Just how far apart are Los Angeles County leaders on how to deal with "realignment," which puts counties, instead of the state, in charge of parole and a large chunk of the prisoner population? How far apart are county officials from criminal justice reformers, who think California is on the verge of embracing new "smart on crime" policies?

Far. Very far.

Watch, or read the transcript of, Tuesday's Board of Supervisors discussion on AB 109. And take my word for it: The county officials who were talking about impending doom, and the public commenters who were talking about positive change, were all referring to realignment and AB 109, the bill that takes effect Oct. 1. Even though they were talking completely past each other.

Then listen to Tuesday evening's discussion on KCRW's "Which Way L.A.?" featuring Susan Burton of "A New Way of Life Reentry Project," and me. And read Tuesday's Times editorial on the subject.

Then listen to Wednesday's "Which Way L.A.?"  on the same issue, this time featuring Sheriff Lee Baca.

And finally, listen to Thursday's KPCC Patt Morrison program with Baca, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Chief Probation Officer Don Blevins and county Department of Mental Health chief medical officer Roderick Shaner.

The KCRW programs are posted, but you may have to wait until next week for the Board of Supervisors transcript and the KPCC podcast.

Or, I can boil it down for you.

Cooley: Criminals will be running through the streets. Baca: We'll be a national model for educating prisoners. Blevins, depending on the day: We can handle this/We can't handle this. Burton: You're missing a golden opportunity. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky: I told you so. Supervisor Gloria Molina: Everyone just grow up.

How ready, willing and able is Los Angeles County to play a constructive role in turning from a generation's worth of failed "tough on crime" laws and programs to a new, restorative justice, rehabilitation approach?

After you listen and read, see if you agree with my assessment:

Not at all.

RELATED:

romoting rehabilitation for criminals

L.A. County Probation Dept. should handle new parolees

California prisons: 'Non-revocable parole' is too dangerous

--Robert Greene

Photo: Supervisor Gloria Molina. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Carol Crabill, a union-represented staff member in the mathematics department at UC Davis, responds to Larry Gordon's Aug. 18 article, "University of California announces raises for non-union workers," to provide her perspective on how raises are allotted on UC campuses. If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed, here are our FAQs and submission policy. 

Because the University of California is a public institution, there are some factors that need to be considered when reviewing UC's plan to raise the salaries of non-union staff who are paid under $200,000, as well as those of the faculty. This is especially true in the current economic climate.

It is true that the UC Academic Senate Faculty as a group has not had raises since October 2007, and a case can be made that their salaries should be increased to keep up with similar institutions.

But faculty salaries are consistently misrepresented in news articles and by UC's Office of the President. Faculty have received merit increases and/or promotions every two to four years during this time period, depending on their rank on the academic ladder and based on whether their reviews were successful. Most every faculty member who goes through these reviews -- and most do on schedule -- is successful.

Only those faculty who are above scale -- above the salary ladder, and who are few and far between --  must wait four years between merit reviews.

Newer faculty, assistant professors and the lower three ranks of associate professor are required to go through the merit cycle every two years. Some faculty members choose to accelerate their merit/promotion cycles, and quite a number are successful at it.

So faculty members have continued to receive increases and many have received significant raises during the last four years. In addition, many faculty have retention and/or off-scale salaries, not reflected in the salary scales, which they have continued to receive. And those who have grants can receive so-called summer salary.

Likewise, there have continued to be ways to increase the salaries of non-union employees during this time. Specifically, "equity" raises have been used most consistently. Deans and chancellors seem to be able to find ways to increase the salaries of their staff and department managers.

Many union-represented staff make far less than $80,000 and many far less than $50,000, especially the service and clerical staff. The clerical staff, represented by CUE and now Teamsters, hasn't had a contract in several years, and it is a good bet that there will be no contract or raises for clerical employees until there are further layoffs.

These are hard times. Union-represented staff want to do their share to help keep costs low, but it is unfair to ask them to do so while consistently increasing the salaries of faculty and higher-paid staff.

It is the UC students and the lower-paid staff who will bear the burden of the budget cuts. At UC, as is the case in corporate America, the richer get richer and the poorer can't keep up because they are thrown crumbs in comparison.

ALSO:

UC President Mark Yudof: The BMOC

President Mark Yudof's five-year plan for UC

The contempt for teachers extends to Matt Damon

Cuts to higher education: The Master Plan turncoats

California dreaming: Lower taxes -- but don't try to get your kid into a UC

--Carol Crabill

Photo: "Fairness dictates that we take this step," said University of California President Mark Yudof about the raises for non-union employees. Credit: Dave Getzschman / For The Times

Sarah Palin's indecisive, thin-skinned, addicted to the spotlight and very well paid for being a "political" personality. What she's not is ready to run for president. Here’s Doyle McManus' take:

Two years ago, one of the elders of the Republican Party, former Richard Nixon aide Fred Malek, gave Palin some friendly advice on how to prepare for a presidential campaign. Malek told Palin, then still governor of Alaska, that she should do three things: finish at least one full term in office, master some tough subjects such as fiscal policy and foreign affairs (and give speeches to show it), and build a staff that could serve as the core of a campaign machine.

But Palin didn't do any of that. Instead, she has devoted herself to less-demanding activities that have kept her in the public eye and provided a handsome income besides. She wrote (or, more precisely, coauthored) a bestselling memoir that made at least $7 million. She starred in a television travelogue that earned her a reported $2 million. She makes $1 million a year from a three-year contract as an exclusive "contributor" to Fox News. And she has given dozens of speeches at rates that sometimes top $100,000 per appearance (although she agreed to do this weekend's tea party rally in Iowa for free, organizers say). That adds up to an average gross income of at least $5 million a year since she left her $125,000-a-year job as governor.

Later in his column, McManus urges the former Alaskan governor to "end the fan dance [and] let her forlorn suitors know whether she's ready to make a commitment."

 To read many of the opinions on our discussion board, Palin won't run -- unless it's to a spotlight or a pot of gold. Here are a few of the comments.

Another adjective to describe Palin

Calling someone out for their stupidity is not fascination, fear, or reverence. It's calling someone out for their stupidity.

For those of you who think the liberal media piles on Sarah Palin, let me ask you this...does the liberal media call Condoleezza Rice stupid? Do they call Olympia Snowe stupid? Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Absolutely not. They may disagree with them and have articles slanted in the opposite direction, but no one calls these ladies stupid.

Sarah Palin is genuinely, unabashedly, stupid.

--disbelief

Palin's enjoying her time in the spotlight

Sarah Palin is not going to run for president.  She knows she can't win the nomination, much less the presidency, and she is enjoying the adulation that she knows will disappear when the nominee emerges.  Let her have her fun, and if people keep sending her money, that's their choice. 

--TimBowman

Is Palin brave enough to face Michele Bachmann in a debate?

She's not going to run.  Sarah would be top bill in the media if she said she was running -- she wouldn't have to start bus chases, crash GOP events, repeat string-along one-liners, or any of the other minor "issues" to keep her gig alive.   Regardless if she's viewed as a media junky or candidate, she'd benefit -- she has nothing to gain by dragging out her decision -- delays have already cost her supporters who've moved to Perry or Bachmann.  If anyone thinks her delay has a valid reason, think how slow decision making makes a bad executive -- thankfully, her running for president is not an important issue (like whether to hit a terrorist when info pops up with a narrow time window).

Scariest thing for her now is the Tea Parties may lose interest in her when she doesn't run.  Yesterday's willingness to toss aside all the work and sacrifice organizers and supporters made to see her on Saturday to keep O'Donnell away is without precedent -- both for her and any other public figure.   It says Sarah's all about Sarah/her emotions and no one else.  I don't think Sarah likes Bachmann either (some festering resentment from getting bumped from her perch) -- one has to wonder if she'd ever face Bachmann in a debate.  Sarah's going to be in Seoul during the next debate -- this is her third dodge to avoid one. 

--snyderchris87654

Who would vote for her?

Who in their right mind would vote for a candidate who didn't participate in the debates?  If you don't know where they stand on difficult issues, you can't make a logical decision.

--WhatIsWrongWithYouYahoos

Just wait for the convention

By the desperate tone of this article Sarah Palin has got all of you in the main-creep's media coming and going like chickens without a head. Ha! Ha! Ha! She who laughs last, laughs best. You all gave her your best cheap shots from 2008 till today in an orchestrated effort to destroy her but look at who is crying now. I hope she never makes a choice and keeps all you liberal Palin haters with your skivvies all tied up in knots until the Republican National Convention. It would serve the media right if the 2012 convention nominated her in a draft by acclamation. Palin and Rubio in 2012!

--Socorro V

*Spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.

RELATED:

The problem with Perry

McManus: A two-man GOP presidential race?

Where do Republicans stand on social mobility?

2012 campaign: Defending Michele Bachmann (generically)

Our next GOP president must facilitate the American dream

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Buttons showing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former President Reagan are displayed at Tea Party Express tour kickoff on Aug. 27 in Napa. Credit: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

In his Blowback submission, John Sabo takes on both Victor Davis Hanson's Aug. 7 Op-Ed, "California's water wars," and Doug Obegi's Aug.10 response, "It isn't fish vs. farmers." Sabo is an associate professor in the School of Life Sciences and senior sustainability scientist at the Global Institute of Sustainability at Arizona State University. He was a visiting scholar at UC Santa Barbara for the past year.

If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed, here are our FAQs and submission policy. 

 I agree with Doug Obegi's thesis that the California water war is not as simple as fish versus farmers, but the story is not as simple as the dollar value of salmon versus tomatoes either.  In either case, water shortage means jobs lost and the end of a way of life for families who have known that way of life for generations. The California water war is one symptom of a larger sustainability problem we face across the Southwestern United States: how to balance freshwater needs for farms, cities and ecosystems. Balancing these needs in a region that is already chronically water stressed will present some difficult lifestyle choices.

Rivers are the only renewable supply of freshwater in the Southwest, including California and six other states dependant on Colorado River water. These seven basin states appropriate the equivalent of 76% of the flow of all rivers in the Southwest, and many of them run dry.  Add to this climate change.  The freshwater in rivers is projected to decline by as much as 30% over the next 50 to 90 years.  Demand will also increase.  California's population is expected to reach 60 million by 2050, a 1.5-fold increase in 50 years.   

Thus, water authorities are in search of new or reused sources of water. Reclaimed water is certainly central to the solution in cities.  Half of all household use is sprinkled on the yard, and a sizable fraction of the other half is used to flush toilets.  Reclaimed water could be used instead of precious drinking water in these cases, reducing domestic demand by more than 50%.  Unfortunately, the infrastructure for reclaimed water is not widely available, and it is costly.

Tap water and even domestic water use is a small drop in the bucket.  Farms use 80% of the water consumed in the West, and more than half of this water reaches the crops via flood irrigation, which is inefficient but inexpensive. Some center pivot and most drip irrigation applications are up to 38% more efficient.  Conversion of all farmland under flood irrigation to a more efficient application would save 5.6-18.8 million acre feet, depending on the assumed volume of return flow that can be reused in flood irrigated farmland.  The low estimate is equivalent to 43% of the total withdrawals for all domestic, public and industrial use across the seven basin states in 2005. The high estimate is greater than all of these withdrawals and equivalent to more than half the volume of Lake Mead in water savings, every year. Not a trivial volume. 

Should we mandate farm efficiency measures?  Why don't we make farmers convert to more efficient irrigation technology to save water for cities and ecosystems? 

The answer is cost and lifestyle. Do you like to eat a baby green salad with heirloom tomatoes drizzled with organic olive oil, pistachio crusted salmon with an avocado aioli or sip a fine Pinot Noir?  I have a soft spot for all of these delicacies grown or harvested in the Golden State. But that prospect might be in jeopardy if farmers have to pay to upgrade their infrastructure.

That cost exceeds $18 billion. This is just the startup cost. This cost would likely be passed on to consumers at top eateries and farmers markets in terms of higher food prices. 

Question: What is the solution to this important problem? 

Answer: Tiered water pricing and increased water tariffs at home. 

We should expect to pay more for water in cities as they grow. This revenue should then be earmarked for financing startup costs for irrigation efficiency, reclaimed water systems and to buy back water for ecosystems. Call it what you like. The "T" word.  An environmental surcharge.  A farm subsidy. I like to think of it as a lifestyle choice. I like affordable, nutritious produce, and I like that it comes from a farm that is not too far away. Moreover, my water bill is much less than my grocery bill. So I would rather pay more for the water I use at home and see agriculture and salmon persist in the West than see my grocery bills soar while most of the West waters lawns with tap water.

RELATED:

California drought drove up energy costs

Editorial: Droughts and deficits in California

Horses vs. California's precious water resources

Jim Newton: The tangled web of DWP rate increases

A prescription for unreliable water and volatile pricing

-- John Sabo

Photo: Workers for Wente Family Estates strip unwanted shoots from vines at Silva Ranch in Livermore, Calif. Credit: Jim Stevens / Contra Costa Times / MCT

 
Is the best government one that governs the least? 

Many Republicans today argue yes. 

If so, they have their wish, both in Washington and in California.

We may not have the small government they want, but we certainly have a government that doesn't govern much.

Nothing is too big, or too small, to fight over in Washington today.  Disaster aid for victims of Hurricane Irene?  Not so fast, says House GOP leader Eric Cantor.

The president wants to address Congress  on jobs -– everyone's No. 1 issue?  Not so fast, says House Speaker John Boehner.  

It's smart politics by Republicans, who want to win back the presidency in 2012 and see no reason to help out President Obama and the Democrats.

And if the GOP succeeds in 2012?  Then Democrats will take on the obstructionist role. 

And if the GOP fails?  Well, why would it help a second-term Obama, when there's always 2016 to look forward to?

As my dad used to say: We're in for a long, cold winter.

But does it really matter? After all, Democrats pushed for an economic stimulus, but the economy is still struggling and unemployment remains high.

Republicans say government can't create jobs.  Of course, to spur job creation, they push for lower taxes, which they got through the extension of the Bush tax cuts. But the economy is still struggling and unemployment remains high.

So, if Obama is reelected, should we try another stimulus?

And, if a Republican wins, should we cut taxes?

Isn't one definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results"?

OK, we can’t expect government to help us out on the big issues.  What about the smaller stuff?

A conservative mantra, especially in California, is that government is strangling business with regulations.

As a counterpoint, talk to the people of San Bruno. As The Times reported this week:

In a scathing critique, federal investigators blamed Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for what one official called "baffling" mistakes that led to a gas pipeline explosion last September that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in the Bay Area last year.

The National Transportation Safety Board also said PG&E exploited the lack of monitoring by regulators, who mistakenly placed "blind trust" in the utility. ... 

The NTSB also took aim at the California Public Utilities Commission and the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for contributing to the tragedy. They said that in 1961 the utilities commission exempted all natural gas pipelines built before 1961 from pressure testing. The federal government did the same for pipelines built before 1970. ...    

The NTSB estimates that about half the natural gas pipelines in the United States or about 150,000 miles of lines were built before 1970. Because of the exemptions, the NTSB said it was impossible to determine the safety levels of those lines. According to the agency, PG&E has assessed only about 65 feet of the 47 miles of gas pipeline it operates through San Bruno and the western part of the Bay Area. ...

Board members said they were dismayed that the resources for regulatory agencies have been reduced over the years, forcing inspectors to rely increasingly on representations and self-assessments from utilities that they are doing the right thing.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like PG&E wasn't exactly strangled by regulations. Sounds to me more like everyone involved, in business and government, played Russian roulette with the safety of the good folks of San Bruno, and lots of other people as well.

So let's ask that question again: Is the best government one that governs the least? 

RELATED:

How to pay for disasters

August sales at major retailers beat expectations

S.C. governor rejects health insurance exchange funds

Taxpayers will foot big share of post-Irene flooding costs

Our next Republican president should favor smaller government

State lawmakers and Amazon have been fighting on several fronts over the legislature's attempt to compel more online retailers to collect sales taxes on the items they sell to Californians. Amazon has refused to comply and is backing a referendum to repeal the law, prompting Democratic leaders to try to block the referendum with some, err, creative procedural maneuvers.

Now, according to the Sacramento Bee, Amazon is offering a truce of sorts: it will hold off on the referendum if the state doesn't try to force it to collect sales taxes for two years. To sweeten the deal, the Bee reported, the company has promised to employ 7,000 more people at a distribution facility in California.

Amazon has struck deals like this with other states, trading the promise to hire more workers in a state for détente in the war over sales taxes. But these negotiations come at the expense of the many retailers who are compelled to collect the tax, and as such are at a competitive advantage. That’s unseemly, and it smacks of a referee settling the rules for a game by talking to just one team.

The fundamental issue here isn’t whether shoppers should pay sales taxes –- they have to do so regardless of where they shop. But retailers with a clear connection to California, such as those with stores or headquarters here, are compelled to collect the tax, while those who don’t are not. Instead, shoppers are expected to pay the tax voluntarily when they file their annual returns.

Nevertheless, there’s a reason why lawmakers might want to strike such a deal:

Amazon has a pretty good shot at winning the referendum fight and spiking the tax law anyway. For the state, that could be worse than the status quo, which has Sacramento and Amazon merely arguing with each other over the current duties of online retailers. If Amazon wins at the ballot box –- after a campaign that would no doubt invoke the state’s long anti-tax tradition -– voters will have cemented in place an unequal sales tax system. Brick-and-mortar retailers, plus online retailers that acknowledge a nexus to California, would continue adding sales tax to the customer’s bill. Amazon and similar out-of-state retailers would continue to leave it off.

Meanwhile, the war goes on. The Health and Human Services Network of California on Wednesday launched a campaign to get shoppers to ask Amazon to drop its resistance to collecting sales taxes.

RELATED:

Amazon to California: Drop dead!

California's fight over direct democracy

Amazon debate: Is the Golden State just desperate for more gold?

-- Robert Greene and Jon Healey

Credit: Reuters / Rick Wilking

The Weekly Standard's Opinion editor, Matthew Continetti, contributed to our Wednesday Op-Ed pages to call on our "next Republican president" to present a plan for social mobility. In his piece he points out the success stories of GOP presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, who both scratched themselves out of meager beginnings, and he also praises Mitt Romney for not "sliding back down" the income ladder he was born at the top of.

The question facing the Republican candidates, then, is this: How do we align economic and social incentives in a way that fosters independence and drive? The Republicans might start by looking at things that make life easier for working families.  […]

Family, education and work all helped the Republican front-runners realize the American dream. Now it's time for them to let the less fortunate in on the secret to success.

Here are the suggestions readers are offering on our discussion board.

Romney knows the value of work and education

I genuinely appreciated your piece.  May I offer that Mitt Romney is one generation away from poverty.  His father grew up much more like Michele and Rick.  Mitt was raised in a home that taught the value of work and education.  He learned the lessons taught by a father and mother and continued the upward climb to the "American dream".  In the process he has not forgotten the lessons.  I was impressed and continue to be impressed with his not taking a salary for his work with the Olympics nor as Governor of the State of Massachusetts.  His service record is as commendable as his employment record.

I know education, strengthening families, protecting this nation, advancing American values are extremely high on Mitt Romney's list.  He is not a power hungry type of person.  He really is the down to earth gentleman that his wife attests to.  He is a family man.  He cares about the future of Americans and thus America.  You are right he knows "how it is to be done" and I am sure he is anxious to put his shoulder to the wheel.

--thinkingitthrough

No more government handouts

The one thing these three candidates did not need to become successful was a government handout. All gained their success from hard work. They did not need government "stimulus" to become successful. 

They also know the corrosive negative effects of inflation that occurs as a result of running huge budget deficit hits the lower income population the hardest.

Obama and Bernanke, by monetizing our debt (printing money), are causing inflation.  By stripping away people's buying power it keeps the underprivileged from getting ahead. 

- jjmart

We need structural social mobility

Social mobility is caused by two factors: (1) Individual movement in the social mobility table (upwards), and (2) structural social mobility, the increased opportunities or sizes of classes. In my opinion, both political parties have their own way of increasing social mobility -- Democrats tend to do it through the former via preferential treatment, affirmative action, and diversity paradigms, while Republicans tend to create more structural opportunities at middle class and top through tax breaks, less regulation, etc. 

Technically Bachmann and Romney have the good record on this, while Rick Perry doesn't. While Texas may be doing good overall economically, this is due to a massive increase in the lower-class. 

Ultimately structural mobility is the stronger of the two for this economy. With the internet, certain types of jobs are disappearing, and new types of jobs are reappearing. It's not just Amazon putting booksellers out of business, but the internet is creating a new style of life. This style of life has more demands on certain products and less on others. As a nation, we have to figure out how to adapt our economy to produce the new products that we want, and what the world wants. Instead we are pouring money into things that may not necessarily give us this. It's more important than ever to reduce taxes and regulations -- any Republican will be running on that.

--shaheen13

Government should step out of the way

The best form of social mobility that the Republicans can provide is to prevent government from being a roadblock or impediment on the way up.

-- TimBowman

Government is the problem

The principle is simple: radically reduce the size, scope, power and cost of government to ensure maximum individual liberties and economic freedoms.

Government is the problem; get government out of the way and we'll have all the "social mobility" and economic growth we need.

--candorman

The Republican view of social mobility

The Republican view of social mobility is that it's only upward if you're already on top. For everyone else, the only social mobility is *downward*.

--pj.evans88

Social mobility is a personal choice

In the rat race of life, there cannot be winners without losers.

Social mobility is a personal choice, not a government issue.

--Scaley MacKerel

*Spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.

RELATED:

The problem with Perry

Palin the procrastinator

Why Ron Paul isn't top-tier

The United States of 'Jesusland'?

A two-man GOP presidential race?

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: GOP presidential candidates, from left to right: Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Credits: Brett Flashnick, Jim Cole, Sue Ogrocki / Associated Press

Wait, this can't be right. "Another busy week for feature filming in L.A.,"  says The Times headline.

Naw. Must be a misprint. Everyone knows that movie and television productions are fleeing California like rats from a sinking ship. Right?

Apparently not. According to the story:

Feature film activity in Los Angeles continued to grow at a brisk pace, with on-location shoots for movies once again posting double-digit increases.

Filming for features generated 189 production days for the week ended Sunday, up 66% from the same time a year earlier, according to recently released data from FilmL.A. Inc., which handles permits for film shoots on streets and noncertified soundstages in the city and unincorporated areas of the county.

So, it turns out that movie stars don't want to live in Austin, or Vancouver, or Cleveland, or wherever else our homegrown industry is supposed to be setting up shop.

But what about the fact that California supposedly refuses to compete with the tax credits other states are offering the movie industry?

Again, from The Times' story:

Activity is expected to remain strong as two other high-profile movies get underway: “Argo,” about the Iranian hostage crisis, starring and directed by Ben Affleck; and “The Gangster Squad,” a star-packed period drama with Sean Penn, Josh Brolin and Emma Stone about the Los Angeles Police Department’s anti-mafia unit in the 1940s and 1950s.

Both films received approval for state film tax credits under a program whose future is being debated in Sacramento. The state Senate is expected to vote next week on a bill to extend the credits beyond 2012, though it’s unclear whether the final bill would extend the $100 million in annual funding for five years or just one.

Well, what do you know. As a state, we're not all-thumbs after all.

Also in the Business section was this little story: "CoreLogic to move from Santa Ana to Irvine."

Property and credit data provider CoreLogic said it would move its headquarters from Santa Ana to Irvine, and also said it was considering a sale of the company, causing its stock to surge.

What are those folks at CoreLogic thinking?  Don't they know California is a terrible place to do business, and that they're supposed to be packing up and moving to Texas? 

Guess not.

I know, I know, one company staying here and a few good weeks of film production don't solve California's problems.  The unemployment rate is terrible.  Sacramento is a mess.

But let's not get carried away.

After all, even Rick Perry, Texas' governor and a GOP presidential candidate, loves California –- when it comes to raising campaign cash.

As The Times reported last week:

So where is Perry turning to for cash?

California, not surprisingly, is a major target. The Texas governor plans a busy swing through the state on Sept. 8 and 9, packing in six fundraising functions from San Diego to East Palo Alto, according to an invitation being distributed to donors. The cheapest tickets go for $1,000 a head, but fundraisers are also being asked to consider bundling $20,000 to $50,000 each to co-host events.

Hmmm, guess we've got just enough rich people left in our bankrupt state to pour money into the coffers of a guy who is constantly trying to steal jobs from us.

Try that on the stump, governor, when you're looking for California votes.

Honestly, though, I've never understood the folks who live here but seemingly hate their own city, or state. 

California is blessed. It has a great climate. It has wonderful recreation. It has professional sports, and theater, and music, and food. It has great universities, and great businesses.  And it has talented, hardworking people.

Yes, times are tough. But California is still a great place to live and work. Just ask Ben Affleck -– or Rick Perry.

RELATED:

Obama to address Congress on jobs creation

Ted Rall: You know it's bad when we're tunneling to Mexico

President Obama picks a labor economist to help on jobs front

On Location: 'The Mentalist' TV drama joins film and marketing effort

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Christian Bale as Batman in a scene from "The Dark Knight." Follow-up "The Dark Knight Rises" is currently filming in L.A. Credit: Warner Bros.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is being lacerated for not including any clergy in the principal ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Nor will there be a prayer.

If a minister can deliver an invocation at a presidential inauguration, it's hard to see a constitutional argument against a non-denominational, clergy-led prayer at a city’s memorial event.

One of the arguments for clergy-led prayer is that it's innocuous -- a form of what legal scholars call "ceremonial deism."

But here's the catch: If various religions earnestly believe in propositions that are unique to them -- say, the saving power of Jesus' death for Christians -- a non-denominational prayer is a kind of betrayal.

Perhaps the argument against that sort of observance isn't legal but religious.

RELATED:

Politics and religion can mix

The United States of 'Jesusland'?

9/11: Using poetry to cope with tragedy

9/11 and Al Qaeda: The price of victory

9/11: Lower Manhattan, 10 years after [Photo essay]

--Michael McGough

Photo: Mayor Bloomberg. Credit: Jamie Rose / Getty Images

Alabama's hideous immigration law, which was to take effect Thursday, was temporarily blocked on Monday. Since its introduction, the law has been criticized because it ...

--"effectively turns police and civilians into immigration agents." [Los Angeles Times]

--is "the country’s cruelest, most unforgiving immigration law [...] that so vividly brings to mind the Fugitive Slave Act, the brutal legal and law-enforcement apparatus of the Jim Crow era." [New York Times]

--"jeopardizes reasonable, compassionate outreach by religious groups." [Cullman Times]

--"cement[s] Alabama’s reputation as a state where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s work is unfinished." [Washington Post]

The harshest critics of illegal immigration see the issue through a different lens. Why, they ask, should we hand over our jobs to undocumented workers when so many of our own citizens are unemployed? Why, they'd like to know, should our tax dollars subsidize a free education for children who are here illegally? Alabama's law would surely answer those concerns with an iron fist.

A recent piece in the Economist, however, explains why it's a good idea to embrace immigration. And, further, that we should be concerned about the recent decrease in immigration to the U.S.

Politicians often say that they want a sensible debate about immigration; but too often they pander to voters’ fears of immigrants rather than attempting to allay them. They should be particularly wary of doing so now. There is growing competition for their skills elsewhere (see article): Asia is fast becoming the new magnet for migrants.

China, which used to be closed to immigrant labour, is now handing out residency permits to professionals, academics and entrepreneurs. In 2009 Shanghai recorded 100,000 foreigners living there. A similar number have settled in the southern port of Guangzhou, drawn from Europe, the Middle East and Africa. South Korea has also witnessed a rise in incomers since 2007 and is particularly keen to attract American-educated graduates.

Immigration is, on the whole, good for economies; and right now, rich countries can do with all the economic help they can get. Rather than sending immigrants home, with their skills, energy, ideas and willingness to work, governments should be encouraging them to come. If they don’t, governments elsewhere will.

RELATED:

Sanctuary city? Not L.A.

Alabama targets immigrant students

U.S. sues over Alabama immigration law

The backlash against Obama's immigration plan

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Children sit in the gym at Crossville Elmentary School in Crossville, Ala., this month. Credit: Jay Reeves / Associated Press