Governor Schwarzenegger is against Proposition 98.  Makes me wonder what he's planning.  It is a proposition to restore some limits on eminent domain, and also to phase out rent control.

Now, the first reaction of the Leftists is to scream about all of the old, disabled folks who rent and will be thrown out into the streets.  Makes me wonder where these people are when someone talks about the need to get rid of Prop 13, which helped to keep OWNERS like widows from being thrown out of their homes due to rising property taxes.  But getting back to Prop 98 - it explicitly preserves the rent control for existing rental situations.  It is only AFTER the current renters leave or die that the rent control goes away.

Now, I realize that there may be some desperate landlords out there who will try to get people to leave to they can raise rents and try to earn money off of their property instead of losing money on it, but housing laws favor the resident/renter so strongly in California, I can't see this being a big problem.  It would be very easy to get a civil judgment or restraint against a landlord who tried such end-runs.

Opponents of Prop 98 will be quick to point out that those who stand to gain from it support it.  Well, duh.  People are so quick to demonize someone who is providing other people a place to stay.  I don't blame landlords for supporting this.  As things are now, I would never be a landlord.  I'm sure there are other people who feel like me.  That means fewer places to rent, and higher rents.

You can read a recent article on the proposition by Dana Bartholomew of the Los Angeles Daily News here.

Trashing Christians or Christian ideals or the Bible is common in advice columns, pop music songs, television shows, and films – any medium where the author’s statement often goes unchallenged by immediate feedback to which the rest of the audience has access.  The notions presented often float into the mind of the passive observer, who often will not subject it to critical analysis.

I’ve written before about “hit and run Bible mockers”.  But I want to discuss something a little different that is in this recent edition of advice column Dear Margo.

HAPPY WITH OUR OWN BELIEFS, THANK YOU writes:

My sister-in-law is a born-again Christian and very outspoken about her beliefs.

Did you know that “born-again Christian” is a redundant term?  All Christians are born-again.  Otherwise, they’re not Christians, even if they attend church regularly.

She agitates my husband to no end when we are at family gatherings. I can't think of a wedding that we've been to in the last 10 years where she hasn't cornered us about being saved.

Sounds like she really cares about you.

We've tried to tell her that we have our own beliefs, and I usually walk away, but my husband gets very stressed and angry and gets into it with her every time.

It is your husband’s choice whether or not to get angry.  He doesn’t have to say anything to her, or really listen to what she is saying.

She even sends tracts to us in birthday cards and other letters. I am tired of having to deal with this. Any suggestions on how to handle this zealot?

Well, you could cite her own Scriptures in a respectful way.  I’m assuming she believes what the Bible teaches.  The Bible teaches not to “throw pearls before swine”.  In context, it is a reference to leaving people alone when they don’t want to hear the Gospel.  Simply move on to someone who does want to talk about it.  As described, this woman isn’t being a very good representative of Christ.  Christians are called to give a reason for the hope that is within them with gentleness and respect, not to hound people who’ve heard what you’ve had to say and don’t agree and don't want to hear anymore.

Instead of a variation of this respectful and possibly effective tactic, Dear Margo suggests a different approach.

Because your husband, however, seems unable to walk away, suggest he try a new approach when responding to his sister. Here's some early American history I read somewhere: Thomas Paine, considered by many a de facto Founding Father, ridiculed the Bible as a long fairy tale of crime and fantasy.

So Paine should be cited as a “de facto Founding Father”?  What does being an influence on the founding of the United States of America have to do with the fact that this woman is saying stuff that these people don’t want to hear?  If anything, the First Amendment says “let her talk” and “let her be free to have her faith”.

Perhaps the fellow could say that he believes the Bible to be a long fairy tale of crime and fantasy.  But that will only continue the discussion, so it is bad advice.  Of course the Bible records crime and fantasies, because people commit crimes and have fantasies.  So what?  This does nothing to negate the truth or authority of the Bible.

Thomas Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament and cut out everything he thought silly, evil or mystical.

Again, what does this have to do with anything, unless you believe that Paine and Jefferson are the ultimate authorities in what is believable, sensible, and moral?

He was left with a very short book.

Yes, I book that talks about good and evil and God is going to record a lot of evil and supernatural things.  So what?

Then your husband should try to make a case for atheism.

She didn’t write that he was an atheist.  She wrote that she wanted to end the discussions.  This advice stinks.  Too bad a lot of people are going to read it and try the next time someone cites their belief the Bible, even if it is the first time they do so.

Apoplexy guaranteed.

So she should try to get her husband to try to get a rise of her sister-in-law, thereby making the situation worse?  Something tells me that Dear Margo couldn’t pass up a jab at the Bible and so she did it even though it meant giving lousy advice.

Again, I don’t excuse a lack of social grace or politeness.  But I’ve got news for Dear Margo.  The Bible has survived attacks from people much smarter and better at making the attacks than you.  The Bible has provided good advice and guidance to people for thousands of years, and will continue to do so, should the Lord tarry, long after you are dead.  It accurately describes the human condition, God’s redemption of humankind, how to avoid or deal with the pitfalls of life (with much better constancy than you), and how to have a relationship with God.

Game over.

People in Congo are currently lynching each other over claims that sorcerers are shrinking male genitalia.

Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you no culture can be better than any other, and that it is wrong to impose Western culture on others.

Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's pen1ses after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft.

Reports of so-called pen1s snatching are not uncommon in West Africa, where belief in traditional religions and witchcraft remains widespread, and where ritual killings to obtain blood or body parts still occur.

I'd love to see any trial.  Televise it!

Rumours of pen1s theft began circulating last week in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo's sprawling capital of some 8 million inhabitants. They quickly dominated radio call-in shows, with listeners advised to beware of fellow passengers in communal taxis wearing gold rings.

And you thought the stuff on Coast to Coast AM was hard to believe.

Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure.

I understand Bill Clinton complains that Hillary has this power.

Police arrested the accused sorcerers and their victims in an effort to avoid the sort of bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 suspected pen1s snatchers were beaten to death by angry mobs. The 27 men have since been released.

This has to be good for tourism.

"It's real. Just yesterday here, there was a man who was a victim. We saw. What was left was tiny," said 29-year-old Alain Kalala, who sells phone credits near a Kinshasa police station.

Imagine a support group for the victims of such sorcery.  Where is Loraina Bobbit?

Well, it’s Earth Day, where New Age and pagan Earth worship takes center stage, and many theists go along for the ride.  I’m all for conserving God’s creation, but I recognize that the creation is wearing out, even with the best conservation efforts.  Only a resurrection will redeem it.

I prefer to worship the Creator, and admire the creation.

Speaking of that, today’s Los Angeles Times has some letters inspired by a recent commentary by Richard Dawkins.

Ken Savage or Palm Desert chimes in:

Everyone has faith in something that is beyond science to prove.

That is true.  Even a statement such as “Science discovers all truth” is a philosophical statement outside of science itself, and this can’t be true.

Dawkins has a similar problem to those who cannot explain where a complex God came from. Where did the Big Bang come from, and what existed before?

As I understand it, one of the explanations is “nothing”.  If the entire universe could come from nothing without a cause outside itself, how can we trust any lab results?  How do we know matter/energy is not emerging in the middle of such experiments, thus skewing the results?  Another answer I've been told is "We don't know, but we know it wasn't God!"  Uh, okay.

James McDermott of Pasadena:

It is not logically contradictory to hold both that God is the author of all that exists and that the Big Bang and evolution are the ways God created and continues to create everything that exists.

This is true.  It is philosophical naturalism that can’t accept creationism, intelligent design, directed evolution, or any involvement by God.

William S. LaSor of Apple Valley, California:

Dawkins argues that "intelligent design" is not science.

It is a framework for understanding the data.

In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed.

If anything now exists, either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing.

Elaine Fleeman of Bakersfield:

How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.

Yes, the dominant scientific elite would have us believe that all of the life on Earth is the result of a series of extremely improbable accidents, and that we are nothing more than molecules reacting to each other.  Yet, here is everyone celebrating Earth Day.  If the materialists are right – why celebrate?  Where does a moral imperative to conserve the environment come from?

In addition to regular tax money, lottery money, Indian gaming money, and bond money, the government schools still rely a lot on private money.

You know this, because you get hit up during the fundraisers all of the time.

Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, reports.

South Orange County families are being urged to donate $400 per student to save the jobs of 266 teachers in the Capistrano Unified School District.

Parents at Long Beach's Longfellow Elementary are among countless statewide who are launching fundraising foundations.

Bay Area parents launched a campaign featuring children standing in trash cans; the theme is "Public Education Is Too Valuable to Waste."

Yes, more Leftist protest laughs.

A free public school education is guaranteed by the state Constitution to every California child.

Big mistake.  It isn’t really free.

But as districts grapple with proposed state funding cuts that could cause the layoffs of thousands of teachers and inflate class sizes, parents are being asked to dig deeper into their pocketbooks to help.

"Public education is free, but an excellent public education is not free at this point," said Janet Berry, president of the Davis Schools Foundation, which recently launched the Dollar-a-Day campaign, urging citizens of the city near Sacramento to donate $365 per child, grandchild or student acquaintance.

It never ends.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget would cut about $4.8 billion in education funding this year and next.

I believe they are talking about reduction in planned increases, not real cuts.

Public school district fundraising foundations were first formed after voter approval in 1978 of Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases and dramatically reduced school finances.

Ah yes – the obligatory mention of Prop 13, which kept retirees and widows from being taxed out of their lifelong homes.

Education officials acknowledge that these fundraising groups are more successful in wealthier areas, increasing the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

That will ALWAYS be a reality.  Otherwise, what is the point of busting your hump to make something of yourself?  If everything in life is going to be the same for you and your family regardless of how much money you make, why bother to earn more?

To raise awareness, a parent who runs an ad agency created the "Step Up" campaign.

Students, teachers and coaches have perched inside trash cans around Alameda, with signs reading "Our students / teachers / coaches are too valuable to throw away."

More entertaining protests.  Interestingly, the only time children are really dumped in the trash in relation to school is when school staff takes a girl to an abortion clinic.

1.As long as schools are funded by tax money, they will have to deal with less money when the economy slows down.  We have to cut back.  So should the schools.

2.Where is all of the money going?  Certainly not to the teacher or classroom.  It is going to administration, insurance, legal fees, etc.

3.How much money is spent educating illegal aliens and their children?

4.How much money is spent on social engineering instead of teaching the basics?

Separate school and state.  Let tuition, donations, sponsorships, and fundraising fund it all.

Pot smokers lighting up on 4/20 is like a 400-pound man eating a donut.

I mean really – these dazed and confused people act as though they aren’t regularly inhaling the burning leaves anyway.

They’re like alcoholics who make a big deal about St. Patrick’s Day celebrations at local bars.

Have you noticed that some people who try to defend behavior that is deviant or traditionally immoral say something like ... the people who engage in it may be in your family, in your church, in your social circle, your doctor, your dentist, your child’s teacher, the cop who helps you, the fireman who saves your house, etc., or they try to assign the behavior to famous achievers in history?

This can be an argument for "you just don't know who is doing what in private".  It is NOT a good argument for "so you can't say it is wrong."

It is no surprise to any follower of Christ (and a great many other people) that the people we deal with in our daily lives and the people we may admire for their achievements are sinners.  I know all too well that I am a sinner.  Hence, my need for a Savior.

When we recognize something as deviant or immoral, we are not saying that we ourselves never do anything deviant, immoral, or that someone else would simply find disagreeable.  My favorite musician can love rye bread – doesn’t mean I will stop disliking it.  But of course, that is mere taste of no moral weight.

What if my doctor also kicks puppies like he’s trying to score a field goal?  That doesn't make it okay, no matter how good a doctor he is.  Sin or not, we deal with people all day long that do things and believe things that we think are wrong, stupid, or disagreeable.  That in no way means we should no longer consider the behavior in question wrong, if it is wrong instead of a matter of taste.

The next time someone tries this argument on you, turn it around on them.  Point out that they probably deal every day (and get along just fine) with people who agree with you – that people who agree with you are involved in making the products and providing the services this person uses every day.

“You never know who is voting Republican, or praying to God, or studying the Bible, or attending church regularly, or believes in traditional morals!”  We're everywhere, too.

Here’s an example of ridiculous planning and execution in public transportation due, in large part, to inefficient government and political power struggles.

Sprawling Los Angeles County has perpetually jammed freeways, and a very limited mass transit light rail system run by the MTA, which also runs the busses.  Part of that system, the Green Line, runs 20 miles, but does not stop at the nearest Metrolink station (Metrolink being a heavier rail system also running through neighboring counties, and NOT part of the MTA).  It also stops just far enough away from LAX.  Part of the problem is that the MTA Board and Los Angeles World Airports couldn’t work things out.

The MTA Board is comprised mostly of Los Angeles County Supervisors and City of L.A. Councilmembers and mayoral appointees, and elected officials from some other local cities.

LAWA is a subsidiary, for lack of a better word, of the City of L.A. government, though it also owns an runs an airport that is in an entirely different county.

Yet the MTA’s Green Line still doesn’t go to the LAWA’s LAX.

Gene Maddus of the Daily Breeze writes:

A proposal to extend the Green Line to LAX overcame its first hurdle in Sacramento this week, when it passed through the Senate Transportation Committee.

The bill, by Sen. Jenny Oropeza, still faces significant obstacles: most notably, the likely opposition of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

That’s right.  The MTA is against the bill.  Why?  Well, read on.

Oropeza's bill, SB 1722, would create a separate construction authority with an independent mandate to build a two-mile link to Los Angeles International Airport.

The MTA has opposed such efforts in the past - most recently when Assemblyman Ted Lieu proposed the same idea last year - because a new entity would compete with the MTA for funding and control of the county's transit agenda. Lieu's bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee last summer.

Why create a new organization?  Glad you asked.

A construction authority could help clear any political hurdles by bringing the MTA, LAWA, the county and the city of Los Angeles together on a governing board with a common purpose.

Even if it happens, it will take a long time before it is up and running.  Meanwhile, I’ll stick with my automobile.

Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times staff writer, reports that there is a new group trying to get Republicans elected to statewide office in California.  I thought we already had a group that was supposed to do that: The California Republican Party?

Led in part by former Gov. Pete Wilson and two major political donors from Orange County, a group of moderate Republicans will announce Wednesday a new organization focused on recruiting the "next generation" of GOP candidates for statewide office, including governor and the U.S. Senate.

The organization, called California Republicans Aligned for Tomorrow, was created to turn around the GOP's dismal record in those contests since 1994.

Good thing they went with “Tomorrow” in the name instead of something starting with a “P”.

Underlying the campaign effort is the feeling among some influential Republicans that the state party has bent too far to the right, helping Democrats gain a firm grasp on the Legislature, the state's congressional delegation and statewide offices.

Too far to the right?  You mean like, oh, saying we should spend less and we should deport illegal aliens who murder people, and that public schools should maintain boys restrooms for boys, and girls restrooms girls?

The state party's fundraising efforts also have languished in the last year…

Yeah, we don’t want to support shamnesty efforts.  Show us you are true to conservatism, and we’ll support you.  It’s that simple.

Let’s face it.  Los Angeles County and San Francisco are what make California a blue state instead of red, and it is really hard to change that.  State and local government payrolls get bigger and bigger, and thus public employee unions, through compulsory dues, get more and more money to back their political causes – namely, expanding the government to create more dues-payers for their unions.  Employers and property owners largely have their hands tied as employees and renters call the shots.

California has millions of illegal aliens, most, if not all receiving some form of government assistance.  Their children born here are citizens, who can legally vote.  It is easy to get them to vote Democrat, because Democrats promise to welcome and take care of people like their law-breaking parents.

The only hope for conservatives in California is secession of some sort, something that separates Los Angeles and San Francisco from everyone else.  It could mean one or more new states, or it could mean a smaller California as the other counties get annexed to other states.  Either way, that just isn’t going to happen.

In more news of the obvious, falling corporate profits means less tax revenue in California, the Los Angeles Times headline reports over an article by staff writer Evan Halper.

California's budget problems deepened today as the state reported that tax receipts plummeted nearly $1 billion last month due to plunging corporate profits.

The news comes as the state moves closer to the July 1 deadline for lawmakers to close California's budget gap, which had earlier been estimated at $16.5 billion. There is little agreement in the Capitol about how to go about doing that.

Democrats have been calling for multibillion-dollar tax increases. Republicans have signed pledges vowing never to vote for new revenue, demanding instead that the budget be balanced with steep spending cuts.

The Dems aren’t just calling for tax increases – they are calling for new taxes.  All sorts of new taxes.

So I’ve come up with my own.  Since falling corporate profits mean less tax revenue for California, thus forcing legislators to make budget decisions they’d rather not, and scaring children enough they go on picket lines to protest “cuts” (usually reductions in planned spending increases), we should encourage corporations not to engage in such behavior (falling profits).  Let’s implement a “Corporate Profit Decrease Tax” as a way of filling in the gap and, at the same time, discouraging corporations from paying less in taxes due to lower profits.

Hey, it makes about as much sense as most of the new taxes and increases the California Dems are proposing.

“You want to round up entire communities and deport them!”
“You blame all our problems on immigrants – it’s scapegoating!”
“You just don’t like brown people.”

Are you as tired of hearing these as I am?  Illegal alien activists and certain Democrats should stop using them.  I’ll discuss all three below.

1) We seek to round up all illegal aliens and forcibly deport them.  I don’t doubt that there have to be a few people out there who want to do this, but this is not the position of an overwhelming majority of people who demand enforcement of immigration laws.  What we want is law enforcement.  A) As long as we have employment regulations and payroll taxes, employers here should be punished for hiring people who are not authorized to work in the U.S., severely enough that it discourages them from repeating the violation.  B) Identity thieves, through their fraud, wreak havoc on the lives of others, and should be punished and, if possible, made to provide restitution.  Yes, people who commit serious crimes within our communities who are not citizens should be returned to their country of citizenship.  C)  We have a system that is very generous to people in need, whether they are citizens, legal immigrants, or legal visitors.  That system invites fraud and attracts illegal aliens, very few of whom are in a position to contribute as much to our society as they take.  If we had a more libertarian society, this would be different.

There is no need for mass deportation.  There is also no need for amnesty.  We simply need effective border enforcement, and the problem will take care of itself over time.  People will even self-deport if we do serious workplace enforcement and get rid of public hand-outs.

2) We blame all our problems on immigrants.  Nope.  First of all, “immigrants” are people who come here legally, usually with the intention of becoming citizens.  I welcome them with open arms.  People who come here or stay here illegally are, by legal definition, illegal aliens.  But we do not blame all our problems on illegal aliens.  We blame illegal aliens only for the problems they cause, or for their share of contributing to a problem.  It is ridiculous to ignore the impact that millions of mostly unskilled, uneducated, dependent criminals have on our infrastructure, in our schools, our criminal justice system, and our public welfare systems.  When our jails and prisons are overcrowded, it is folly to ignore that a significant percentage of the inmates are illegal aliens.  Same goes for the students in our schools, the patients in our emergency rooms, the drivers on our freeways, etc.

3) We don’t like brown people.  This is ridiculous.  From what I’ve read, avowed racists do oppose welcoming illegal aliens (they probably like their pets, too), but most people on our side are not racists.  I’m certainly not.  I don’t want white Canadians here illegally, either.  However, I do resent demands that we conform to the culture of illegal aliens, including their language.  Sorry, we shouldn’t have to bow to Canadian French or Spanish.  Our language here is English.  We expect immigrants to adapt – we certainly should not go out of our way to accommodate illegal aliens.  Ultimately, though, whether or not someone is racist is a different issue from whether or not we should have immigration enforcement.

Columnist Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee writes about Governor Schwarzenegger’s stance on same-sex “marriage”.  Recently, there was a lot of coverage that tried to portray recent comments from Schwarzenegger as a change in his position on changing marriage licensing in California.  This is because he had vetoed, a while back, a bill by the legislature to change marriage licensing, but recently expressed his opinion that a proposition to add a “defense of marriage” amendment to the state constitution was a waste of time.

That is not necessary a change in position.  When Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, he cited that the people of California had passed a “defense of marriage” measure directly by ballot measure, and so it should be up to the people or the courts to decide, not the state legislature.  I see no conflict with that position and opposing a ballot measure for an addition to the state constitution.  Someone who wants a particular end may not approve of all methods of arriving at that end, especially when there are pending or looming court decisions that may make those efforts moot.  It is possible for someone to have taken both of these actions and support defending the current legal definition of marriage, and, conversely, possible for someone to have taken these actions and want marriage licenses issued where one of the sexes is missing.  (Remember - marriage is the only institution where Leftists support excluding one of the sexes.)

Based on everything he has said since he was first a candidate for governor, Schwarzenegger does not really seem to care whether California legalizes [same-sex] [“]marriage[“] or not, whatever his personal feelings on the subject might be.

The Republican governor has always said that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. But he has never been adamant about his stand.

Indeed.  Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Anything else is a counterfeit.

Schwarzenegger has supported state-sanctioned domestic partnerships that give [same sex couples*] almost all of the rights that married people have. And while he has said the state and local governments must abide by the voter-approved ban on [counterfeit] marriage known as Proposition 22, the governor also has said he would not be upset if the voters or the courts legalized [counterfeit] marriage in California.

In this case, he tends to favor the direct will of the people. *He wrote "gays", but gay people already have the same rights as straight people in this regard - to marry any willing, eligible person of the opposite sex.

If the Supreme Court does strike down Proposition 22 and the voters do not reinstate the ban, Schwarzenegger will be put in an uncomfortable position. The Democrat-controlled Legislature is sure to pass another measure legalizing gay marriage in the state, and the governor would no longer have the voters' will as a shield. He would have to either sign or veto the bill on its own merits.

Licensed marriage is not a right in the same sense as the right to free speech or the right to bear arms.  You have those rights naturally, by birth.  If licensed marriage was a natural right, you wouldn't need anyone else to do it for you; it is the people of California who issue that license, and they should have their say.  True rights do not obligate others without their consent.  The people of California choose to license marriages for the good of society.  We are not obligated to license marriage at all.

You have a natural right to associate with whomever agrees to associate with you.  Therefore, you can live together in your own home, make vows to each other, have ceremonies and celebrations – all of that.  Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.  But you should not be able to force the state to issue you a marriage license against the will of the people.

There shouldn’t be a “need” for a constitutional amendment in the first place.  Courts should not be able to force the people to issue marriage licenses where one of the components – a woman or a man – is missing.  However, courts overreach their authority all of the time these days.

The County of Los Angeles has lost their Director of Health Services again.  That’s the person who oversees the hospitals, among other things.  Fortunately, Public Health was spun off not too long ago into a separate department.

Los Angeles Times Staff Writers Garrett Therolf, Mary Engel and Jean-Paul Renaud, among others bring us this report.

Dr. Bruce A. Chernof, whose relationship with the Board of Supervisors had grown acrimonious, told officials his exit was unrelated to the failed negotiations over Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

That’s the place nicknamed “Killer King” because politics dictated how the place was (mis)run more than anything else.  The hospital serves an area traditionally considered “black”, but is also overrun with illegal aliens.

He leaves as the county Department of Health Services faces a projected budget shortfall of $750 million over the next two years and undertakes the knotty task of moving County-USC Medical Center from its Depression-era facility to a new, smaller complex.

It always seems like there is a problem.

The county operates the second-largest publicly funded healthcare system in the nation, with an annual budget exceeding $3.3 billion, three general hospitals and a network of clinics that together treat about 700,000 patients a year, most of them uninsured.

A great many of the uninsured are illegal aliens.  That, and the public employee unions are two of the major reasons Health Services is constantly in the red and there are problems with this government health care system.  Another is trying to cater to directives from the State of California and the federal government.

Chernof had been promoted to the top department job in 2006 after a series of directors left with short tenures.

Many other County of Los Angeles departments have recently had their Directors retire or resign, too.

Based on a variety of health indicators, the South Los Angeles area remains among the most disadvantaged communities in the nation. More people die of lung cancer, stroke, diabetes and heart disease there than in any other place in L.A. County.

What about gunshots?  Don’t forget those!

The county has long had a hard time keeping health services chiefs. Officials have a history of publicly browbeating them and second-guessing their actions to try to right the beleaguered system.

It’s a really tough Board to deal with.  There are three Democrats and two Republicans, though I believe the positions are officially nonpartisan.  District 1, created specifically for Latinos by court order, is Gloria Molina’s.  Molina is notorious for her public tongue-lashings of county officials.  She seems to prefer bringing in outsiders to run things.  District 2 is Yvonne B. Burke’s, and is the “black” district.  Burke is retiring after a long, distinguished career.  Although Democrat, she sometimes champions (at least ceremonially, if not by vote) causes more often associated with conservatives.  She has tried to keep that hospital open.  Her replacement will be an African-American.  District 3 is Zev Yaroslavsky’s, and is the one that has Hollywood and Malibu.  He represents and area where environmental whackos are quite vocal.  Zev is quite the orator and debator.  Most pundits assume he’s going to run for Los Angeles Mayor or would want a County “Mayor” position, should one be created.  District 4 is Don Knabe’s.  Knabe, I believe, is an ordained minister and fought hard to keep the cross in the county seal.  Although Republican, he often votes with the previous three Board members.  District 5 is Mike Antonovich’s.  Antonovich is the staunch conservative of the bunch.  He has served as a reserve police officer and strongly champions law enforcement.  He also makes it a point to point how just how much illegal aliens are costing the county.

The County Board of Supervisors has executive and legislative authority for the county, and the last time an encumbent was voted out was in 1980.

At times, Molina and fellow supervisors' frustration over County-USC and other issues has boiled over during public tongue-lashings directed at Chernof, especially after state inspectors said patients at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center were in "immediate jeopardy" because of an overcrowded emergency room.

Supervisors repeatedly complained that health officials provided few answers to their questions. And when reports were produced, supervisors complained they were confusing and inaccurate.

These Letters to the Editor in the Los Angeles Times are in sync with my thinking on he “housing crisis”.

Dale Ma of Sherman Oaks writes:

Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. They claim to represent the working class, yet they advocate programs that will literally subsidize inflated home values. This serves the dual purpose of rewarding cheaters and punishing those who were responsible. Letting prices fall back to their natural levels before this Ponzi scheme started would help millions instead of the relatively few a bailout would serve. Responsible workers would be more able to afford a home instead of being trapped with escalating rents that make it harder to save for a down payment.

Further, if this legislation passes, how will any level of government justify "affordable housing" programs? While we're busy using tax dollars to keep prices artificially high, we're also supposed to use tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of homes for lower-income people because prices are too high? Are you kidding me?

Don Martin of Santa Ana agrees:

Let's get our semantics correct. The people living in homes are occupiers and buyers, not owners. The financial institutions that lent money hold the deeds. Those who made small or no down payments have little or nothing to lose. They pay the equivalent of rent but, unlike renters, receive a tax deduction. Those who scrimped and saved to make a substantial down payment should not be paying taxes to bail out those who chose to take on a risk. It is not fair to burden the frugal with the cost of others' poor judgment.

We need less federal intrusion into our lives, not more.  The market corrects itself.  Go after actual fraud.  But do not protect people from their own mistakes.

Does it really surprise us in the age of subprime mortgages, checks for anyone who files a tax return, payday loan stores, and government-as-daddy that our high school students don’t know money?

Jeannine Aversa, AP Economic Writer, reports:

High school seniors, on average, answered correctly only 48.3 percent of questions about personal finance and economics, according to a nationwide survey released Wednesday by the Federal Reserve.

But I bet they can all tell you about our impending environmental doom.

With home foreclosures at record highs, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stressed in a speech that young people must sharpen their financial knowledge so they are in a better position to make sound investment decisions throughout their lives.

Clearly.

In this year's survey, only 16.8 percent correctly answered that stocks likely would offer the higher growth over 18 years of saving for a child's education, while 37.3 percent thought a U.S. savings bond — one of the most conservative investments - would offer the highest growth.

Nearly 53 percent said they would have no liability if their credit card was stolen and a thief ran up $1,000 worth of debt. (Liability is limited to $50 after the credit-card issuer is notified.) Only 13 percent knew they might have to be responsible for $50.

Our schools should be teaching students some basics about economics and finances:

-Supply and demand
-It takes capital to make capital
-Spend less than you make, saving and investing the difference
-Different kinds in investments
-How insurance works
-How credit and loans work
-Interest rates
-How corporations are owned and function, passing along costs to consumers, investors, or employees
-The government runs on our money – when it spends more than it takes in, that will cost us more later.
-Debt in general is costly
-Crime is costly

I recommend people read up on Ron Blue's material.

The surveys, done every two years, were sponsored by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, which wants students to have the skills to be financially competent.