It's not like the city is incapable of doing anything right. By all accounts, the Police Department and traffic officers handled their end of Tuesday's event flawlessly. But in so many other ways, City Hall bumbling makes Los Angeles look laughably low-tech, shamefully disorganized, simultaneously an easy mark and a swindler, and cheap and pathetic besides.

On the other side of the fold, former longtime legislator John Vasconcellos analyzes the ingredients that went into making the state budget crisis so bad (Hint: Proposition 13 gets dragged in by its tax-restricting toes), and offers his personal recipe for climbing out of the hole. And Miguel A. Estrada, a native of Honduras and member of the U.S. delegation to President Manuel Zelaya's 2006 inauguration, explains why Zelaya's ouster isn't the millitary coup people think. To understand that, he writes, you need to know a couple of quick things about the Hunduran constitution:

Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession.

Photo: The closing moments of the Michael Jackson memorial event at Staples Center. Credit: Mark Terrill-Pool / Getty Images

But it's not clear how long this conservative court will hold off. In the Austin case, the court noted ominously that "we are now a very different Nation" and hinted that a new look at the constitutional issues surrounding race might be coming. In the New Haven case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court "merely postpones the evil day" when these issues will be taken up.

Your editorial writers also find themselves wondering what the folks at the Orange County Museum of Art were thinking when they flouted art-world protocol and did a quickie and quasi-secret sale of California Impressionist works.

Though OCMA officials may have meant well -- and Szakacs is a respected director who deserves credit for returning more than 3,000 works to the Laguna museum -- they have done their institution few favors with the sale. At least one museum in addition to Laguna's is miffed at not being offered a chance to outbid the mysterious buyer.

Lots to think about on the Op-Ed side today. Start with Times columnist Meghan Daum's look at Sarah Palin's resigna... -- no, wait! Come back! This is new and different! There's some good stuff here -- Daum checks out Palin through the lens of her Christian conservative Palin-fan friend, and offers some insight:

* Photo: Karen Bleier / AFP / Getty Images

The study, funded by the FDA and National Institutues of Mental Health, looked at the files on 564 children and teenagers who had died suddenly, with no real explanation for their death. They compared those files with those of an equal number of youngsters who had died in auto accidents. The findings: 10 of those in the first group had been taking Ritalin (other medications were not widely available at the time), while only two of those in the control group had been.

It sounds frightening at first glance-- five times as many? But the children taking Ritalin made up a small portion of either group, and sudden unexplained death is itself an extremely rare occurrence among children and teens. There were other possible factors the researchers couldn't account for. For example, teenagers with ADHD are more likely to experiment with illegal drugs. Could it be that those drugs, rather than Ritalin, caused some or all of the deaths?

The study's conclusion: That there is an association between stimulant use and sudden unexplained death in use. NIMH's conclusion: It always pays to remember that correlation does not imply causality. Just because there was an association doesn't mean that one caused the other. NIMH calls for further studies as well as better screening for heart conditions among youth. And parents are left, as always, to make the best judgment they can on whether to use these daily medications.

Photo by Robert Bukaly/AP

The Real Clear World blog responds to Andrew Bacevich's op-ed on the White House's overlooking of strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq in favor of tactics:

Musings, a blog discussing culture, politics, and education, took offense at the Opinion L.A piece about Amnesty International's recent report that accused Israel of "wanton destruction" and Hamas of "war crimes" in the December conflict in the Gaza Strip. The writer disagreed with the post's assertion that both sides were blamed, saying that the report's full text put much more blame on Israel for the war.

The Oy Vay blog, featuring the voice of a self-proclaimed Jewish conservative on various issues, liked Patt Morrison's post on her disgust with the cash-strapped city of Los Angeles' commitment to using taxpayer money to pay for the security detail for Michael Jackson's funeral.

And the Opinion L.A. poll urging fans to boo Manny's return to Dodger Stadium on July 16 made it onto the Major League Baseball's Fanhouse blog:

Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged blog praised John Bolton's op-ed piece that stated the only way to fix Iran is to institute regime change in the country:

The War Victims Monitor blog re-posted, sans comment, Ahmed Rashid's op-ed on Pakistan's more serious commitment to getting rid of the Taliban and its influences, and the need for strong international support to complete a successful campaign against the militants.

Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media was not a fan of the L.A. Times' coverage of I.F. Stone, both in the op-ed section and the book reviews, implying that the paper overlooked the unsavory parts of the journalist and radical's past.

The Guardian UK's Haroon Siddique included Michael Carey's op-ed on the beginning of Sarah Palin's end in a wrap-up of skeptical articles regarding the Alaska governor's motives for resigning abruptly.

Finally, a few blogs picked up on Jonah Goldberg's column about the Washington Post salon, which charged $25,000 a ticket for dinner at publisher Katharine Weymouth's home and promised networking with top Obama administration officials and the Post reporters who cover them.

The Open Secrets blog linked to Goldberg's piece in their rehashing of the Post's response that claimed they would amend any business practices that weren't clear.

And Chicago Boyz, a blog composed of many different voices, said the following about WaPo after linking to the column:

Elsewhere on the Op-Ed page, columnist Doyle McManus says don't hold your breath for another economic stimulus package. And economists Alan J. Auerbach and William G. Gale fret about the fiscal problems that are likely to be caused by the growing federal budget deficits:

The deficits projected over the next 10 years will accelerate our arrival at a debt-to-GDP ratio that for most countries would signal impending fiscal collapse. Indeed, Britain, with a debt-to-GDP ratio not appreciably worse than ours, was just warned by Standard & Poor's that its creditworthiness might be downgraded. The United States has traditionally enjoyed a favored status in this regard, as the supplier of the dollar, the world's reserve currency, and as a perceived haven in times of financial stress. But for how long?

In the editorial stack, the board expresses chagrin about the recent return to prominence of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, whose corrupt dominance of Mexican politics in the 20th century were so damaging to that country. (And by the way, how can you be both "institutional" and "revolutionary"? By advocating change so gradual, no one notices?) It urges the new General Motors, which may emerge from bankruptcy this week, to take lessons in openness and innovation from the computer industry. And it suggests a simple solution to the funding problem at the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center in Watts, which has run afoul of a new House Appropriations Committee dictum against grants for projects named after sitting members of Congress (in this case, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles): the center should drop Waters from its name.

A name change would involve some cost and inconvenience, but the investment would qualify the jobs center for funding now and in the future, while preserving a congressional rule that sets reasonable limits on pork. When Waters retires from public office, the program can honor her permanently.

Credit: Patrick O'Connor / Special to The Times

"In a letter released today and attached below, more than two dozen leaders of the Second Amendment community from across the nation urged senators 'not to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court,' citing their 'grave concern' over her Second Amendment record."

This irked me for a reason that has nothing do with the merits of Sotomayor's nomination. I'm not surprised that the gun lobby has "grave concern" about the judge (someday I'd love to receive a press release expressing "mild concern"). It's the use of the term "Second Amendment community," the latest in a long line of psuedo-communities.

I still find the term "intelligence community" bizarre, maybe because it conjures up the image of a suburban cul-de-sac where every father playing basketball with his kids is a spy. But there's also the "gay community," the "disability community" and, of special interest to Angelenos, the "entertainment community." 

This perversion of the word "community" has insinuated itself into dictionaries. Webster's online version offers eight definitions of "community." Fittingly, the first is: "A group of people living in a particular local area." But No. 4, with a bullet, is: "The body of people in a learned occupation." (I suppose firing a gun is a learned occupation if you're a sniper.)

"Community" bothers me not just because it's a cliche; the use of the term in political contexts is freighted with the dubious assumption that "communities" are monolithic. What is the "black community,"  invoked so facilely by activists and politicians? Or the "Latino community"? As the liberal-conservative schism over the policies of the current pope demonstrates, a cohesive "Catholic community" is also an illusion.

Our current president was a community organizer, but the ones the young Barack Obama organized were real communities, not constructs. Maybe Obama's experience will rehabilitate the original connotation of the term -- including in the journalistic community.

Photo: Stephen Osman / Los Angeles Times

Davis wrote that "bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another." Why not "get a job during the summer by the time they are 16" to feed themselves? "Hunger can be a positive motivator." Such programs, she fretted, only increase government spending.

A positive motivator to what? For a 10-year-old to steal a candy bar because there’s nothing to eat at home?

Such programs, she fretted, only increase government spending.

Rep. Davis, you want to see what real increased government spending looks like? Take away the free lunches and breakfasts. Teachers find that hungry kids don't pay much attention in class over the rumble in their bellies. Their grades suffer. They get into fights. If they graduate, they may not go on to college. If they don't graduate, they float through lousy-paying jobs with little or no health insurance and maybe can't afford to feed their own kids properly. That's an expensive cycle to start when you might be able to stop it before it begins, with a banana and a peanut butter sandwich.

All this sounded familiar to me, in a California-flashback fashion, and sure enough, I found it:

In 1994, in a series on hunger, The Times wrote about some California school districts refusing, for politico-philosophical reasons, to serve free or discounted breakfast programs to their students – even though the money was already available, and not out of the districts’ pockets. Two-thirds of the money set aside for student breakfasts in California in 1993 didn’t get spent because not enough districts asked for it – and principals and superintendents like this one made it clear why: "The parents have some responsibility for these kids. It’s not the schools’ job to be all things to all people."

One Orange County principal asked, "What’s next? Are we going to provide housing for these people too?"

Mike Spence, a member of the West Covina school board member and future head of the conservative California Republican Assembly, said then, "The government is trying to usurp the responsibilities of the parent. There is a trend to take over aspects of what the family does." The one self-styled liberal on that board said his colleagues believed that "ultimately, God put parents on this Earth to take care of their children. By God, that is what they should be doing."

This sounded to me then as though parents chose not to feed their children: Oh honey, I thought about making you oatmeal and scrambled eggs this morning, but I just decided not to. Buh-bye, have a good day at school!

If kids don’t eat breakfast at home, it’s probably because there isn’t breakfast at home. Teachers and school nurses reported students fainting and crying from hunger. Some of them said they had only one meal a day, and sometimes two, if you counted the free school lunch. Teachers tried to keep snacks on hand, like peanut butter crackers, when kids couldn’t handle their hunger. And when they did eat, teachers saw the difference in attitude, performance – just about every metric they had.

Now Davis has revived the discussion – I won’t say debate because as far as I’m concerned, that’s like saying ‘’creationism’’ is worth debating vis-a-vis evolution. Just because someone poses a question doesn’t mean that question constitutes any basis in fact. Questioning the need for school meals doesn’t prove that there is no need for them – only that someone’s not paying attention, or chooses not to.

Comedian Stephen Colbert’s TV persona was so taken by Davis’ argument about hunger being a positive motivator that he suggested that Davis hadn’t climbed higher on the political ladder herself because of "the anti-motivating habit of eating." He implored the people of the Show-Me State to help: "If you see Representative Davis at a restaurant or a hot dog stand or even through the window of her own dining room, do the right thing and take her food away."

That goes especially as a motivator for all you hungry kids there in Missouri.

Updated at 3:49 p.m.: Rep. Davis responded with a statement explaining her stance, which you can download here. It's long, but the first paragraph provides an effective summary:

We all agree on the importance of feeding children, but we differ on who should do this.  I believe this duty belongs to the parents.  Instead of honoring this time honored jurisdiction of the family, the summer feeding program treats families like they do not exist.

Photo courtesy of Rep. Davis' website.

Hahn wants to try again, and wants to know what it would take to win us over this time. Fair question.

The subject came up at Tuesday's City Council committee hearing, at which Deputy Mayor Jeff Carr reported on the last six months of the city's still-new Gang Reduction and Youth Development programs.

When the Times called for a "no" vote on Measure A, we said the city had not shown it was ready to use new tax money properly. We explained that Los Angeles had floundered with anti-gang efforts for years, throwing money at programs without knowing whether they were working or even defining what they were supposed to accomplish. Just months earlier, the city had scrapped L.A. Bridges and authorized the mayor to take charge of gang programs and to establish standards and evaluation methods. Carr was a newcomer. It was too early to tell whether the city had improved. Here's a snippet, in case you don't want to click on the link and wade through the while thing:

But nothing real has actually happened yet. No evaluators have been hired, no evaluations have been completed, no evidence yet shows that the city has turned a corner.

So, what about now? Is the city ready yet? That's what Hahn was getting at when she quizzed Carr at the committee hearing.

Do you think you would have enough data, enough facts, enough, you know -- We have got it right, we’ve got our programs in place, we’ve got accountability, we have a form, that really the L.A. Times would finally give their stamp of approval to that proposition if we put it before the voters again. Because obviously that was their criticism last time, that we didn’t have enough, kind of, under our belt to actually….

Committee chairman Tony Cardenas jumped in at that point, saying the Times "didn't even understand what we were talking about."

In fact, I think we understood it just fine. For more than three decades now, federal, state and local governments have been de-funding programs that used to provide top-flight education, employment opportunities, recreation and counseling for youth and support for their families. If Los Angeles is to give up its place as the world's gang capital, it must again invest in more than just law enforcement and crime suppression. So we're going to have to pay more. But if taxpayers can't see that every dollar is being spent wisely, any new tax will just add to the current wave of anti-government, no-new-taxes sentiment.

Connie Rice of the Advancement Project said before the election that pumping new money into city anti-gang programs would have been tantamount to putting the cash in a pile and setting it aflame. "You might as well just have a bonfire," she said at a City Hall meeting. But she quickly added that Carr's arrival, and the new protocols for evaluation and training, made a huge difference. She endorsed Measure A.

We weren't convinced. But what about now? I don't think we need to wait until the next ballot measure to gauge the city's performance. For the present, I don't have the answer. Off the top of my head, I'd like to see Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa use his clout with members of the school board and the teachers' union to get the school district to work more closely with the city on youth and anti-gang programs; I'd like to see the academy for training intervention workers up and running; I'd like to see a couple rounds of evaluation of city contractors.

But I'd like to know what others think. Is the city ready? How will we know? Should taxpayers pay up?

I also wonder whether it's too late -- whether the political window for a new tax, with optimistic and liberal Obama voters crowding to the polls and the severity of the recession not yet fully appreciated, is now closed. Or perhaps the Los Angeles Unified School District will arrive first at the parcel-tax well, asking voters for more funds to make up for state cuts to schools. I'm rooting for City Hall, and would love the Times to be able to back a smart, responsible program to protect kids from the gang life, encourage those already in that life to shun crime and violence, and help people who want to leave that life behind to do so.

Click here to read the status report Carr presented Tuesday to the Ad Hoc Committee on Gang Violence and Youth Development on Tuesday, then share your thoughts about Parcel Tax Round Two.

Photo: Al Seib / LAT

"Apparently he thinks the SEC really should regulate derivatives and he worries about mission creep over at the Fed," my friend quipped. "The pope also thinks that Sallie Mae should be regulated as a bank."

Not quite, but Benedict does argue in the encyclical, released on the even of the G-8 summit, for what conservatives will see as a form of international economic regulation, if not world government.

In typically turgid Vaticanese, the pope writes: "In our own day, the state finds itself having to address the limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which is characterized by increasing mobility both of financial capital and means of production, material and immaterial. This new context has altered the political power of states." And the solution? "Once the role of public authorities has been more clearly defined, one could foresee an increase in the new forms of political participation, nationally and internationally . . ."

Benedict is in a long tradition of popes who offered prescriptions for enlightened economy policy. In my Catholic high school, required reading included "Rerum Novarum," the 1891 encyclical in which Pope Leo XIII offered a defense of union organizing that could have been ghostwritten  by a labor activist. Leo said that "some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. . . . "

Capitalism-friendly Catholics  have always had trouble with the Vatican’s leftish line on economics and have wrestled with the problem of how they can be loyal to the pope  and opt out of this part of the program. Their discomfort must tempt liberals in the church to hurl the conservatives' favorite gibe back at them: "cafeteria Catholics."

Photo by L'Osservatore Romano Vatican Pool via Getty Images

The whales that the Japanese hunt, mostly minke, are considered to be at "lower risk" of extinction. Now Greenland wants to hunt 50 endangered humpback whales over the next few years, saying this would be subsistence hunting for its indigenous people. There's certainly precedence for this: The Inuit have been allowed to take several dozen bowhead whales for years. This kind of subsistence hunting is an ancient part of their tradition. But there's more to it. Under the Inuits' tightly managed hunt, the bowhead comeback in the eastern Arctic has been a conservation success story. Adding an endangered species like the humpback whale to the list, though, raises a new set of complications -- which the International Whaling Commission put off dealing with at its recent meeting.

Another issue that has to be addressed is which individual whales are selected out for hunting by the Japanese whalers. A study presented at the IWC meeting found that nearly a third of the whales killed were pregnant. Assuming those whale calves would otherwise have been born and survived, this means a lot more whales are being killed than the number being counted as part of Japan's research.

* Photo of humpback whale by Greenpeace

We also weigh in on President Obama's trip to Russia, which isn't expected to accomplish much -- but even a small thaw in relations between the two countries, and the modest improvement represented by the nuclear weapons pact concluded Monday, is better than the chilly status quo.

And we ponder the lessons to be learned from the example of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died Monday at 93. Though many see parallels between the mistakes made in Iraq and the mistakes made by McNamara in Vietnam, we think the larger lesson is that using yesterday's solutions to today's problems is often the pathway to failure.

Over on the opposite page, columnist Jonah Goldberg thinks all the sturm und drang over the canceled "salons" by the Washington Post, in which lobbyists were invited to pay heavily to attend get-togethers with the newspaper's journalists and top politicians, amounts to little more than posing. After all, many publications offer similar meet-and-greet opportunities, Goldberg says.

The hand-wringing over genetically modified foods, meanwhile, reminds author Tom Standage of another food-related hysteria from a few centuries ago -- over the potato. When the tubers were first discovered in the New World, Europeans feared they were a dangerous, unholy poison. They got over it, just as they'll probably eventually get over their irrational fears about improved crops.

And psychiatry professor Sander L. Gilman cautions against jumping to conclusions about Michael Jackson's cosmetic surgery. True, the King of Pop clearly was fond of surgical reshaping, but that doesn't necessarily indicate self-loathing.

* Illustration by Bob Daly / For the Times

Coming on the heels of the recent Iran election protests, the events in Xinjiang draw a comparison between the two, particularly in the two groups' efforts to use media and their governments' subsequent technological crackdown.

This protest was provoked by the killing of two Uighurs by a mob of Chinese co-workers in a toy factory, fueled by rumors that the two men sexually harassed Han Chinese women. The fight occurred against a backdrop of heightened tensions, as the Uighurs have been pushed out of their province by a growing population of Han Chinese. Hans once made up only 5 percent of Xinjiang's population -- they now represent 40 percent of the region's populous.

The Chinese government is well known for its strict censorship of the media. It happened last year in Tibet during the protests and riots there that, according to the Central Tibetan Administration, killed 220 people just months before the Beijing Olympics. The Chinese people could get little news from Tibet, or at least few reports that included the Tibetans' perspective. And the same has happened now. The government has cut off Internet and domestic cellphone connections to the city of Urumqi, so the Twitters or Facebook statuses from Uighurs and Hans telling of the violence hit firewalls instead of newsstands.

So far, we know that 156 people have died in the continued fighting, both Han Chinese and Uighurs. But the international community and correspondents have been able to gather little more, relying instead on the Chinese state media and groups in the West like the World Uygher Congress, which is based in Germany and has come out against what it calls "China's brutal crackdown of a peaceful protest in Urumchi." In Monday's L.A. Times story, the authors commented that the streets of the regional capital remained quiet and few Uighurs were willing to talk to the press. Many reporters are able to get Internet and phone service through satellite technology, said Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch. 

On the other side, the Chinese government has reported that the Uighurs are solely to blame for the violence and are the ones sparking ethnic tensions that the Chinese military is only trying to quell. Richardson, the Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said the trickle of information coming out of the region has been to little to tell who is to blame for what, which group constitutes the most deaths and who started the violence. 

"We sure as hell don't know who started it," Richardson said. "Uighurs say it started as a peaceful demonstration that turned violent, but it's not clear how or why. They say security forces started firing, the Chinese government says they were provoked and had to uphold public order."

Similar to Iran, which not only cut off media access to citizens and journalists but also blamed the protests on the West, China is placing much of the root cause of the Uighur protest on Uighurs living in the United States, as well as on Rebiya Kadeer, the Uighur democracy leader based in Munich, though she claims she had nothing to do with the revolt. Richardson backed up Kadeer, saying there is no clear evidence that outsiders had anything to do with the protests.

Despite the censorship in both situations, Iranians were better equipped with more technology and a better knowledge of how to use it than are the Uighurs, who do not enjoy the benefits of living in a cosmopolitan capital with immediate computer access or satellite technology. Protesters in Iran were able to widely disperse incredible amounts of information, and doing so caught the world's attention. With China's total shutdown of modern communication devices in Xinjiang province, the reports are slower and the media buzz surrounding this situation is quieter, even though this is one of the deadliest riots since Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Both sides of this ethnic conflict are getting hurt, it seems by the hands of protesters and soldiers alike. Though Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Uyghur Human Rights Project have all documented the decline in human rights for Uighurs in China since the communist takeover 60 years ago this year, Hans are being targeted too in this conflict. Above the ground, however, lies the ever-vigilant Chinese government that is effectively cutting off the right to free speech and communication with the outside world to both Uighurs and Hans -- and no one is benefiting from the blackout.

*This post has been updated from a previous version.

Photo: Young Uighur Turks living in Turkey wave their flags as they protest against China after riots and street battles killed at least 140 people in China's western Xinjiang province and injured over 800 others in the deadliest ethnic unrest to hit the region in decades, in Istanbul, Turkey, Monday, July 6, 2009. Credit: AP Photo/Ibrahim Usta

Sponsor Nancy Barto, a state House Republican from Phoenix, said the goal is to protect Arizonans from being forced into a "government run healthcare system." No such measure has ever gotten a hearing in the Arizona legislature, Barto acknowledged in an interview, but Congress is heading in that direction now with its proposals for an optional "public plan." She added that calling the public plan an "option" was misleading because "when government enters the field and starts competing, and starts making the rules for their competitors ... [it] will  -- drive their competiors out of business."

The funny thing about the "Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act," though, is that the proposal was around before Barack Obama became president....

Arizona voters defeated a similar measure in 2008. The main difference now is that Barto's bill included language that exempted existing government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Not that Barto is a big fan of the federal health programs for the elderly and the poor; she says she'd like Arizonans to be able to opt out of those systems too.

And that's one of the problems with the referendum -- it treats healthcare as an optional cost that people should be able to shed. The only people who avoid paying for healthcare today are those who are indigent or who manage not to pay income taxes. The expense of caring for the uninsured and the underinsured is borne by everyone else, in the form of higher insurance premiums and healthcare bills. The gaps in coverage and cost-shifting are not only inefficient, they stand in the way of badly needed changes in the way heathcare is delivered and paid for.

The referendum ostensibly protects Arizonans from being required to carry health insurance, even though such a mandate is essential to requiring insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who seeks it ("guaranteed issue") and to charge everyone in the region the same premiums ("community rating"). Barto, who favors a tax-subsidy approach to healthcare reform, said she doesn't support guaranteed issue or community rating because they drive up the price of insurance. And that may well be true, if those steps are taken without pursuing other reforms that improve quality and control cost. Yet the focus in Washington, at least at this point, is as much on controlling costs as it is on expanding coverage. That's because the two go hand in hand -- for example, increasing access to primary care is seen as a way to improve results and control costs by reducing unnecessary procedures and better coordinating treatment.

Anyway, Arizona voters will be able to express themselves again on this issue in a year and a half, by which time the fate of the administration's push to change the healthcare system will be known. Either way, the measure appears to be moot. There's no support in Arizona for trying to achieve universal coverage within the state's borders; as David Landrith, vice president of policy and political affairs for the Arizona Medical Assn. put it, "This is not Massachusetts. We have a hard enough time getting our legislators to cover kids with somebody else's money." Nor is there any chance of Congress adopting a single-payer plan that eliminates private options. And any mandates to carry insurance that Congress imposes will arguably pre-empt state laws. Barto admitted that "anything that Arizona passes that conflicts with what's going on in Congress is going to end up being challenged in court." So the most likely effect of the referendum, if it passes after Congress enacts a healthcare overhaul, would be to provide more work for Arizona's struggling litigators. In the meantime, it will give conservatives another issue with which to drive people to the polls. "It's a Red Scare thing," said Democratic state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. "That's what most initiatives in Arizona are."

A notable exception came in the 8-1 holding that an Arizona school had violated the 4th Amendment rights of a 13-year-old girl by subjecting her to a strip search (the dissenter was Clarence Thomas, taking his familiar role as outlier). The near-unanimity confounded publicly expressed fears by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the result might be affected by the fact that her eight male colleagues "have never been a 13-year-old girl."

Ginsburg's anxiety was understandable given the gender divide at oral arguments over whether removing your clothes is all that traumatic for a teenager. Ginsburg must have cringed ...

... when Justice Stephen Breyer said: "I'm trying to work out why is this a major thing to, say, strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym."

Breyer and most of the other male justices eventually concluded that the strip search of Savana Redding was "a major thing."  But  Justice David Souter's majority opinion suggested that the majorness (as the kids say) of the issue may have turned not only on Savanna's age but also on her gender. Souter approvingly quoted this passage from a 1985 decision: "Such a search [of a student] will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." (My italics.)

Ginsburg herself cited this language in her partial dissent. (Unlike the majority, she would not have immunized the school officials from personal liability for the search). At first glance, that might seem logical. After all, the reference seems to echo Ginsburg's observation that male justices "have never been a 13-year-old girl." 

But ordinarily Ginsburg, a pioneering women's-rights lawyer, doesn't emphasize supposed differences between male and female. Indeed, one of her best known opinions in the one striking down the Virginia Military Institute's all-male admissions policy. In that 1996 case, Ginsburg, writing for the court, noted disapprovingly that a lower court that upheld the all-make policy concluded that coeducation would alter "at least these three aspects of VMI's program: physical training, the absence of privacy, and the adversative approach." (Again, my italics.)

I'm not suggesting that Ginsburg's positions in the VMI and strip-search cases are irreconcilable. In fact, in her VMI opinion, she concedes that physical differences between men and women "are enduring," though it's not clear how far she would press that concept.

The notion that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of differences between men and women, or boys and girls, is more usually associated with "difference feminism" than with the notion that equality means treating the sexes exactly the same. Ginsburg is ordinarily associated with the latter, and older, approach to feminism. But wouldn't that view suggest that a 13-year old boy would be just as embarrassed by a strip search as a 13-year-old girl?

Photo: Savana Redding, the plaintiff in the strip-search case, standing in front of the Supreme Court in April. Credit: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The Columbia-Snake corridor is the salmon's only option for survival, and Redden is probably their last hope. He is the one person in this entire drama who is legally obligated to use science and the law to protect the fish from extinction and from the whims of politicians. If the law and science are unable to trump politics to save this fishery -- a fishery that was the most productive in the world just two generations ago -- how will we ever meet the towering challenges posed by global climate change?

Meanwhile, Boston University Professor Andrew J. Bacevich accuses President Obama of having a strategic blindspot in Iraq and Afghanistan, a result of the new administration's preoccupation with tactics and operations. Bacevich compares the situation to that of Britain during and after World War I, when its leaders got caught up in seeing the war through instead of ending it quickly.

As President Obama shifts the main U.S. military effort from Iraq to Afghanistan, and as his commanders embrace counterinsurgency as the new American way of war, the big questions go not only unanswered but unasked. Does perpetuating the Long War make political or strategic sense? As we prepare to enter that war's ninth year, are there no alternatives?

He also sets out a list of principles to bring about a quicker end to the war, as well as prevent the United States from miring itself in a failed democracy-promoting venture once again. As the eighth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, Barack Obama could do well from learning from past mistakes and founding a list of values on which to base foreign policy decisions.

Finally, columnist Gregory Rodriguez ponders the use of the word "evil" in American culture and society, and our aversion to its use, specifically referring to Judge Chin's use of the word toward disgraced financier Bernard Madoff and his actions. Rodriguez argues that by not calling people or their actions as we see it, that we are inadvertently making ourselves unable to deal with such evil.

On the Editorial side of the fold, healthcare reform dominates again, this time honing in on the benefits of covering those who are uninsured as well as exploring various options for universal coverage:

Most important, the large and growing number of uninsured Americans make it well-nigh impossible to overhaul the healthcare system to improve quality and control cost. Bringing those people in from the fringes is crucial to changing the system's incentives, shifting from a model that relies on sickness to one that promotes prevention and wellness, increases the supply of primary care and improves coordination among its many elements.

The editorial board says a public plan modeled after the L.A. Care Health Plan could help boost competition among policies and providers. It also backs a requirement that adults carry health insurance (with subsidies for those who can't afford coverage) and a limited "play or pay" mandate on employers.

Photo: Jeff T. Green / Getty Images

Both administrations seem willing to negotiate. "Pressing the reset button" has been a phrase used within the Obama administration to describe how the president wants to approach U.S.-Russian relations. Medvedev said in a video blog that Russia is "ready to play our part" in strengthening the relationship:

Now is not the time to say who is suffering more and who is stronger. Now is the time to unite our efforts. We simply must improve our relations in order to put our joint efforts into resolving the numerous problems facing the world today.

Although both administrations appear eager to be more amiable than in the recent past, there are still many issues where they disagree. NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and U.S. missile defense installations there are two of the sticking points. In a press briefing, Michael McFaul, Obama's Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs, responded to these two most divisive topics in a decidely non-amiable way:

We're definitely not going to use the word "reassure" in the way that we talk about these things. We're not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense.... We're going to talk about them very frankly as we did in April when we first met with President Medvedev. And then we're going to see if there are ways that we can have Russia cooperate on those things that we define as our national interests. So we don't need the Russians, we don't want to trade with them.

Newsweek's Holly Bailey said one area the U.S. does need Russia is in Iran. The Russians can aid in pressuring the Iranians to end their development of Nuclear weapons. Interestingly, the Russians were the first to recognize the controversial re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while the rest of the world eyeballed the election skeptically.

With the next two days shaping to be crucial in U.S.-Russian diplomacy, we want to know what you think of Obama's trip. Will it produce anything of substance? Do you fear Obama will concede too much? Could relations be strained further? Take our poll, leave a comment below, or do both!

Photo: Dmitry Astakhov / AFP/Getty Images

The city of Los Angeles is a half-billion dollars in the hole. Layoffs. Furloughs. Potholes unfilled, trees untrimmed. Animal services, the ethics commission, whack whack whack.

So why, why, in any rational universe, should the city of L.A. pick up the policing tab for Michael Jackson's obsequies at Staples Center?

For the Lakers' victory parade -- certainly a more civically significant event than the excesses that follow Jackson in death as they did in life -- the city found private donors because of the pushback of public opinion over subsidizing the athletic triumph of, as they say, millionaires working for billionaires.
.
So why is there now any thought at all of dipping into a city fund for ''extraordinary events'' to subsidize this one -- which, if a ''public viewing'' becomes part of the memorial, will turn the whole thing into a Michael Jackson corpse carnival?

An earthquake is an extraordinary event. But Michael Jackson's family deciding, gee, let's invite the world (or at least something above 17,000 members of the world) to mourn our relative -- extraordinary to them, and to Jackson fans, certainly, but hardly enough to stick it to the taxpayers of LA.

Council member Jan Perry said the city would ''deeply appreciate'' any private citizen coming forward to pick up the tab. ``Any company, entity, individual who would have such great love, the city would welcome the support,” she told the New York Times.

I nominate the Jackson family to pay the bill, perhaps going halfsies with AEG, which owns Staples (and was the promoter on Jackson's planned comeback concerts). The Jackson estate stands to benefit enormously from this. The undoubted live, free, worldwide news coverage of the memorial, the frenzy of 10, 20, 30 times more fans clamoring outside than can possibly cram into Staples, will generate mind-boggling sales of MJ music. The Staples name will figure into every video clip.

So why should the Jacksons' private arrangement with Staples to commemorate the passing of a man who was almost pathologically averse in life to the public's gaze become, in the end, a public burden?

Hint: that's a rhetorical question.

Photo: Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

Is it because she's hoping for a presidential run in 2012? The Washington Post thinks yes:

Recent polls showed that her popularity in Alaska has been faltering, though she was expected to be the front runner for re-election.

So instead of waiting out the end of her term, her final year, she's stopping this month to avoid being a lame duck:

So essentially she's quitting on her state -- a great start to a successful Republican presidential bid, wouldn't you say?

She would counter that her stellar record as governor will carry her though the primaries, and she made sure everyone knew her accomplishments before her departure, just in case they forgot.

Palin has been riding the conservative merry-go-round as of late, making her first out of state appearance after the November election at the largest pro-life fund-raising banquet in the nation, according to the latest Vanity Fair article about the governor. She's most definitely preparing for the candidacy, surrounding herself with her closest friends and conservative allies who will continue to tell her how great of a chance she has for the Oval Office against Barack Obama.

I hope I'm right when I say, "In your dreams."

Photo: US Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin blows a kiss at her family while addressing the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in St Paul, Minnesota, on September 3, 2008. Palin announced July 3, 2009 in Wasilla, Alaska, that she will not seek a second term as governor of Alaska and that she was resigning the office. Credit: PAUL J. RICHARDS / AFP / Getty Images

Wow. I didn't see that coming. But I have to say I think it's a great chess move on her part. Honestly, if only Palin's intellectual abilities matched her political instincts she would be truly formidable.

Here's how I read it:

There's a huge void in the Republican Party and she's moving to fill it. So watch out Rush!  Sarah Palin vs. Rush Limbaugh. What can this resignation mean except a frontal assault on talk radio? Because she can't seriously be thinking she can one day win the Republican Party nomination and maybe take on Barack Obama.

Before that happens, Newt Gingrich will savage her. Yes, I know he defended her during the election, but that's when she didn't have a chance of winning. He fully expected her to go back to Alaska and become irrelevant. Psyche! She's making a power play.  Bobby Jindal will talk her into a coma (like he did the rest of us) and Mitt Romney will go toe to toe with her on the issue of who is prettier. And his family is photogenic as all get-out. If she thinks she can out-folksy Mike Huckabee, well, he'll teach her the meaning of 'gosh darn.'" I just don't see her surviving the gantlet.

But it's still a smart move. She got a ton of money with that book deal, so she doesn't need the job. And now she avoids the charge of shirking her duties every time she flees the state to attend a fancy dinner in the lower 48. I bet Alaska didn't have a chance of keeping her after floods forced her to stay home and be gubernatorial while Todd had a ball at the White House Correspondents' dinner.  You know she just hated missing that.

While I simply cannot believe Palin would make a serious run at the presidency, I'm certainly hoping she will. And if she's resigning to start her presidential campaign, then I'm more than pleased. It brings us one step closer to my dream ticket for 2012:

 SARAH PALIN/MICHELE (Obama is going to put us all in re-education camps)  BACHMANN!

Seriously. I can think of nothing that would yield more hilarity.

And speaking of humor, I hope Tina Fey's contract -- the moral one she has with the entire country -- links automatic SNL appearances with Sarah Palin gaffes. I've really missed her.

Photo: Robert DeBerry / AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: AP Photo / Gus Ruelas, File

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

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

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

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

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

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

In honor of this special occasion, Ipsos Reid conducted a poll on behalf of the Dominion Institute to see just how many Canadians recognize their important political and historical figures.

Turns out not too many.

I'm imagining this playing out like Jaywalking, former late-night (now prime-time) host Jay Leno's signature segment where he interviews passers-by about basic facts that they get horribly wrong. While only four out of every 10 Canadians knew who their first prime minister was from a picture, nine out of 10 could pick out 90s pop sensation Celine Dion and eight out of 10 recognized hockey star Wayne Gretsky (the only two people I could identify as Canadian off the top of my head).

Granted, some of the "top 10 Canadians" included the man named the Father of Medicare and 2004's Canadian of the Year, as well as the guy who won the Nobel Prize for discovering insulin. I wouldn't be able to recognize the faces of the American equivalents of those historical figures either.

But not first Prime Minister Sir John McDonald -- whose face is on the $10 bill -- and your current ceremonial leader, Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean (whom only 50% recognized)? That's a little sad. I would seriously hope that most Americans could pick out George Washington and Barack Obama from 10 photos. But then again, the Jaywalkers could (and often do) prove me wrong.

All joking aside, Canadian leaders seemed a bit dismayed by the results.

Some Canadians attribute these less-than-stellar polling results on the country's lack of storytelling, crediting the United States for having a great deal of national pride that has not immigrated north.

Perhaps for its 143rd birthday, Canada's goal should be to tout more of its history so its citizens can learn the stories behind the figures they celebrate on Canada Day.

Photo: Residents of Kimmirut, Nunavut, join crowds as they take part in Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday July 1, 2009. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Sean Kilpatrick)

Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.

But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution." Where were the believers in evolution most likely to live? India, with 77%. And we wonder why that country is renowned for its good education, especially in the sciences--and why this country historically tests in the mediocre realm.

Photo by Darko Vojinovic/AP
 

The third imposed furlough day opens a deeper divide in one of the more drawn-out battles of this year's budgeting process: the one pitting public-employee unions and their Democratic allies in the Legislature against Schwarzenegger and state Republicans, who seemed to have rekindled their relationship after the May 19 special election. It's a topic being debated in this week's Dust-Up exchange between Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and John Tanner, executive director of SEIU Local 721, which represents tens of thousands of government employees in Los Angeles County (their third and final exchange, in which they mull ideas to preserve state services in this budget crisis without reducing pay or laying off workers, will be posted later today). In the comments board for Monday's Dust-Up installment, several readers have come down on the side of Schwarzenegger and the GOP, posting comments similar the one left by "Pete":

Photo: Service Employees International Union protest Schwarzenegger's proposed furloughs and state employee pay cuts Tuesday, June 30 (Rich Pedroncelli/AP) 

Jerry Roberts' and Phil Trounstine's Op-Ed listing six factors that are at the root of California's inability to be governed caught the attention of several blogs this week. The Housing Chronicles Blog linked to a post about its own theories on California's detrimental changes:

Bob Burnett of the Huffington Post linked to the piece in his take on California's growing troubles and who's to blame:

On FarmPolicy.com, a blog dedicated to news about the farming industry that took particular interest in the climate change bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, linked to The Times' editorial that supported the bill. It seems the farm industry, based on the blog's long and varied list of supporters and naysayers, is quite conflicted on this issue. The Harvesting Justice blog came out slightly more strongly against the editorial's favorable position on the bill, offering this comment (which I believe is meant to be sarcastic?):

Another example of the excesses of the "greedy growers," as former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson used to say.  We poison the environment and our farmworkers and agribusiness continues to lobby for the ability to continue to do so, while getting paid subsidies not to do so.

On June 26, The Times ran an Op-Ed by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton -- a controversial figure in the world of diplomacy -- that encouraged the United States to support regime change in Iran. Not surprisingly, several bloggers had a lot to say in response. The Citizens blog said Bolton's argument is a veiled call for war:

The UN Dispatch blog offered a similar reaction, and added that the target of Bolton's attack was clearly the Obama administration, and even worse, offered no real solution to his goal. It was written for a partisan purpose and little else, the blog said.

Gregory Tejeda, a Chicago-area freelance writer and former UPI reporter, took issue with Zev Chafets' Op-Ed, in which Chafets argued that Latino baseball players are being singled out by the Hall of Fame for their use of steroids. Tejada said he knows just as many non-Latino ball players who were disgraced by their drug use:

And finally, Noel Sheppard on the NewsBusters blog was quite taken aback by Karen Bass's statement during an interview with Patt Morrison that Republican radio talk-show hosts were "terrorizing" their fellow Republicans in the California legislature.

Photo: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger addresses a joint session of the state legislature in Sacramento on Tuesday, June 2, 2009. Schwarzenegger urged state lawmakers to act quickly to close a $24 billion deficit that opened in the state budget because of the worst U.S. recession in half a century. Credit: Ken James/Bloomberg News

Why did he perform the chest compressions while Jackson was still in bed rather than move him to a firm surface? On a bed, the victim is simply pressed deeper into the mattress. According to reports, Murray tried to overcome this by bracing Jackson's back with one hand, which left the doctor only one hand to do compressions. Usually, the rescuer uses two hands, interlocked, pressing down with the heel of the lower hand. It's hard work to get a compression deep enough.

Murray also, according to his lawyers, performed the technique for 25 minutes or so before having an ambulance called. But according to the CPR classes I've taken, the procedure seldom revives a patient; it's more a technique to keep blood flowing until an ambulance arrives. Rescuers also generally aren't supposed to try to do CPR for such a long period even if an ambulance isn't immediately forthcoming. They're supposed to show someone else how to do it as they do it, and have that person spell them for awhile. It's exhausting to give CPR properly, and studies show that rescuers, without noticing, start to let up on the speed or depth of the compressions after a few minutes.

It's early for anyone to be passing judgment on how things were handled in Jackson's particular situation, but it would be helpful to have some top experts come forward to comment on how people should handle CPR in an emergency. Given the phenomenal interest and concern in this case, doctors and public-health officials have been presented with a teachable moment that might be used to save other lives.

Photo: A July 2006 photo of Dr. Conrad Murray. Credit: AP Photo / Houston Chronicle

While Hannah argues that Obama's focus in the Middle East has shifted to Iran and he'd rather be done with Iraq, isn't the pulling out of troops and the handing of power to a government we helped build part of getting the job done? Even Bush was not planning on staying in Iraq forever, but that's the track we've been on since the 2003 invasion. Retreating our troops so the Iraqi police can take over the security of Iraqi cities may be the right step to the conclusion for which Hannah is calling.

Criminal Justice Professor Eric J. Williams writes to another aspect of the Bush administration's legacy: Guantanamo Bay. Williams specifically responds to the surprise expressed by many Republican politicians over a myriad of rural towns asking for the Gitmo detainees, as prisons have become an economic remedy for such towns that have lost staple industries.

The two other Op-Eds today offer more hopeful ruminations.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez discusses the action-oriented culture in the United States and its benefits, but also it's disadvantages, namely our quest for answers rather than questions:

On the Editorial side of the fold, healthcare reform dominates. In a continuing series that looks at the most egregious problems with the healthcare system, today's installment focuses on costs and how they can be responsibly cut:

Other suggestions include bundling health care payments into a lump sum and providing incentives for both physicians and insurers to practice in a cost-effective manner.

Finally, the editorial board lambastes a move by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prohibit owners of rent-controlled apartment buildings from raising rents beyond a third of a tenant's income, saying it would make landlords "an unwilling agency of social welfare."

Photo: Iraqi soldiers march during a parade in the ground of the old Iraqi Defence Ministry. Credit: Ali Al-Saadi / AFP/Getty Images

So the exact location of the Jackson house that appeared on the TV screens and Web sites ranged and changed, almost all over the map. It was the broadcast version of rushing frantically, like Keystone Kops, from Bel-Air to Hollywood to Los Angeles to … what’s that place again? Holmby Hills?

The default assumption by some out-of-towners seemed to be that a) all rich people live in Beverly Hills, and b) Michael Jackson was rich, therefore c) Michael Jackson lived in Beverly Hills.

L.A. is so vast that even some residents admit they don't know what city they live in. Even harder for outsiders to appreciate is just how much territory L.A. actually encompasses, from poor neighborhoods of the northeast end of the San Fernando Valley, to the harbor at San Pedro, to Holmby Hills, which is just one more neighborhood -- albeit a very rich one -- within the limits of the City of Los Angeles. Would it help to know that Walt Disney lived there? Or this hint -- the Playboy Mansion is there. But Beverly Hills, its own city, is not part of the city of L.A. Perfectly clear now?

Our elusive geography makes for some amusing mistakes. After the space shuttle landed at Edwards Air Force base in October 1994, the New York Times headline was "After Detour to California, Shuttle Returns to Earth." The newspaper’s magazine asked a month later whether the new place to rival New York’s 42^nd Street as a world capital could be ‘’the intersection of the Hollywood and Santa Monica Freeways.’’ Maybe -- if that intersection existed. (The closest you could suggest to it is the East L.A. interchange, where, somewhere in the complex, the 101 Freeway slides into the Golden State/Santa Ana Freeway, the 5, as the San Bernardino Freeway takes flight to the east -- but not to the west, to Santa Monica.)

The most egregious Michael Jackson geo-error of the story: A colleague watching one of those instant canned network documentaries the night of Jackson’s death heard Neverland Ranch, in Santa Barbara County, relocated by the magic of network television to ‘"Northern California."

That would be the same plant that produced the Toll House cookie dough implicated in an outbreak of illness cause by E. coli. Food companies aren't obliged to show their records to inspectors. Some do, others don't.

The so-overdue bill to give the FDA the authority it should have had from the start -- as well as step up inspections and allow the FDA to issue recalls -- recently won the unanimous support of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but Republicans (heeding the complaints of the food and agribusiness industries) have been weakening it all along the way.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Er, no, wait. They stood to honor Michael Jackson as the King of Pop that he truly was, and Farrah Fawcett as every man's favorite pin-up girl, before taking the rest of the day off:

It's all well and good to honor notable Californians who have passed away. Still, I would have preferred to hear such tributes at the end of a normal business day -- or, in the case of this group of legislators, an extraordinary day -- in which some movement were made toward enacting a new budget. Especially considering that the alternative is California issuing IOUs for the next fiscal year.

Photo: Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, chair of the budget conference committee, left, consoles State Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, chair of the Senate budget committee after the Senate fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote to approve a package of budget related bills at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, June 25, 2009. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)