FULL DISCLOSURE

Police work is difficult and dangerous. Officers who put their lives at risk so that the rest of us might feel safer deserve the highest salaries the city can beg, borrow or steal.

That being said, any officer who refuses to submit to full financial disclosure should not only be prohibited from working in gang units but should also be dismissed from the force immediately. In addition to being an extraordinary public service, wearing an LAPD uniform is a privilege, one which must be earned in part by being absolutely squeaky clean.

Some say they are insulted by the requirement. Get a thicker skin.

Some say it isn’t fair. Is fair that pro athletes have to take drug tests?

Some say they don’t want to reveal their finances to a department data base that isn’t secure. Make it secure!

Officers with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. The public has every right to demand that its police force be beyond reproach.

CROSS YOUR FINGERS

In an early morning vote today, the Senate finally passed its sorry-ass version of the health care bill. A few weeks from now, the bill goes into conference to try and resolve the differences between it and the House bill.

As I was ranting a few days ago about the lack of a public option in this bill - the lack of real competition, the lack of real reform - it did occur to me that the Democrats might be playing rope-a-dope, allowing an apparently emasculated bill to pass the Senate so that they could reinvigorate it in conference. But then I thought, naw, that's way to Hollywood, to Rocky, to good to be true. But yesterday, Thom Hartman brought up the same possibility on his KTLK talk show (1150 AM on your dial). Hartman is a level-headed, knowledgeable, articulate advocate for liberal politics, and he seems to believe that this was the Obama plan all along. I think the key word here is "believe."

I'd like to believe. I'd like to believe that Barack Obama, with his extensive education, his organizational experience, his pit bull of a chief of staff, and his compelling personal history, was smart enough to figure out a way to get around the Washington process and do what needed to be done. I'd like to believe it, as so I will. This is my Christmas wish and my new year's resolution: to have faith in their ability to make this thing happen and show the American people that you don't have to be a bad guy to be a winner. Wouldn't that be something.

Merry Christmas, all.

BETRAYAL

After months of haggling in the House and Senate, the president will probably get a health care bill on his desk before the end of the year. Unfortunately, that bill will not spell reform for millions of America’s uninsured, it will spell betrayal.

The bill that is likely to come out of the Senate will contain neither a public option nor a Medicare buy-in for people 55 to 64, both of which were dropped in a desperate attempt to reach a compromise. It will, however, require virtually everyone to buy insurance. In other words, far from being a humanitarian provider of universal health care, this bill will use the power of the state to make insurance companies even richer. Worse than that, the Democrats will probably hold this bill up as their big accomplishment of the year.

I can’t understand why the Democrats, who have majorities in both houses, have been unable to pass meaningful health care reform. The required 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate isn’t actually required at all; it is an invented rule, and recently invented at that. The majority party could easily change the rule to 55, or 50. They just don’t seem to have the backbone to do it.

I don’t believe in good and evil. That is an overly simplistic view of the world. I have not doubt that those who are voting against reform are doing so because they feel it is somehow best for the country. In the worst-case scenario, they are doing it to curry favor with the deep-pocketed insurance industry in order to get re-elected … and they feel that is for the best for the country.

Whatever the reason, they have stood as one against health care reform. Republicans often espouse their belief that government isn’t the solution, it is the problem. Apparently, Democrats believe that government is the solution, but making it work is problematic.

UNCIVIL ENGINEERING

Most locals are aware that Los Angeles has a little sewer problem. Every now and then the Times carries a picture of a blonde, blue-eyed surfer cresting a wave amidst a sea of human waste, with a big sign in the background reading, "Beach Closed." It ain't a pretty sight.

So, the federal government stepped in and mandated a solution to the clogged-sewer problem; that's the key word, mandated. They put up some big federal bucks and told the city council to fix it. No problem! The city put its best engineers on the job, and the solution can be seen everywhere in the neighborhood. What they did was they covered the storm drains in the gutters with new steel grates. The idea was that the grates would let the water flow in but keep all the leaves and trash out, thereby keeping the sewers unclogged, the federal government happy, and the beaches pristine. Problem solved, eh?

So I'm walking Max the other day and he likes to pee near the gutter so I happened to notice all this new work the city had done. What I saw was this: the gutters, the storm drains, the new grates over the storm drains, and all the leaves and trash piled up on the new steel grates. I thought to myself, "That won't work. How does the water get through?" Which is to say, "How does the storm drain?" I was soon to find out.

As it happens, the intersection where I live is at the geographic bottom of a rather large neighborhood. So if the circus came to town and there was a parade and the elephants peed at Hollywood and Vine, that pachydermal stream would eventually find its way to my house. Needless to say, when it rains, flooding is a major problem. Storms drains have traditionally alleviated that problem, but now the steel grates have recreated it.

Did I mention that it's raining? I called 311, got the Street Maintenance Department, told them the streets were flooded and explained the problem as best I could. The man I spoke to said his hands were tied. "Well I'm sorry to hear that," I said, "but we're up to our hubcaps in water here. He politely explained that the federal government had mandated a solution to the clogged-sewer problem, which the city had solved, and that when they mandated a solution to the flooding problem they would solve that one, too. Until then, apparently, we're on our own.

TICKET AND ID, PLEASEE

Here's a confidence builder. A travel blogger recently announced on his web site that the Transportation Security Administration had "accidentally" posted a 93 page manual on-line, revealing its most closely guarded airport security screening procedures. It held a wealth of material for would-be terrorists, including pictures of ID documents required for congressmen and CIA officials, a description of when to allow certain firearms past a checkpoint, and when police, fire or emergency personnel may bypass screening.

The TSA insisted, however, that it was more of a " public relations blunder than a major risk, because TSA manuals are shared widely with airlines and airports and are available in the aviation community. While it's certainly a type of document you would not want to be released . . . it's not something a determined expert couldn't find another way," an official said.

Whew! I feel much better now. This wasn't an actual security breach, something that might require some kind of accountability and/or discipline, this was just a little "oopsy." Which means that all the BS we go through when we fly - the endless lines, taking off our shoes, playing toady to the minimum wage, minimum qualification personnel at security checkpoints, taking flack from every airport employee who could ruin our flight plan on a whim - is an exercise in futility, because in fact the information is already out there for any nutbag jihadist who knows how to use a computer. This is less a case of The Spy Who Came in From the Cold than it is The Three Stooges Take a Vacation.

ESCALATION

No doubt Barack Obama is usually the smartest guy in the room. But that's a tough gig because it makes getting good advice all the more difficult. Fortunately for the president, Andrew Basevich is in the room, too. Basevich - a former marine, a history and international relations professor, and the father of a fallen soldier - has a crystal clear view of current and past events and an extraordinary understanding of their long term consequences. His op-ed in today's Times (text below) offers a sobering assessment of President Obama's decision to escalate the war. Let's hope the president reads it.

Bart

ON AFGHANISTAN

Andrew Basevich

Which is the greater folly: To fancy that war offers an easy solution to vexing problems, or, knowing otherwise, to opt for war anyway?

In the wake of 9/11, American statecraft emphasized the first approach: President George W. Bush embarked on a "global war" to eliminate violent jihadism. President Obama now seems intent on pursuing the second approach: Through military escalation in Afghanistan, he seeks to "finish the job" that Bush began there, then all but abandoned.

Through war, Bush set out to transform the greater Middle East. Despite immense expenditures of blood and treasure, that effort failed. In choosing Obama rather than John McCain to succeed Bush, the American people acknowledged that failure as definitive. Obama's election was to mark a new beginning, an opportunity to "reset" America's approach to the world.

The president's chosen course of action for Afghanistan suggests he may well squander that opportunity. Rather than renouncing Bush's legacy, Obama apparently aims to salvage something of value. In Afghanistan, he will expend yet more blood and more treasure hoping to attenuate or at least paper over the wreckage left over from the Bush era.

However improbable, Obama thereby finds himself following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon. Running for president in 1968, Nixon promised to end the Vietnam War. Once elected, he balked at doing so. Obsessed with projecting an image of toughness and resolve -- U.S. credibility was supposedly on the line -- Nixon chose to extend and even to expand that war. Apart from driving up the costs that Americans were called on to pay, this accomplished nothing.

If knowing when to cut your losses qualifies as a hallmark of statesmanship, Nixon flunked. Vietnam proved irredeemable.

Obama's prospects of redeeming Afghanistan appear hardly more promising. Achieving even a semblance of success, however modestly defined, will require an Afghan government that gets its act together, larger and more competent Afghan security forces, thousands of additional reinforcements from allies already heading toward the exits, patience from economically distressed Americans as the administration shovels hundreds of billions of dollars toward Central Asia, and even greater patience from U.S. troops shouldering the burdens of seemingly perpetual war. Above all, success will require convincing Afghans that the tens of thousands of heavily armed strangers in their midst represent Western beneficence rather than foreign occupation.

The president seems to appreciate the odds. The reluctance with which he contemplates the transformation of Afghanistan into "Obama's war" is palpable. Gone are the days of White House gunslingers barking "Bring 'em on" and of officials in tailored suits and bright ties vowing to do whatever it takes. The president has made clear his interest in "offramps" and "exit strategies."

So if the most powerful man in the world wants out, why doesn't he simply get out? For someone who vows to change the way Washington works, Afghanistan seemingly offers a made-to-order opportunity to make good on that promise. Why is Obama muffing the chance?

What Afghanistan tells us is that rather than changing Washington, Obama has become its captive. The president has succumbed to the twin illusions that have taken the political class by storm in recent months. The first illusion, reflecting a self-serving interpretation of the origins of 9/11, is that events in Afghanistan are crucial to the safety and well-being of the American people. The second illusion, the product of a self-serving interpretation of the Iraq War, is that the U.S. possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to guide Afghanistan out of darkness and into the light.

According to the first illusion, 9/11 occurred because Americans ignored Afghanistan. By implication, fixing the place is essential to preventing the recurrence of terrorist attacks on the U.S. In Washington, the appeal of this explanation is twofold. It distracts attention from the manifest incompetence of the government agencies that failed on 9/11, while also making it unnecessary to consider how U.S. policy toward the Middle East during the several preceding decades contributed to the emergence of violent anti-Western jihadism.

According to the second illusion, the war in Iraq is ending in a great American victory. Forget the fact that the arguments advanced to justify the invasion of March 2003 have all turned out to be bogus: no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction found; no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda established; no tide of democratic change triggered across the Islamic world. Ignore the persistence of daily violence in Iraq even today.

The "surge" engineered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq enables proponents of that war to change the subject and to argue that the counterinsurgency techniques employed in Iraq can produce similar results in Afghanistan -- disregarding the fact that the two places bear about as much resemblance to one another as North Dakota does to Southern California.

So the war launched as a prequel to Iraq now becomes its sequel, with little of substance learned in the interim. To double down in Afghanistan is to ignore the unmistakable lesson of Bush's thoroughly discredited "global war on terror": Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism.

There's always a temptation when heading in the wrong direction on the wrong highway to press on a bit further. Perhaps down the road a piece some shortcut will appear: Grandma's house this way.

Yet as any navigationally challenged father who has ever taken his family on a road trip will tell you, to give in to that temptation is to err. When lost, take the first offramp that presents itself and turn around. That Obama -- by all accounts a thoughtful and conscientious father -- seems unable to grasp this basic rule is disturbing.

Under the guise of cleaning up Bush's mess, Obama has chosen to continue Bush's policies. No doubt pulling the plug on an ill-advised enterprise involves risk and uncertainty. It also entails acknowledging mistakes. It requires courage. Yet without these things, talk of change will remain so much hot air.

SECRET PLAN

AFGHANISTAN

President Obama is making a major policy speech at West Point tonight, and according to most news sources his plan for victory includes an increase of about 30,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next several months. That’s not to mention, of course, the tens of thousands of extra people and hundreds of billions of dollars required for support. I have one question: How do you define victory exactly?

What would the situation on the ground have to be in order for this administration, or any administration, to be able to say, “Okay, we win. Let’s go home.” Must there be a complete cessation of violence? That will never happen. Are we hoping for democracy in Afghanistan, an end to corruption in the Karzai government, a major increase in human rights? Don’t hold your breath. What is the definition of victory?

This is a tribal culture run by tribal war lords. They care about their neighborhoods, not about global politics or our love of democracy. I do not see anything but heartbreak for America in the middle east.