarettes and house fires, my subconscious thoughts clearly being directed by the elements.

Godspeed to the brave firefighters working to put out the latest inferno. And God bless the victims and potential victims.

Meanwhile, these wild fires have got me thinking ...

I might need to take up smoking -- just so I can suck in some cleaner air.

With the abundance of firsthand smoke displacing any dangers of the second-hand variety, do you think L.A.'s ban on smoking in parks is still in effect?

With all these emissions, SoCal's carbon footprint must be as big as the one from Al Gore's beach house! (rim shot)

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week! Just trying to add some levity ...

OK, I'll go back to my day job now.

I didn't get the pleasure of listening to Ron Paul's plaintive whine live, as live wildfires take precedence over everything in Southern California (second only to live car chases). But I just caught the replay now, and thought there was a clear winner. My friend and blogger Dirty Harry came to the same conclusion on the winner, plus he bit the bullet, probably threw back a shot, and live-blogged the debate. Some highlights:

4:57 — Here we go. 90 minutes of the candidates. Or, as I like to think about it: 90 whole minutes without a Fox News Alert!

5:07 — Fred gets some laughs. Someone on his staff hid the decaf.

5:31 — I’ll vote for whoever beats up Ron Paul for his lunch money.

5:31 — Mitt fixed the Superman-hair thing. Big mistake. When he looks back at why he lost he’ll see it all started here.

5:54 — Huckabee is absolutely right — there is nothing funny about Hillary. This man just jumped in my esteem. Stop with the applause lines and jokes and talk policy.

6:04 — Mitt and Rudy on social security. Pee break!

6:19 — Rudy’s showing off naming a lot of obscure countries. We get it Rudy, now how many terrorists are you going to kill?

From the Associated Press:

NEW DELHI - Wild monkeys attacked a senior government official who then fell from a balcony at his home and died Sunday, media reported.

Perhaps my two Saturday activities didn't go together well: First, I went to a sweet, romantic wedding. Then, I went to catch a vampire movie. (Which may fit with some marriages, but not this particular wedding.) "30 Days of Night" opened this weekend and, being the scary-movie buff I am, I couldn't wait to see this film, in which the northernmost Alaska town is besieged by vampires during 30 days of winter darkness.

Direction: Good. Sets: Perfect. Acting: OK -- one never expects Josh Hartnett to do much except look cute, anyway. But the vampires are, well, the funniest part. The lead vampire, who kicks himself for not discovering the delicious town sooner, dresses like a Hollywood producer in a tie-less suit (which actually makes him scarier than the Marilyn Manson clone) and speaks some garbled language that sounds like a cross between Turkish (think consonants) and Starvin' Marvin on "South Park" (think the click-clicks). The best part is there are subtitles for the Vampirese, as if we need to understand their nonsensical musings, interspersed with screeches toward feeding time.

Which brings me to another point: This band of about 10 vampires attacks a town of more than 150. Is there any point at which vampires get full? The vampires in this movie are fit and trim, yet constantly gorge themselves. I don't remember "The Lost Boys" coming close to emptying their faux Santa Cruz town, but picking off a boardwalk security guard here and there (and washing their faces afterward, which the "30 Days" undead never bother to do). It's like this movie is full of hypoglycemic vampires. Hey, it's Halloween season, so high time for these sorts of serious discussions.

So "30 Days of Night" is entertaining, especially in the run-up to Oct. 31. The moral of the story seemed to be: Always keep some bud growing under a UV lamp, because in the event of a darkness emergency that lamp can mimic sunlight to burn up vampires.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook with his announced upcoming three date barnstorm tour through South Carolina with notorious gay basher, gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. The Grammy winning black gospel singer’s last effort on the political scene was his song and shill for Bush’s reelection at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Obama has hitched his string to McClurkin’s high flying gay bash kite in part out of religious belief (he purports to be somewhat of an evangelical), in bigger part because he’s falling further and further behind Hillary Clinton with the black vote in South Carolina and everywhere else, and in the biggest part of all because he hopes that what worked for Bush’s reelection will work for him. Enter McClurkin. He’s black, he’s popular, and gospel plays big with blacks in South Carolina, especially black evangelicals, and many of them openly and even more of them quietly loathe gays.

Bush masterfully tapped that homophobic sentiment in 2000 in part with McClurkin and even more masterfully in 2004 again with McClurkin and the top gun mega black preachers in Ohio and Florida. He tapped it so masterfully that Bush‘s naked pander to gay bashing with the GOP spawned anti- gay marriage initiative in Ohio did much to win over a big chunk of black evangelical leaning voter to Bush.

This lesson isn’t lost on Obama. Desperate to snatch back some of the political ground with black voters that are slipping away from him and to Hillary; Bush’s black evangelical card seems like the perfect play. Obama wouldn’t dare go down the knock gay path, and risk drawing the inevitable heat for it, if he didn’t think as Bush that anti-gay sentiment is still wide and deep among many blacks.

And that’s what makes Obama’s ala Bush pander to anti-gay mania even more shameless and reprehensible. From the moment that he tossed his hat in the presidential ring, Obama has done everything he could to sell himself to voters, as the Man on the White Horse, a fresh new face on the scene, with new ideas, and the candidate that’s not afraid to boldly challenge Bush and the GOP on everything from the Iraq war to health care. He’s also sold himself as a healer and consensus builder. Legions have bought his pitch, and have shelled out millions to bankroll his campaign. But healing and consensus building does not mean sucking up to someone that publicly boasts that he's in "a war" against gays, and that the aim of his war is to "cure" them. That’s what McClurkin has said. Polls show that more Americans than ever say that they support civil rights for gays, and a torrent of gay themed TV shows present non-stereotypical depictions of gays. But this increased tolerance has not dissipated the hostility that far too many blacks, especially hard core Bible thumping blacks, feel toward gays.

Obama has spent months telling everyone that he's everything that Bush isn't. He can proof it by saying a resounding no to McClurkin and to gay bashing. He can repudiate and cancel the South Carolina “gospel” tour, and do it now.

The president and prime minister of Poland, that is, Lech (left) and Jaraslow, respectively. Jaraslow may not be prime minister after elections today, but Lech will still be president. I always thought twins in the seats of power was a kick -- imagine sending your twin to a vote or event in your place. Heck, imagine how much more mischief Antonio Villaraigosa could get into if he had a twin!

If Jaraslow loses his job, at least he won't lose a roof over his head -- at age 58, he lives with his cat-lady mother who irons his pants for him.

... it's a terrorist in Speedos:

"The U.S. military has ended an inquiry into who smuggled unauthorized underwear and a bathing suit to two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without learning the source of the contraband skivvies, an attorney said on Wednesday.

The investigators concluded more vigilance was needed to prevent contraband from entering the camp that holds 330 suspected al Qaeda operatives, said Capt. Pat McCarthy, the military's chief lawyer for the detention operation at Guantanamo.

Media reports of underwear smuggling prompted snickers when it came to light last month and McCarthy admitted, 'We laughed too.'"

But apparently it's all fun and games till someone commits Speedo suicide:

"But he said it was a serious breach because the Speedo bathing suit and the athletic-style briefs were made of very strong fabric that could enable them to be used as nooses, as could the cord that cinched the waist of the bathing suit."

Next we're going to be hearing complaints that the prison-issue boxers are chafing al-Qaida operatives while they dine on chicken a la orange and read "Harry Potter."

(And no, Saddam isn't connected to this story, but he illustrated the point well... or poorly.)

From the candidate's Web site:

"I'd like you to join me at the best 'Going Out of Business' sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And do I mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment."

As if summoning the spectre of Steve Forbes -- who, in hindsight, should have gotten a closer look as a candidate for his "flat tax" proposal -- the former Arkansas governor is proposing the "FairTax."

OK, since Mariel and I apparently can't let go of this Nobel Peace Prize debate, maybe we can both agree on this much:

It's a good thing Tookie Williams didn't win it!

Have a good weekend everyone!

Just got this kind e-mail from everyone's favorite Objectivists over at the Ayn Rand Institute:

In celebration of the 50-year anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, and as a token of appreciation for your valuable work as an intellectual, the Ayn Rand Institute would like to offer you a free copy of Ayn Rand's great novel.

Thanks for the generous offer, but is it really in the spirit of Ayn Rand to give away copies of her book -- for free? That sounds almost ... altruistic.

(The Rand devotees shudder...)

Or, killing the traffic to save it.

I don't really have anything to say about the 405-101 improvements other than, finally. But I find these ubiquitous snapshots of assorted politicians and politically adjacent playas in L.A. mugging for posterity somehow amusing. That's Gov. Arnold with MAV and Chamber o' Commerce Chairman David Fleming -- standing in the middle of Camarillo Street in Sherman Oaks to talk about improving traffic. I wonder how long traffic on the overpass was stopped so that all the pretty pols could have their self-congratulatory moment.

Remember George Russell Weller? He's the old guy who, back in 2003, killed 10 people and injured more than 70 when ploughing his car uncontrollably through the Santa Monica Farmer's Market. It was a hideous accident for which, you would think, Weller and his insurers alone would be liable. But no.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals has ruled that the city of Santa Monica bears some culpability for Weller's catastrophe because it failed to adequately shield shoppers from a recklessly confused 86-year-old behind the wheel of car. That means victims can sue the city, and taxpayers will ultimately end up paying the bill for Weller's crime.

I can understand victims' urge to hold someone accountable, and even to get some just compensation. But it's not reasonable to expect municipal governments to be able to proactively defend us from every hypothetical disaster. Sometimes terrible things just happen, and no one is responsible for them other than those who actually did the deed.

All that will happen as a result of this ruling is Santa Monica taxpayers will pay millions -- millions that won't be available for policing, safe streets, and other real responsibilities of municipal government to make our lives safer. Thus, by "failing" to account for a hypothetical crime, Santa Monica will be exposed to more all too predictable ones.

I cannot read about the school board of Portland Maine adding birth control pills to the health center at a middle school without feeling highly conflicted. The idea of supplying birth control to girls from the age of 11 without the knowledge and consent of their parents is, and should be, disturbing. We may not find agreement on what the age of consent should be, but 11 seems a tad young for any girl to give informed consent to sex with its physical and emotional consequences.

There is also a clear conflict between patient privilege, right of privacy they want in order to assure the girls the freedom to use their services, and the fact that in most states teachers, schools and school nurses are mandated reporters of suspected abuse.

In California, I’d like to think that if a teacher or school nurse finds that an 11 year old is sexually active, they might have a legal duty to report to Child Protective Services. Here, there would be a crime taking place: Statutory rape. Officials have to report it.

One could argue that the nurse may not know for certain that the young girl is actually having sex. She may want the pill to regulate her period or as a, “just in case” safeguard, like the young boys of my generation carrying condoms in our wallets in the then vain hope of needing them. I do not find this argument persuasive. Prescribing powerful hormones to an 11 year old should not be done without the health professional knowing why.

Now normally I am very pro-birth control and family planning services. We can rail all we want against sex and for abstinence but we will probably fail to change behavior for the better. My concern is that we can change behavior for the worse.

As someone who was a volunteer at Planned Parenthood in the late 60s and early 70s, I am not opposed to birth control, to counseling and to girls having some right of privacy. I’d rather have them safe than pregnant. But birth control only guards against pregnancy, not STDs including HIV. It doesn’t guard against psychic scars that 11 and 12 year olds are likely to endure.

For years I have argued that birth control doesn’t make girls sexually active. It is not a cause. The birth control pill does not make someone choose to have sex any more than seat belts cause automobile accidents.

I no longer feel that confidant in my metaphor. There is an issue of a cultural climate that changes taboo to possibility, possibility to likelihood and likelihood to expectation.

I will admit that having kids and five grandchildren—three boys and two girls—may play a part in my discomfort with this.

I know it breaks the contract that pundits make with the public to pretend to know everything and feel everything with great confidence and passion, but I have to confess to being torn by this issue. I have no good answers. I have desires, wishes and hopes but no policy other than I believe that passing out the pill to 11 year olds helps to create an atmosphere of permission, and I do not believe that the 11 year olds are competent to say yes. I think the adults who voted this are not competent to be in leadership positions. Okay, I’ve made my call.

This is funny. Both Mariel and Paul Krugman think that conservatives “can’t get over” Al Gore. Yes, you read that right.

Countless liberals around the world swoon at Gore’s rock concerts. They buy his books and go to his movies in droves. They shower him with awards. They achingly pine for his return to presidential politics. They make excuses for his hypocrisy, winking at his embarrassingly massive, environmentally unfriendly mansion and his preference for private jets over commercial airlines. They ignore his tendency toward exaggeration. They even make silly, exaggerated comments of their own, calling him things like “the man who saved the world.” And they lash out angrily at anyone who dares to say a less than fawning word about their hero.

But it’s conservatives who “can’t get over” the man.

Um, sure.

The evidence for this is that after years of liberals’ publicly heralding Gore as their secular messiah — culminating in the media frenzy over his winning the Nobel Prize, the likes of which few if any other winners have ever received — some conservatives had the gall to ask: Isn’t this all a little over the top?

Funnier still, Mariel and Krugman think conservatives object to the Gore worship because we haven’t gotten over the election of 2000.

Right.

Sundry liberals have spent the last seven years taking every opportunity they can find to utter phrases like “selected not elected,” “Gore won the popular vote” and “next time he wins.”

But it’s conservatives who can’t get over election 2000. I get it. (This is what's known as "projection.")

And funniest of all, Mariel and Krugman think the real reason people like me supposedly hate Gore is because we know he’d be unstoppable if he got into the 2008 race. Even though his poll numbers have been falling even among Democrats. (I, for one, consider Hillary Clinton a far more formidable Democratic candidate than the man who, despite being in the incumbent party during a time of peace and prosperity, couldn’t carry his own home state. And, for the record, I fear a Giuliani presidency even more.)

Look, I don’t hate Al Gore. In a world with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there are people far more worthy of the opprobrium. Nor have I ever been a climate-change “denier.” But I’m not so blinded by devotion to the man that I fail to recognize his excesses or even his humanity (or his unfitness for a Nobel Peace Prize). And looking askance at the irrational infatuation too many have with him doesn’t make me the one who "can't get over" him. (BTW, I'm not the one who brought this issue up a week after it had died.)

Trust me, I got over Gore -- a long, long time ago.

Seems I'm not the only person to have the same thoughts about the Republicans not being able to get over Al Gore, as I wrote about in a post last Friday. The NYT's Paul Krugman, it seems, wrote about the very same thing in his Monday column, and comes up with a very good name for it: The Gore Derangement Syndrome. Here's an excerpt.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

Incidentally, I expanded my Friday, Oct. 12 post into a column that is now posted on Pajamas Media. I'm sure there will be lots of Gore-haters commenting there, still not able to get over it.

Apparently Bridget heart-throb Vladimir Putin thinks he's the next Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or at least that's what he's saying in his speeches and through his government-controlled media. The Washington Post reports:

FDR, according to a consistent story line here, tamed power-hungry tycoons to save his country from the Great Depression. He restored his people's spirits while leading the United States for 12 years and spearheaded the struggle against "outside enemies," as the mass-circulation tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda put it.

Translation: Putin rescued an enfeebled Russia from the chaos of the 1990s, banished or imprisoned dangerous billionaires and regained respect for his newly enriched country on the world stage.

And Roosevelt ran for a third and fourth term because his country needed him. Translation: Putin, too, should stay.

Gee, I always thought of Putin more Mussolini than FDR, but he does have a point with that third and fourth-term business. Who knows, if he tries to pack the Supreme Court or creates a welfare state -- or defeats the forces of international fascism in his time -- he just could pull it off!

The Los Angeles Times has this amusing report from New York's Chinatown, which, amazingly happens to be a major fund-raising hot spot for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign:

Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

Gee, who knew Hillary could inspire such support from poor Chinese-American laborers? Or, perhaps, I should say, Hsu knew?

Despite doing a solid job of exposing all the seedy ways this money likely changed hands -- including pressure from the Chinese mafia -- the Times still holds out hope for Hilliary, noting that she was able to raise this cash through "appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins."

Sure. Anyone care to guess how many people "consigned to the margins" in other ethnic groups are making $2,000 contributions to HRC '08?

Given her massive lead, both in money and in the polls, Clinton seems all but destined to win the Democratic nomination. All that could derail her is a major gaffe -- or a scandal.

If I were Barack Obama, I'd be sending investigators to Chinatown ...

Para Los Ninos (for the kids), the L.A. organization that serves poor kids in unclear ways, sent out a bewildering announcement this afternoon expounding on the virtues of the Microsoft of Xbox 360 video game consoles set for release Oct. 23. As you read down it becomes clear that this shilling was the price of getting Microsoft to donate some of the consoles to PLN's Skid Row centers and others around Southern California.

Microsoft believes every family, regardless of background, is deserving of the best in family games and entertainment. For this reason, on October 23, Microsoft is partnering with Para Los Niños, a nonprofit organization serving diverse children, youth and families of very low incomes.

Each of Para Los Niños’ centers on Skid Row in Los Angeles and throughout Southern California will be equipped with two Xbox 360 Arcade consoles, given access to a full library of educational programs and entertainment games in English and Spanish, and provided with technical support by Microsoft.

They might be homeless, but that's no reason these kids can't get hooked young on video games. And one wonders if that "full library" will include such educational classics like Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe, billed as "the ultra-violent street sport"

This is Bill Gates idea of supporting education? This is for the kids? Or on the backs of them?

Besides, you know the big boy will hog the sets.

My favorite headline of the days comes from The Washington Post: Bush Declares That He Remains Relevant.

I dunno ... In my experience, if you have to declare you're relevant, you're probably not -- other, that is, than "relevant" in the sense of being able to annihilate the world at the push of a button.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife, Cecilia, have split, getting a minute-divorce from a French judge, giving the French something new to gossip about. Will it affect his presidency? Nah. Europeans are pretty chill about politicians' personal lives. And after all, the marriage may have gotten off to a shaky start, considering that Nicolas met Cecilia while, as a mayor, officiating over her wedding to another man (so French!). And considering Cecilia didn't even vote for Nicolas after years of marriage, that pretty much spells D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

I love this story:

"New research from the British University of East Anglia suggests that dropping a few choice curse words at work might be a good way to let off steam. The researchers say swearing can be an effective way to reduce anxiety and increase social solidarity, and they suggest executives take note.

'For some people, the use of profanity is a way to create collegiality,' Yehuda Baruch, professor of management at the institution's Norwich Business School and one of the directors of the study, told ABC News. 'For others, it's a way to relieve stress.'

'This is a message to managers,' Baruch continued. 'When people feel better, the group feels better. It's a win-win situation.'"

Granted, nobody needs to tell a journalist to go ahead and swear to let off steam. But the results of the study may have also to do with the fact that British swear words are so much more fun...

Just caught FF's own Earl Ofari Hutchinson doing a great job on "The O'Reilly Factor," speaking about Bill Cosby's latest comments/book on parenting and the African-American community. You can catch O'Reilly again at 8 p.m. and 1 a.m.

Imagine reading this story in your local paper:

SACRAMENTO - Gov. Schwarzenegger yesterday played vicious hardball with his chief opponent in the battle over driver's licenses for illegal aliens - canceling $300,000 in state-funded health-care and education projects in Assembly Majority Leader Fabian Nunez's district, The Daily News has learned.

"It's governance by vengeance. He doesn't care who he hurts," a furious Nunez (D-Los Angeles) told the Daily News.

"You disagree with him and he tries to steamroller you," said Nunez, a Democrat.

The Republican governor made his infamous "I'm a f- - -ing steamroller" remark to Nunez earlier this year....

Nunez said he was especially outraged that Schwarzenegger blocked $100,000 in funding for an East L.A. clinic where volunteer doctors provide free health care to the uninsured.

"Here's another dirty trick from this governor. And you know who he is playing the dirty trick on? He's playing it on the poor people of Los Angeles." ...

What you've just read is an an actual story from Today's New York Post, only I've changed the names, places, and parties to fit California. The real fight over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants is taking place in the Empire State, between Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Republican Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco.

But what if things got this heated between BFFs Arnold and Fabian? Seems hard to imagine. New Yorkers are more accustomed to this sort of brass-knuckles political fighting. Here, the pols just cut deals behind closed doors and, for the most part, play nice in public.

Then again, Nunez hasn't pushed the licenses-for-illegal-immigrants issue recently. If he did, the sparks could start flying -- as they now do in New York.

At least in California. If you had any doubt, then this study by the UC Davis Graduate School of Management and the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives might clear that up. The study found that

women hold only 10.4 percent of the board seats and highest-paid executive positions at the corporations, and that more than 30 percent of the companies have no women in those leadership positions at all.

The Sacramento Bee has this entertaining expose about what many of your tax dollars are buying in Sacramento -- namely, countless edits to Wikipedia.

The Bee reports that state Department of Justice "computers were used to alter Wikipedia entries about submarines, battleships and vintage airplanes roughly 1,100 times." The Bee calculates that "If the anonymous aviation buff spent 10 minutes on average per edit, that's more than four 40-hour weeks over three years." Another state worker "edited encyclopedia entries about pornography stars," complete with "profane accounts of their sexual skills."

Then, of course, there are the political aides who have tried to make their bosses' entries look better on the online encyclopedia:

Someone from the state Legislature thought it was a good idea to remove a reference to state Sen. Leland Yee's 1992 booking in Hawaii on suspicion of shoplifting.

Another of the Legislature's computer users prettied up a section on Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, citing his penchant for creating budgets that are "lean but not mean" and deleting a summary of his conflicts with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I'm not sure if this does more to diminish my confidence in Wikipedia or in California state government -- although both are pretty low.

Al Gore is still on lots of minds, of both fans and foes. And in the Daily News editorial office, it got us talking today about the nature of a hero. What is a hero? If someone is a hero to me, and not to you, are they still a hero? Are there rules? Does one have to have an official letter of heroness to be called one.?

Naturally, there's a Web site all about what a hero is, called find a hero.

And because now that Bonnie Tyler song "Holiding out for hero" is probably stuck in your head, here's a Youtube clip of it in a scene from the 90s teen cult film, "Footloose."

It takes a certain strength of character to say, in the face of failure, that it's no longer all right to keep on doing the same old thing. That's all the more true when all those around you seem content to persist along the same failed course, mired in ideology or the mistakes of the past.

So kudos are in order for Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, who today is leading a rally for L.A. youths, urging them to save sex for marriage. Burke is breaking with officials from her own county health department who still insist that throwing condoms at teens is the best way to protect them -- a strategy that, all these years later, has given us the current situation, where one in five California teens has a sexually transmitted disease.

The Condoms Crowd insist that they're giving youths what they need to "protect' themselves, since "they're going to have sex anyway." But this is a strategy we don't employ for any other youth-related social ill: No one says, "To prevent deaths from stray bullets, we need to give our kids target practice and more accurate guns," or "Kids will smoke anyway, so let's make sure they have low-tar cigarettes." Because the result would almost surely be more gun deaths and more lung cancer.

And the results of L.A.'s experiment with condom-based STD prevention speak for themselves. Congratulations to Burke for having the honesty, the integrity, and enough real concern for our youth to say as much.

Seeing Patrick's depiction of Nobel Laureate Al Gore below, I can't help but notice a certain similarity to ... Butt-Head.

And one could argue the similarities don't end there! Both, after all, are stars of successful works of fiction. Both are immensely popular among the MTV set. Both speak in a condescending tone. And both have done about the same to aid the cause of world peace! (Although, in fairness, it should be noted that Butt-Head's carbon footprint is a lot smaller.) And while Gore may have starlets swooning at his feet, Butt-Head did once sing a duet with Cher:

Maybe Butt-Head could win the next Nobel ...

The newest members of the U.N. Security Council, as of yesterday:

Libya, Vietnam, Burkina Faso

Wow!! A trio of one-party states where you're liable to get a bullet in the brain if you dis' the rulers! Aren't you glad the Security Council is tasked with protecting the world??

Chris has attempted to stage an intervention regarding my appreciation for Vladimir Putin's biceps, and as I'm not a complete addict I am listening and acknowledging what he's saying. I know Putin's a complete bastard. I've recently written as much. Putin might still be hot because of the bad boy thing, or it could be the fond memories of my hot Marxist boyfriend in college. (People wonder how James Carville and Mary Matalin work, but I understand the sparks completely after having a leftist love.)

But yes, it could be time to move on. In fact, I have felt the twinges of attraction while writing about Latin America this week. Not for "Caliente Vicente," who's cockier than a rooster-fighting championship, but for his successor -- who looks like a cute little accountant and wears his sash well:

China's temper tantrum swings into full force as the Dalai Lama is set to receive the Congressional Gold Medal tomorrow! From their Communist Party boss:

"We are furious. If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world."

Whaaaaa??!??!?? There's more, from the foreign minister:

"China has solemnly demanded the United States cancel the above-mentioned and extremely wrongful arrangement."

China also pulled out of six-party talks on Iran today in a lame-o sign of protest, a foot-stomping, wailing gesture akin to a really crabby toddler.

Honoring the Dalai Lama reminds the world -- before China's precious P.R. Olympics -- of the Beijing regime's egregious, continued human rights violations. That's why China's so scared.

Mike found this on YouTube. Pretty funny:

It's not easy living like Fabian Nunez. The high-priced travel, the deluxe accommodations, the five-star dining. It takes copious campaign contributions. And it also apparently takes a wife who's paid a six-figure salary from a key special-interest group. As The Sacramento Bee reports:

Shortly after Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez became a point man in the fight to expand health care for the uninsured, his wife accepted a lucrative job with close ties to hospitals that have a massive financial stake in such reform.

Maria Robles was hired as president of the nonprofit Californians for Patient Care in January, one month after Núñez introduced a bill declaring his intent to provide "affordable, quality health care coverage" to all Californians....

The group is not legally required to report its donors, and Robles declined to do so voluntarily. But by all accounts, the Sacramento nonprofit agency has close ties to the California Hospital Association.

C. Duane Dauner, president of the association ... said he doesn't know precisely what percentage of Californians for Patient Care's funding has come from his group.

"But we've given a substantial amount of it," said Dauner, whose association represents 450 hospitals and health systems.

The California Nurses Association, in a bulletin for members, characterized Californians for Patient Care two years ago as a "hospital industry front group."

Of course the California Hospital Association would be funneling money to Robles even if she weren't the speaker's wife, right? No conflict of interest here.

Now get out of the way. Mr. Man of the People has some shopping to do at Louis Vuitton in Paris ...

Under one of the myriad bills Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law last week, it is now illegal in the state of California for teens to go to suntan salons without their parents' consent. Because, you know, kids can't be trusted with such pressing questions such as "HT60, HT54, or HT42?"

Of course, it is still legal in California for minors to obtain an abortion without so much as notifying their parents, let alone getting parental consent. Go figure.

Meanwhile, new research suggests that abortion parental-involvement laws reduce instances of sexually transmitted diseases among teens. Californians might want to take note, seeing that one in five of our young people has an STD.

Dear Bridget,

It hasn't gone without notice that you repeatedly post erotic photos of Vladimir Putin. It also hasn't gone without notice that the last one you posted was slugged "Putinhot.jpg."

Now, I realize there's no accounting for taste, and if Vlad drives you mad, well, that's your business. But doesn't character play a role in this somewhere? I mean, former KGB goon turned aspiring dictator -- the guy rivals your nemesis Hugo in terms of charm.

Surely you can do better than Putin, Bridget. Why not set your sights on someone more noble, someone who's truly done something to make the world a better place, someone like ... this guy:

Your friend,
Chris

Putin calls off -- er, delays -- his trip to Iran because Russian intelligence claims that he'll be targeted for demolition by suicide bombers. I hate to be this flip in the Age of Terror, but I've gotta say: Whatever. Unless we're talking about some Chechens who bought tickets to Tehran, I'm really not buying that something would happen to Vlad visiting a regime that he couldn't be more kiss-kiss, huggy huggy with at the moment. Iran needs veto-wielder Russia to stonewall action against its nuclear program at the Security Council. Iran also needs Putin -- who's pretending to be the great peacemaker in this situation -- to divert attention as they enrich their uranium. And as far as suppliers... well, let's just say they have BFF written all over them.

And let's be serious -- when the Russian secret service is hot on the trail of a supposed assassination plot, it's not exactly something they'd put on the front-page news. Hence the word "secret." It is, however, worthwhile to cook up a bit of faux news as a P.R. stunt: Putin braves suicide bombing threats to trek to Tehran to make "peace" (cough cough)!

A hard-line newspaper in Iran said it all:

"Iran can use the visit to lobby for getting our nuclear dossier out of the U.N. Security Council and Russia can strengthen its opposition to the U.S. through boosting ties with Tehran."

Ahhh, so cozy....

As much as I respect Jonathan's views and insights, he makes a tragic blunder in his take on the Coulter-Deutch brouhaha. Namely, he takes Ann Coulter seriously.

Ann Coulter is a bomb-thrower, nothing more. She makes millions by saying outrageous things, and the people who most claim to despise her are her best allies, as they shower her in undeserved publicity. But while Coulter is a bomb-thrower and a lightning rod, she is most certainly not an authority on Christian theology. Indeed, the naked way she uses her faith to fan the flames of her self-serving controversies ought to be offensive to everyone, Christians most especially.

That said, Jonathan errs when he takes Coulter's incendiary remarks as somehow representative of Christianity as a whole. Please, Jonathan, that would be like my taking Madonna as an authority on Judaism! Coulter's claim that Christians are "perfected" is an outrageous, theologically illiterate howler for a faith that believes none of us is "perfect" but the saints in Heaven. It alone ought to immediately disqualify her as someone whose opinion represents anything authentically Christian. (For a good read on Coulter's religious illiteracy, see what Mark Shea has to say here.)

I was prepared this morning for a horrendous commute. I didn't get it. Instead, it was a typical morning slog through the 101, moving but slow, maybe even a little faster than normal come to think of it. Word on the street is that so many people were afraid of horrific commute that they packed the Metrolink and other public transportation outlets.

This only supports the theory of tough traffic love as the solution to the region's traffic woes. See, people adjust to the incremental changes. Traffic gets slight worse every year, but not in big jumps, just little one. Five minutes here, 10 then. We just accommodate the changes by adjusting our lives in other ways. Dinner a little later; leave home a few minutes earlier. All the money we're putting into freeways is only to help us maintain it at the current tight capacity. The high-speed rail and other forward thinking things are coming anytime soon.

So what can be done? How about shutting down a freeway for good? Not that it would ever happen, but that type of catastrophic event has immediate and noticeable effects. People make radical temporary changes, that sometimes lead to permanent life changes They telecommute that week and find that they can work it into their skeds maybe two days a week. They find a job closer to home. They invest in an iPhone and monthly metro pass and incorporate commuting time into their workday . They quit their crazy lives, buy a ranch in rural New Mexico and homestead.

CalTrans has moved pretty quick on this freeway catastrophe, so it's unlikely to change any behavior in the long-term, but perhaps next time.

Bridget has cited The World's Smallest Political Quiz to refute Mariel's claim that she's a "conservative." OK -- people can call themselves whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I'd like to offer my two cents on "The World's Smallest Political Quiz," which was a favorite of mine back during my early college years. You see, back then, I considered myself a libertarian, and I used to love breaking out the quiz. The problem, though, is that the quiz is put out by Libertarians, and as such, it's rigged to tag most respondents as Libertarians, too.

Even during my libertarian days, I used to joke that the quiz asked questions like, "Do you love your mother? Then you must be a Libertarian!" And while it's not obviously that loaded, it's still pretty skewed. So it asks if you oppose "corporate welfare" -- something everyone, even recipients of corporate welfare, will claim to oppose. But it doesn't ask, oh, do you oppose farm subsidies, preferential government contracts for minority-owned businesses, or federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research -- all glaring examples of corporate welfare, but all of which are much more popular than the concept of "corporate welfare" in the abstract.

Likewise, it asks if you oppose laws against sex between consenting adults -- in the abstract, most people, I suspect, would say yes. But try the particular: "Should pimps and prostitutes be allowed to openly do business in your neighborhood or outside your children's school?" -- and I'm sure you'd get markedly different results.

And because the quiz is at least 15 years old (maybe a lot older for all I know; although it does seem to have undergone some minor updating), it's horribly anachronistic. There are no questions about terrorism and civil liberties, torture, global warming or immigration -- all hot issues where public sentiment couldn't be further from the Libertarian position.

If you need any more proof that this test is tilted, I've posted my result to the right, and wow, look at that, I'm a Libertarian! Trust me, I'm not. Admittedly, I may be sympathetic to legalizing drugs and banning the death penalty, but I'm also solidly pro-life, pro-conservation, anti-consumerist, pro-family, and no isolationist on matters of foreign policy. Call me what you like, but "Libertarian" is a definite misnomer.

In truth, none of the labels is very accurate for anyone. I call myself a "conservative" because it is the label that most closely fits my beliefs, but it is far more a representation of a general philosophy than a rigid ideology. Take any prominent "conservative" institution -- the GOP, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, etc -- and you'll find no shortage of disagreements I have with each.

I suspect this is true of Bridget, too, whether one calls her a conservative, a libertarian, or a smart, fun-loving gal with strange taste in men. Which is why it's better when debating politics to focus on the issues, not the labels.

I will be scouring eBay for a copy of this:

"President Hugo Chavez has released a CD of traditional Venezuelan folk music that features him singing, and which will be distributed free inside the country, presidential sources said.

The CD, titled 'Canciones de Siempre' which roughly translates to 'Songs For All Time,' includes tunes that Chavez has sung during his regular Sunday 'Hello, President' television and radio program."

And yes, that palace handout photo is of Chavez holding his CD, made even better by his People's Sombrero and karaoke-bar microphone.

I wish Hugo would let me write a song for him... I already wrote one for Evo Morales last year.

Congratulations to Gov. Schwarzenegger for signing a bill today banning the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the California State Teachers' Retirement System from investing in companies that do business in Iran. Hopefully Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's performance at Columbia University would have shown everyone how mad the regime in the Islamic Republic is, but the pension funds still opposed the bill. Too bad, because somewhere you've got to draw a line in the sand and take a stand for what's humane and right. And Arnold did that. Yay to Arnold!

This is the 1000th post on Friendly Fire, so let's let Vicente Fox help us celebrate with a bang (or a scary, claw-shaped hand, as is the photo)!

Today in the Daily News is the first part of my Friday interview with the former president of Mexico, in which he gamely answers questions such as this:

-- On the 138,000 letters sent by the government to employers in 2006 - including 35,474 in California - advising companies that they had workers with suspicious Social Security numbers: "I don't know any case of using different Social Security numbers. I hear people say this and many other things. I don't know why we have to generalize that my people would be doing that..."

-- On whether America should have an open border with Mexico: "I'm not for open borders; I'm not for breaking the law."

Read the article here, on page 4 of your paper today! My upcoming column will focus on the rest of our interview, dealing with a little thing I love called foreign policy...

One of the major tenets of therapy is that you cannot repair or heal if you do not engage in a fearless conversation with yourself. This is true also of the psychic hurts on our body politic. If we cannot talk about our truths, our complaints, our hurts, then we have no chance of remediating the problems. So thank you Ann Coulter for bringing anti-Semitism and religious intolerance to the front, so that we may gaze into our souls and the soul of this nation.

What can I say about Ann Coulter that hasn’t already been said…about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Joseph Stalin, Father Coughlin and David Metzger? They are, or were, all purveyors of hate, intolerance, in general, and anti-Semitism, in particular. And yes, I am intentionally leaving Adolph Hitler off this dishonor list. He stands alone and beyond Coulter’s aspirations or abilities.

In many ways those who characterize her as a comedian, or a performance artist who says outrageous things for the effect—and the money—are probably partially right. She certainly knows that what she says will be greeted by appalled cries from her targets but taken as Gospel by her base. She is playing to her base, and base are their instincts. Looking at her book sales and TV appearances, her act is working.

There is a pattern to her hateful patter. She uses a deadpan delivery and knowingly speaks outrages as if they were self-evident truths. Whether or not she believes the vile effluence of her mouth is not important. She is part of the pollution problem that corrodes our society and poisons the possibility of civil discourse. Her targets, to her, are not merely wrong, but bad, evil and we as a society would be better off if they either went away or got some sense and agreed with her.

There is neither an ounce of respect in her social commentaries, nor tolerance of another viewpoint or of those who hold a different viewpoint. Yet her latest calculated emission offers an opportunity to learn something—or recognize something about society and religion.

Coulter’s M.O. is to demand that anyone who is different should change. Hence the title of her most recent book: If Liberals had any brains they’d be Republicans. Riffing on that theme last week she said that Jews should become Christians. Judaism had been okay before Jesus, but now there is a New Testament, new rules (No attribution to Bill Maher on the New Rules thing) and Christianity is Judaism perfected. When challenged on this and given the chance to back down or rephrase, or worst of all to avoid a controversy that would give her visibility, she stuck to her theological guns.

The reaction has been fierce. She has been called all kinds of names and characterized as dangerous. Well, I’m happy to call her names (as indeed I did at the start), but the danger is not that she is saying this. The real issue is that her viewpoint, as expressed in regards to Judaism is pretty mainstream.

It is not simply wacko far right Christians who believe that Judaism is wrong and can only be set right by conversion. It is mainstream Christians who believe that Judaism is theologically fatally flawed and its followers will likely be damned—or at least not get the really good seats near God’s Holy Throne, but will, at best, be in the back balcony.

This is not far out, but intrinsic to their belief that the New Testament replaced the Old one and that Jesus’ death was a Temple blood offering that created a New Covenant leading to a New Jerusalem in Heaven. And that is the only way to get there.

Recently, while conducting an interfaith dialogue at the university, it was instructive that the Liberal Christian (Methodist minister) said she believed that God would save all good people. The Muslim Imam said he believed that God the Merciful and Compassionate would grant peace to all the children of the Book—meaning Jews and Christians. It was only the Catholic priest who looked embarrassed and confessed that he could not be a Catholic if he didn’t believe that it offered something unique and true in it’s instruments of salvation. This characterization included not just Jews and Muslims but also other Christians.

Coulter opened up the sad fact that nearly every religion believes that its positions are unique, true and the only complete instruments of salvation and ticket to paradise. This is not a matter of just Christianity versus Judaism, Islam or itself. Muslims, though the Qur’an teaches otherwise, clearly are able to kill, persecute and enslave each other over issues of who has the best, the real, the only true understanding of God. The Sunni believe that Shiite theology is dangerously corrupt and way too Christian in style—elevating both Ali and Hussein to positions that are heretical to the Sunni. The Shiites have as little patience with the Sunni and don’t understand why they don’t get how Ali and Hussein suffered for the sins of all and their great redemptive sacrifices.

Nor is Judaism immune from this internecine intolerance. Too many Reform Jews believe, and say, that the Orthodox are old fashioned and superstitious. They will look at the Hasids with contempt—at their life-style, their treatment of women and even stereotype and assail their business practices (just like non-Jewish anti-Semites!). Some Orthodox and Hasids return the non-favor by characterizing Reform and Conservative Jews as not real Jews.

There is probably no need to go into the various calumnies heaped on members of other faiths—as each claims the exclusive franchise for the radio station for tuning in the invisible messages from God Almighty.

It seems next to impossible for people not to believe their own views to be superior and to work for others to come to the truth and either accept or give up whatever we accept or give up.

There is nothing unique in Coulter’s screed—other than its visibility and its source. Hers is the face of too many faithful of all faiths.

Is there any escape from this? If we all gave up religion would we make peace and find peace? Of course not. We would create other kinds of disputes—we could make it political or racial. We could fight about sports teams or trade policy or therapeutic systems.

Our great human flaw is our inability to understand the possibility of a multiplicity of truths—truths that do not annul each other but add to human wisdom and joy. Sadly Ann Coulter will not help facilitate such a conversation or such healing. I wish she’d come to her senses and see things my way—the right (or left) way.

Or "whining," as someone here put it. Al-Jazeera examines today whether Gore's global warming stuff qualifies for a peace prize:

"Dr Alan Hunter, a lecturer in peace studies in the UK, said he felt 'the link between climate change and peace is really very tenuously made'.

'I don't think anyone has carefully demonstrated the link between climate change and war,' he said.

'There are long term predictions that it will lead to resource scarcity and resource scarcity could lead to conflict, such as fighting over water in parts of Africa, but I think that's accepted as being a few decades away.'

He told Al Jazeera awarding Gore the peace prize was a 'surprising decision'.

Jan Oberg, a former secretary-general of the Danish Peace Foundation, also questioned Gore's suitability for receiving the award.

Oberg described giving the prize to the former vice president as 'a great misjudgment'."

And as far as being branded a conservative by Mariel, I think it's just easier to post my results from the World's Smallest Political Quiz, thus demonstrating there are many places between right and left (I'm the red dot):

If you've tried to approach the Newhall Pass in any way, shape or form today, you know it's impossible because of the fiery truck crash that happened late last night in the truck-route tunnel. The Daily News crew is working hard on the story, so stay tuned to our Web site for updates -- including regarding questions about the structural integrity on I-5 after the searing heat of the blaze.

Just got off the phone with Vicente Fox, who took a half hour out of his book tour to chat with me about immigration, foreign policy, etc., and who had some pretty juicy responses. Stay tuned...

We already know that you can't let your children play with anything -- that will give them lead poisoning. Now we learn moms can't kiss them either, as that will, too.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

More than half of 33 top-brand lipsticks recently tested contained detectable levels of lead, according to a report released Thursday by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of environmental and public health groups advocating toxin-free products.

I'm thinking we should start up a pool to see who can guess what the NEXT lead-contaminated product will be. I'm putting my money on M&Ms. You read it here first!

Or at least the two at Friendly Fire.

Chris is so annoyed (or perhaps jealous of Gore's corpulent good looks?) that he's come up with a weak, and somewhat incoherent argument about why Gore doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace prize. It goes something like this:Gore isn't a peacemaker because getting the world to supposedly accept some crackpot theory about global warming which may or may not harm us, might or might not save lives. Peace, apparently has to be only about stopping a war right now.

Well, if that narrow definition of who deserves the peace prize, then perhaps Medicine Sans Frontiers (which won in 1999) doesn't either. The humanitarian group ministers to the medical needs of people all around the world regardless of politics, but that's not directly working toward peace. In fact, they probably help war continue by fixing up injured soldiers I don't remember conservatives griping about that.

How about CalTech scholar Linus Pauling, the scientists whose work lead to the The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, outlawing all but underground nuclear testing. How is he peacemaker under Chris narrow rules?

Peace is about more than the cessation of war, and the Nobel committee, that collection of liberals that conservatives like to sneer at for celebrating other liberals with their silly peace prize, like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, understands this.

As for the complaint about the prize being political, well duh. When was it not? It's only when the recipient they don't like, such as he man who almost (or did, in the minds of many) win the presidential election in 2000 for the Dems. You guys won the election, but lost on global warming. Get over it and move on.

Mariel makes as elegant a case as I've seen for why Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but I still don't buy it.

Think about it this way: Would we ever give Gore the Nobel Prize for Physics, crown him Miss America, or name him Super Bowl MVP? No, because he's not a physicist, a beauty queen, or a football player. And he's not a peacemaker, either.

That's not a slam on Gore. You can be a great human being without having ever brought peace to some war-torn corner of the world. But the Nobel Peace Prize isn't supposed to be awarded for being a great human being, it's for making a real contribution toward peace. Bridget has provided a handful of names of people who would make a better choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, and there are no doubt many more.

Mariel argues that climate change can lead to war, therefor Gore is kind of a peacemaker. But even if you accept that a) climate change will be as severe as she suggests; b) left unchecked, it will lead to war; and c) Gore's work will somehow prompt major reductions in carbon emissions that dramatically decrease climate change and thus prevent war(s) from happening -- three huge assumptions -- it's quite a stretch to then declare Gore a preemptive peacemaker.

By that logic, why not make the inventors of desalination technology Peace Prize winners? By making potable water less scarce, they might prevent wars, too, no? Or, for that matter, why not the genetic engineers who have created drought- and pest-resistant crops that (were they not too often resisted by environmental extremists) could do far more than Gore's movie to stave off famines and the wars that spring from them?

Because those people aren't politically prominent. And that's what the Nobel Peace Prize -- whose recent recipients include not only the terrorist Yasser Arafat, but also Jimmy Carter, and (3 times!) the U.N. -- is about, politics. A bunch of Swedish liberals hand out an award to someone they like because they agree with him or her politically. Hey, it's their award, and their choice, good for them.

But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to take it seriously, or pretend that Al Gore is any more an appropriate choice for the world's most prominent peace prize than he is for the Cy Young.

There's many people wondering what Al Gore has done to win the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, he didn't stop a war or anything, though he might have prevented one if he had become the president after winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.

But if you define peace as the cessation of violence that results in the saving of many, maybe millions or billions of lives, namely ours, then it makes perfect sense. It's not only about saving lives through famine and disease caused by warmer temperatures, it's about saving lives through war. Yes, war. What starts war? Usually land grabs or fights over boundaries preempted by need for more resources? And what prompts that? Famines and disease many times.

In fact, considering his legendary wonky boringness with a politician's annoying habit of taking credit for anything he was involved in (they all do it, not just Gore), he's done something rather amazing. He turned the tide of public opinion from viewing climate change as some alarmists' fringy hippie thing, thanks to the corporate-apologist corps of conservatives have been shouting for years. He prevailed and so did reason and science. Climate change kills people, and that's not junk science. Remember the dinosaurs? Catastrophic climate change not such a good thing for their 200-million-year domination of the planet.

Yes, the hawkish global warming deniers who still are mad that Gore got the popular vote in 2000 can whine all they want. But he's the man. He deserved it. And maybe next time he wins, he'll get to be president.

He's even, if indirectly, managed to change the president's mind. That's quite a feat.

Here's Will Ferrell in a funny SNL clip.

... and California Attorney General Jerry Brown is all over it. Got this press release in my inbox:

News & Alerts

California Attorney General Brown To Make Statement Concerning Search Warrants Executed Today in Connection With The Death of Anna Nicole Smith

News Advisory For Planning Purposes
October 12, 2007

07-067
For Immediate Release
(916) 324-5500

What: California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will provide information about search warrants executed today by the California Department of Justice in connection with the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Who: California Attorney General Brown and California Department of Justice officials.

When: Friday October 12, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. Pacific. Please allow 15 minutes to clear building security.

Where: Ronald Reagan State Building 5th Floor Press Conference Room. 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230.

Not sure what the California angle on this could be, seeing that Smith died in Florida. But nothing creates a stire like the words "Anna Nicole Smith." What self-respecting politician wouldn't call a press conference?

Granted, the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize took a nosedive when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat, but now it's proven to be nothing more than a political back-patting tool. After doing the awards circuit through Hollywood for his questionable global-warming tome, Al Gore now scoops up the Nobel Prize, despite a) junk science having little to do with peace, b) chiding others about climate change while hopping on his gas-guzzling private jet, and c) his Live Earth concerts leaving a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla's.

What's nauseating is not so much another honor for Gore, but those whose struggles have been ignored to throw wreaths at the ex-vice president (and Manbearpig hunter, hat tip to "South Park"). What about Father Nguyen Van Ly, the Vietnamese priest who's worked tirelessly for democracy and spent years in and out of dank prisons for rallying the people for freedom? What about Kareem Amer, the Egyptian blogger who advocated peace and justice, and now sits in prison? What about the monks of Burma, many of whom are now dead or missing because, as the world stood by and just watched, they took the lead to demand democracy in peaceful marches through Myanmar's streets?

Then again, none of those people really working for peace has ever walked a red carpet -- just seen the red of bloodshed and oppression in countries few seem to care about anymore, and did all in their power to make a difference.

Ever had one of those mornings where you're in such a rush to get to work that nothing can stop you? Maybe on the freeway you feel a little bump under your tires, or some odd debris splashes onto your windshield, but you just assume it's trash and keep on driving?

Here's a story to turn your stomach, courtesy of The San Francisco Chronicle:

Hayward -- Authorities say they may have trouble identifying a body found on Interstate 880 before dawn Thursday because it was repeatedly struck by passing cars for about an hour during the morning commute.

The first call to the California Highway Patrol that something was amiss came before 6 a.m. The caller reported a dead dog. Officers arrived at southbound I-880 in Hayward nearly an hour later and made the gruesome discovery.

On the ground was a human ear. The CHP immediately called for the freeway to be closed. It was 6:50 a.m., less than a half hour before sunrise.

The remains of the man were strewn across five lanes and 1,000 feet of highway, CHP Officer Mike Davis said. It appeared the body was first hit at about A Street.

There was so little recognizable from the body that identifying him is likely to require someone coming forward to report a missing friend or relative, investigating officers said....

Since the incident, the CHP has received about 80 phone calls from witnesses or drivers reporting hair or blood on their cars, Davis said.

Egads. God rest his soul. Another horror story from the state of long commute ...

OK, I understand that for legions of die-hard greens, "An Inconvenient Truth" is their "Passion of the Christ," a triumphant cinematic rendering of the sacred mysteries they hold most dear. And I know that even though a judge in England has ruled that schools' showing the film must tell kids about nine of the documented falsehoods it contains, the movie still carries great cachet as an environmentalist call to arms. I get all that.

What I don't get is why in the world -- even if all the accolades about him are true -- Al Gore could possibly be considered Nobel Peace Prize material. Reducing carbon emissions, it seems, is rather different from getting warring factions to lay down their arms, helping to end ancient and bitter hatreds, or enabling nations to live together in harmony -- you know, making peace. And isn't that what the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be all about?

Then again, seeing that past winners include Yasser Arafat, maybe not.

How many deaths does it take to constitute a genocide? Numbers alone apparently are not enough. The victims must be targeted for removal or extinction because of their race, ethnicity, tribe or religion. According to the Turkish government, there is one more condition: They must accept their banishment and slaughter without fighting back.

Does this sound absurd? I hope so. It is both absurd and cruel. Yet this is the Turkish position today and not nearly a century ago when a million and a half Armenians lost their lives.

Turkey admits some Armenians died, were removed and killed, but denies it was genocide because some Turks were also killed when those Armenians didn’t go quietly to their deaths. Turkish apologists try to rationalize the slaughter by insisting that they were trying to establish a modern state, drive out the old Ottomans and also had to fight a Christina conspiracy that was seeking power and autonomy within the state.

What Turkey did around the time of WWI cannot be undone. But their denial is an ongoing violation of both decency and history. If we cannot tell the truth, we cannot learn. If we cannot learn, we are destined to repeat. This is why the issue of the genocide against the Armenians is important.

We face an absurd situation where we deplore Ahmadinejad of Iran’s Holocaust denial, where other Holocaust deniers in Europe are jailed—denial being a crime—and Turkey gets a free pass. Is one genocide more egregious than another? With one you go to jail and with another you get most favored nation status. This must not stand.

I understand why the United States doesn’t want to offend Turkey. We want the use of air bases and need to transship supplies into Iraq. We also need them as part of NATO and as our friend in a rough neighborhood.

I understand why Israel has many of the same motives. Turkey is Israel’s best friend in the Muslim World. They have had historically good relations and the Turkish Jewish community has been relatively well tolerated in Turkey. Thus Israel also avoids recognizing the Armenian genocide.

I will tell you as an American and a Jew that I find this frankly embarrassing. I understand the political calculus but the moral calculus is unacceptable. As with the issue of greeting the Dalai Lama, much to China’s displeasure, we need to act on the basis of our own values and moral commitments.

Turkey is not alone in having done terrible things. If it makes them feel better than can pass a resolution deploring slavery in America and our treatment and mistreatment of our Native Americans. No country is without sin. It is better not to perpetuate the sins with denial, bullying and blackmail. Accept the truth and it will set you free of the burden of angry denial.

A correction in a story about Rudy Giuliani's advisers from Newsweek online:

Editor's Note: In our print edition, several captions for the photographs accompanying this report were inadvertantly transposed. Martin Kramer's photograph is identified as Norman Podhoretz; Daniel Pipes's photograph is identified as Kramer; Peter Berkowitz's photograph is identified as Pipes; Nile Gardiner's photograph is identified as Berkowitz's and Podhoretz's photograph is identified as Gardiner's. NEWSWEEK regrets the errors.

Pardon me while I go laugh my butt off...

You've got to give credit to the 20-year old, female Baskin-Robbins employee in San Fernando, who risked life and limb chasing a thief who tried to bolt the store without paying $5 for his triple-scoop, strawberry ice-cream cone. When she caught up with him, the two scuffled, the ice cream splattered, and eventually the cops were called in. Fortunately, the police were able to break this cold case (sorry), and nab the suspect, who was hiding nearby.

It might have been reckless on the clerk's part to go after a potentially dangerous robber, but on the other hand, there's a social benefit that comes when brave people refuse to submit to criminals. You can bet no one's going to try to dine & ditch at that 31 Flavors again!

Generally, I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of anti-smoking laws on the books, and we hardly need any more. But I'll make an exception in the case of SB 7, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law yesterday.

This new law bars parents from smoking in their cars if a child is present, and that seems only reasonable. Unlike, say, bans on smoking at beaches or parks -- which do little to nothing to improve public health -- this is a law that could make a difference. A car is a small, enclosed place, and when it fills up with smoke, the children inside have no choice but to inhale. If it were up to me, the law might have included an exception in cases where the car's windows are open, but either way, it serves an important and worthy purpose.

The law's author, State Sen. Jenny Oropeza, made a good case for her bill in a Daily News op-ed last week. Her piece included these particularly noble sentiments:

"It only makes sense that a greater level of protection should be given to our most vulnerable and defenseless -- California's children."

"(T)he safety of a child must come first. In the same mind-set as government-required seat belts or mandating child safety seats, sometimes it is necessary for laws to protect the defenseless."

Those are beautiful words, Senator. But for the life of me, I can't see how you square them with your 100 percent approval rating from Planned Parenthood.

Just so that you know that I’m not playing a one-note samba and just spewing anti-Bush vitriol, let me say: President Bush did something good, right, fair, commendable and brave today. He announced that he would attend the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama.

This really makes China mad and that is probably a good thing. Their record on civil rights, on human rights and on religious rights is deplorable. Their lies and cover-ups on lead, poisons, bird flu and all issues of health and environment are despicable. Their threats to other countries that dare receive someone of whom they do not approve are bellicose bullying, and we should not kowtow to it—as we have in the past.

China claims that any sentiment of support for human rights—even in Tibet—is interfering with their domestic policies. Well, telling us whom to honor or receive is damn well messing with our internal affairs. Butt out!

They tell us it will be bad for bi-lateral relations. What? They’ll cut down on the lead-poisoned toys they allow us to buy, or stop shipping toxic toothpaste, or clean the ponds where they raise their “farm-raised fish.” Boy, that will teach us to give them some respect. NOT!

So, as hard as it is for me, here goes: Left-leaning liberal props for W.

Because Hollywood has never stumbled upon a dead horse it couldn't flog a few more times, Warner Bros. plans to release "Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins," in summer 2009. The plot -- and yes, there really is supposed to be one -- involves the war between mankind and Skynet. Just in case that's not enough Terminator action for you, Fox plans to soon come out with a TV series, "The Sarah Connor Chronicles."

But the real question is, where does this leave the governor? Arnold Schwarzenegger made T1 and T2 great, and well, he was in T3. How can the franchise continue without him? "Terminator 3" executive producer Moritz Borman told Variety that he's hoping Arnold will be up for at least a cameo. "He has an important job, as we know, and the final decision will be based on his desire and availability, along with what the director wants," Borman explains.

By 2009, Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial reign will be nearing an end. Maybe a new Terminator film will be just the change of pace he needs -- while providing plenty of free publicity for a possible campaign to unseat Barbara Boxer ...

This afternoon I attended the Wednesday Morning Club at the Four Seasons, where Laura Ingraham was the featured speaker. Ingraham was on her "Power to the People" tour, driving a bus emblazoned with the same slogan while pitching and signing her current book of the same name.

Now, let me start by noting that I am far more libertarian than Ingraham (I've been on her show before), so I wasn't apt to agree with some of her presentation in the first place. I don't believe that some folks not being modest spells the end of it all, and I have never been able to find the distinction between "family values" and regular ol' values -- which exist in people who come from good families and screwed-up families alike. And though Ingraham is a very talented public speaker, she wasted no time launching into the tired conservative refrain that goes something like this: L.A. has no values. The middle of the U.S. is America. Middle America gets the heebie-jeebies just thinking about L.A. Angelenos (and, as she specifically included, folks from Santa Barbara on south) live in a "bubble" mentality whereby we just cruise down Sunset in convertibles and thus can't top the good ol' American values of the Heartland.

I've been to about half the states in this union, and lived in Texas and Colorado. I once road-tripped it to South Dakota (long story) and was surprised to not find the welcoming hospitality so often associated with the Midwest -- rather, I encountered a clique mentality hesitant to welcome outsiders, and a very homogeneous population. I like our diversity, and, in addition, I like diversity of thought. In the last election, L.A. County went for Kerry, and the surrounding counties went for Bush. We really aren't that easy to define, and are beyond sweeping generalizations. Frankly, L.A. is not the end of humanity as we know it.

But is it just the celebs in La-La Land perpetuating this reputation to Middle America (those same Middle Americans who can't wait to come spend their tourist dollars here and buy maps to the stars' homes), or is it conservative talk-show hosts who fail to make the distinction to their Heartland audiences that L.A. is composed of a lot more than Lindsay Lohan and Barbra Streisand?

If you thought that L.A. Unified could not get any wackier—and not in a good way—you were wrong. They have outdone themselves with a proposal that is either completely moronic or deeply devious and cynical. I’m not sure on which of these horns of dilemma I would prefer to be impaled.

While some educational establishments might want to encourage students by celebrating excellence, L.A. Unified may properly fear that the celebration would be terribly small. So instead of celebrating success, they are proposing a virtual Festival of Failure.

Superintendent Brewer floated the leaden balloon today of taking the 44 very worst schools and lumping them together into their very own district. The educational rationale is that this would allow them to get the special attention they deserve. Programs could be designed for their particular needs. They could fashion themselves as all male or all female. They could be free to do wonderful and creative things.

Admiral Brewer, with his background in the military, knows that one way to deal with screw-ups is to lump them together into an F-Troup. This accomplishes a couple of things. It brings up the discipline in the normal ranks and lets you know where to find the failures. It does not, unfortunately, make the screw-ups better. There is the added benefit that if you have a suicide mission, you know exactly whom to send. Admiral Brewer will get the under-performing schools, with their under-performing students separated from the, uh, adequately performing schools.

As a military man, he understands that not everyone survives. Sacrifices, regrettable though they are, must be made. Of course, the sacrifices will be in the form of our children, their teachers and the administrators who are stuck in the educational slough of despond.

Fashions in education change—particularly in L.A. Unified, as it wallows in failure. Some years the answer is neighborhood schools, so that parents can feel “ownership.” Some years transfers with permits offer salvation by fitting kids to programs. Some time ago, they organized kids by ability—as demonstrated by standard tests. The idea was that if you put the smart ones together, they’ll excel; and if you put the slow ones together, they won’t feel inferior, depressed, give up and drop out. Today, some believe that everyone should be mainstreamed, regardless of ability or challenge, and the better students can mentor their peers. We may not have good educational data on any of these approaches, but we make up for it with parental passion and institutional lack of vision.

This idea, of segregating the slow schools, despite the micron thin rationales, has no good educational purpose. It would however accomplish one dramatic thing.

Think about it. Is there a way to take L.A. Unified’s low test scores in math and reading, take its incredible drop-out rate and magically make everything better? Yes, of course there is. All you have to do to improve scores, lower rates of violence and ameliorate the drop-out rate is not count the bad schools and their bad students! With the stroke of pen—and the creation of a brand new bureaucracy—L.A. Unified becomes a success and all the failures are located in some other district. Nothing succeeds like seceding.

Admiral Brewer, this is not an admirable plan. It is playing with numbers, and can only benefit the ratings of the bureaucracy and not the education of our children. This is the anti-magnet school concept and is morally repellent.

According to the latest estimates, more than 1 million -- 1 million! -- youths in California have sexually transmitted diseases. That's nearly 10 times more than previously thought.

To get a sense of how staggering that figure is, consider that, according to U.S. Census Bureau numbers, there are only 4.8 million Californians in that age group (15-24). In other words, more than one in five California youths has a sexually transmitted disease, from genital herpes and gonorrhea to HIV. More than a third of those youths live here in Los Angeles.

To what can we trace this epidemic?

Surely it's a lack of sex ed in the schools, right?

Wrong. According to the California Department of Education, "Since 1992, California public schools have been required to teach HIV/AIDS prevention education at least once in middle school and once in high school." That includes "(i)nstruction on the nature of HIV/AIDS, methods of transmission, strategies to reduce the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and social and public health issues related to HIV/AIDS.” Moreover, the CDE also reports, "96 percent of California school districts provide comprehensive sexual health education."

Oh, well then it must be the fault of all that abstinence-only stuff the Bush Administration has been forcing down schools' throats.

Wrong again. As the CDE also explains, California law "prohibits 'abstinence-only' education." Our progressive state did away with such old-fashioned ideas in favor of teaching kids about how to "protect" themselves. See how well it's worked?

But the issues here run much deeper than what's taught or not taught in the schools. They point to broader cultural phenomena, phenomena that can be seen in courts that make light of statutory rape, dolls and clothes that sexualize children, and municipal governments that think it appropriate to spend tax dollars on S&M street fairs.

The Sexual Revolution has had more than its fair share of victims -- and most of them are young.

Earl's take on Don Imus' likely return to the radio airwaves seem very fair and reasonable to me. Although the disgraced radio host hasn't been on in Los Angeles for years, and likely won't be any time soon, I still say: Welcome back, I-Man.

Unlike many of the people who called for Imus' scalp, I've actually listened to him quite a bit -- almost daily back when I lived in New York and he hosted the morning show on The Fan (WFAN, New York's sports-radio station, never mind that Imus wasn't a sports guy). To be sure, Imus had a soft spot for ribald, politically incorrect humor, but this was hardly the focus of his show, and he was no Howard Stern. Much of the time on his program was actually spent interviewing big names in the media and in the news -- all the top presidential candidates would appear, as would industry bigwigs like Tim Russert and Margaret Carlson. The show would often spin off into long, thoughtful conversations about current events; kind of like NPR, but not so monotonous, and with a sense of humor. Imus also spent countless hours raising millions for the dude ranch/summer camp he ran for seriously ill children.

None of which is to defend the egregious comment that cost Imus his job. It was a stupid, offensive thing to say. But it was also more the result of an off-the-cuff, terrible attempt at humor than any ingrained sense of racial animus. If you listened to Imus regularly, and you heard him talk about the issues, what he thought about bigots, and the respectful way he treated his guests, it's clear he was no racist. I don't think he ever intended to hurt anybody. He was just in the dangerous business of using shock to elicit a laugh -- a business that, especially when unscripted, can lead to awful mistakes. Play with fire, and you're likely to get burned. Surely Imus gets that by now.

As Earl notes, Imus has paid dearly for that mistake, which is only appropriate. But he shouldn't have to pay with his career. He's taken his lumps, he's expressed contrition, and he's sincerely sought to make amends. That, and his talent, ought to be enough to earn him another chance.

It took 52 days for the California legislature to approve a budget, and now it's taken just shy of that -- 50 days by my reckoning -- for said budget to fall flat. The Sacramento Bee reports:

Based on major tax receipts collected in the first two months of the new fiscal year, California could face a $8.6 billion operating deficit or more in 2008-09 if the state's economy and soft housing market continue at the current pace. That would be 40 percent higher than the $6.1 billion gap officials anticipated in August.

"It's fair to say the revenue situation is not going to be as good as we had hoped," Finance Director Mike Genest said in a recent interview. "It's likely the $6.1 billion (projected operating deficit) will be higher."

The key word here is "hoped." This was a budget based on hoped-for, but unrealistic, expecations in light of a cooling economy and the housing-market bust.

The budget -- all $145 billion of it -- reflects the continued boom in spending since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger booted Gray Davis and his piddly $100 billion budget four years ago. It also now seems to reflect a return to Davis-era deficits.

But at least Schwarzenegger hasn't increased taxes -- yet.

GOP Thompson's TV debate debut falls flat
--Headline, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 10, 2007

Late entry Thompson mostly holds his own in debate
--Headline, L.A. Daily News, Oct. 10, 2007

Over the years, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has earned itself a reputation as the legal bastion of San Francisco looniness, and its latest decision will do nothing to change that.

On Tuesday, the court decided that Alberto Quintero-Salazar -- a Mexican national and legal resident of the U.S. -- could not be deported on the basis of a sex crime he committed in 1998, namely illegal intercourse between an adult over 21 and a youth under 16. According to the court, adults taking sexual advantage of minors (so long as they have the "consent" that minors are legally unable to provide) does not constitute the "vile, base or depraved" conduct that can subject legal U.S. residents to deportation.

From the San Francisco Chronicle's report:

The appeals court said a legal resident can be deported for committing a crime of "moral turpitude," defined as a vile, base or depraved offense that violates society's moral standards. That definition doesn't fit the charge against Quintero, the court said.

Really? This comes as quite as a surprise. Because when a slew of Catholic priests were found to have committed essentially the same crime -- "consensual" sex with teenagers -- society seemed quite appropriately outraged. Indeed, the sexual abuse of minors was, I thought, about as clear an example of "moral turpitude" as there could be, an obvious violation of society's moral standards -- except, it seems, in San Francisco.

More from the Chronicle:

The state law he admitted violating prohibits sexual conduct that "may be unwise and socially unacceptable to many, but it is not inherently base, vile or depraved," Judge Sidney Thomas said in the majority opinion. He noted that some conduct banned by the law would be legal if the adult and minor were married, and would also be legal in states where the age of consent to intercourse is younger than 16.

Oh yes, the "but it wouldn't be illegal if it were legal!" defense. I believe the technical term for this is "asinine tautology."

And finally, there's this nugget:

He also said the purpose of the law was not to enforce society's moral code but to reduce teenage pregnancies.

So much for the idea that the purpose of the law is to protect minors, to spare them from risks both emotional and physical for which they are unprepared. But apparently that's not much of a concern among the Ninth Circuit, which is busy enforcing a moral code of its own.

Die hard Don Imus dissers will lose round two with the shock jock. Round two is a renewed battle to keep him off the air. He will be back on the air possibly as early as December. And he should be. It has nothing to do with him, his talent, his marketing draw, or the legions of fans that have shouted for his return since the nappy head ho dumping episode. His return has everything to do with the blacks that screamed for his hide back in April. The top Imus scalp hunters have mellowed, softened, or proclaimed disinterest in and toward keeping him off the air. The list includes Al Sharpton, the Rutgers women’s head basketball coach, some of the Rutgers players (one dropped her lawsuit against him), and a few prominent black columnists. Their silence or indifference on an Imus return should not be mistaken for any ringing declaration of support for him. It’s simply recognition that continuing the vendetta against Imus serves no real purpose.

The hard reality is that Imus did pay a steep price for his mouth, and he deserved to pay that price. Now that he will and should return to the broadcast studio, he has a chance for redemption. His return is no cause for cheers and popping the champagne corks. But it’s certainly no cause for jeers and tossing those bottles at him either when he returns.

My apologies for not mentioning this earlier, but I was on KPCC radio with Patt Morrison (and Bernie Parks) yesterday, discussing L.A. City Hall's stealth utility tax and this editorial. You can listen to the show here; I come in at about the 12:45 mark.

At first I found this story encouraging:

"In a survey of 1,010 mothers with daughters ages 4 to 9 that was released last month by Synovate, a market-research firm, 85 percent of moms said they are 'tired of the sexpot dolls and characters' in stores."

That means those Skankz -- sorry, "Bratz" -- dolls, the little plastic floozies that not only teach young girls how to look like a ho, but also inform that being a "brat" is something to which they ought to aspire. It boggles the mind that in a country where we are paranoid about trace amounts of lead in our children's toys, we think nothing of handing them playthings that poison the mind and soul, and kill childhood innocence.

Common sense ought to tell us that if you don't want your daughter to dress or behave like a skank, you might not want to indulge her in an entire product line that glorifies the wonders of skankdom. Even the American Psychological Association has singled out Bratz as troublesome, saying, "It (is) worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality."

So it was heartening that some 85 percent of mothers said they frown on such dolls -- but heartening for only a moment.

Because if the overwhelming majority of moms disapprove of Skankz dolls, how could the toys possibly rake in $2 billion a year? How could they be challenging Barbie (who, impossible bodily dimensions aside, seems positively wholesome by comparison) for top-doll status nationwide?

Well, first you need to know that this poll was commissioned by AG Properties -- makers of Strawberry Shortcake, Care Bears, Holly Hobbie and other more modest product lines. This is like a poll from Coca-Cola showing that no one likes Pepsi -- which is to say, one of dubious value.

But beyond the likely bias in the polling, there are two other explanations that account for the gap between what parents say about skanky girls' toys and clothing and what they actually purchase.

The first is advertising. Bratz has a website, a movie, commercials, cartoons -- countless ways to make dolls irresistible to little girls. Peer pressure is a factor, too, with girls wanting the dolls because their friends have them. It's hard for parents to have to say "no" when they're up against an industry and a culture that tell their children to expect to hear "yes."

And the second is parenting. If this poll is at all an accurate reflection of reality, there are many parents out there buying their children these toys against their own better judgment. Perhaps they're just succumbing to the relentless demands from kids who have been exposed to all the ads and hoopla. But if you're letting your kids decide what you buy, you're not being a parent. This is where moms and dads need to be strong -- and turning off the TV and its noxious stream of ads would be a good first step.

It's not easy -- I'm a dad of three myself. But I can't imagine giving one of these insidious little dollies to my precious, 4-year-old daughter. She deserves better. All children do.

The University of Nebraska Press has released a book of interest (to me anyway) called Living Blue in the Red States. I find myself intrigued because it's the mirror image of a book I've been inclined to write for some time about living "red" in Blue America. It's a topic on which I think I'm well versed, being conservatively inclined but having spent my life in what are arguably America's three bluest states: Massachusetts, New York, and California. (When I was in New York, I lived in a precinct so blue that in 1996, more of my neighbors voted for Ralph Nader than for Bob Dole.)

As such, I like to think of myself as "bilingual" -- I can speak and understand the languages of both "blue" and "red" America. And while appreciating that most of us -- myself included -- are actually more shades of purple than the personification of either stereotype, those stereotypes do reflect a large measure of truth. "Red" and "blue" Americans do often have different priorities and values that extend well beyond the voting booth and into most every facet of daily life.

That said -- and perhaps here's where my "bilingualism" comes into place -- those differences need not be as divisive as they often are. I'm amazed at how many people on both sides of the political/cutlural divide simply despise those on the other, even though they know few if any such people personally. For all our differences, our similarities are far greater; if only we're willing to get past our antipathies to discover them.

Here's where I think people like myself and the contributors to this book -- people who can and do live comfortably in both worlds -- can hopefully play a peacemaking role. The press release for "Living Blue in the Red States" says the "essayists’ views testify to the power of writing to bring us together as one nation of whatever color."

We can only hope so.

Diet soda drinkers beware! Remeber those scary emails from the late 1990s about aspartame that was circulating and seemed obviously kooky. Well, maybe it wasn't so nutso after all. A story at Salon.com today about a new book "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" indicates pretty much everything will kill us, including aspartame. Plus it's kind of Rumsefld's fault. Here's the bit about aspartame:

In 1977, Richard Merrill, who later became dean of the University of Virginia Law School, was the chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, and he formally asked the U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict the producer of aspartame, G.D. Searle, for misrepresenting "findings, concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests.

This is not some left-wing group. This is the actual chief counsel of the FDA asking the U.S. attorney's office to convene a grand jury. It never happened, because by the time the grand jury was ready to be convened we had a new president. That president was Reagan, and within a month of Reagan taking office, he had a proposal from a guy you might have heard of named Donald Rumsfeld [who was then chief operating officer of Searle].

And Jan. 22, 1981, one day after Reagan's inauguration -- one day -- Searle reapplied for FDA approval. Prior to that, ever single request for approval was turned down by all the scientists ever looking at the data. That's a fact. There's no dispute about that fact. And then, it gets approved May 19, 1981.

Noooooo! Not my Diet Coke!