A crucial step toward retirement security for the working class

It's amazing, and depressing, when political compromise functions only to throw obstacles in the way of ideas that bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

Today's example: the long, tortuous road to bringing more retirement security to working-class Californians.

In September, the state launched a plan to enable these workers to put aside about 3% of their wages a year for retirement. As enacted by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the program's goals would be modest indeed.

The best thing about the plan is that it would allow workers to build up retirement stakes at low cost and low risk; their contributions would be pooled with other enrollees' for the purpose of making investments, which would cut down on fees. Workers would be signed up automatically, though they could opt out at any time. They'd be protected against the loss of their contributions and guaranteed a modest investment gain — say about 3% over inflation. When they retire, their nest eggs would be turned into annuities designed to last to the end of their lives, presumably at a conversion cost lower than they might incur in the commercial annuity market.

There would be no cost to state taxpayers. Employers with five or more workers would be required to offer the plan to their workforce and to allow contributions to be withheld through their payroll systems, as they do for taxes. They'd be free of any other legal or administrative burdens.

It's a great deal. It's also necessary, given the decades-long assault on employer-sponsored defined-benefit pensions, which were once an important pillar of retirement security for average Americans. "This could be a real model for the nation," Karen Friedman, policy director at the Pension Rights Center in Washington, told me.

But it's going to take at least two more years to get off the ground, which is ridiculous. That's chiefly because the legislation requires that a feasibility study be done first to determine the demand for such a plan and the best way to avoid sticking taxpayers with the costs of an investment guarantee, and a few other details. The kicker is that the feasibility study has to be financed from privately raised funds, and that takes time.

"I'm going door to door in Echo Park to get people to chip in dollars," says the plan's creator, state Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles). He'll soon widen his appeal to big unions in the hope of more rapidly amassing the $500,000 or more he'll need to finance the study. As it stands now, he hopes to start the study next year and get the program launched in 2015. But he says the privately financed study was the price of securing Brown's support.

You may ask why the state should step in and help workers obtain pensions. The answer is that fewer and fewer employers offer pension plans of any sort. The problem is acute among mid-size and small businesses, and even worse among those with relatively low-paid workforces.

A 2011 conference at Berkeley found that California does poorly by its working class according to this measure. Nearly half of all the state's workers aren't offered retirement plans at work, and only 44% participate even if they have the opportunity.

"If we don't get these people into a retirement savings mode, we are going to have a retirement insecurity tsunami," De Leon says. "Folks are going to retire when their arms, their legs, their shoulders give out, and they'll only have Social Security because they'll have built up no assets over time. There's nothing for working folks."

It's fashionable nowadays to portray retirees as an affluent class, doing much better financially than their offspring currently in the workforce. The goal is to promote the idea that it's OK to hack away at Social Security and Medicaid because our plutocratic seniors can suck up the cuts. This is a dangerous fantasy promulgated by congressmen and Washington pundits who will never have to fear landing on the wrong side of the miscalculation.

The truth is that today's retirees are the last beneficiaries of a bygone world, as Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University, observed at the Berkeley meeting. A quarter-century ago, 80% of large and mid-size employers offered a defined-benefit pension, the model that imposed the least risk on the worker and supplied the longest-lasting retirement income stream. Today that figure is about 30%. Some of those plans have been replaced by 401(k)-style plans, to which workers contribute out of their wages (sometimes supplemented by the employer) and then cross their fingers that their investment choices will yield decent returns over the decades.

These are a thin reed, however. The vast majority of workers don't contribute the maximum permitted, or even enough to build up a secure nest egg; the median 401(k) balance for households approaching retirement is only about $60,000, which will barely be enough to flavor the potatoes over an average post-career life span — and that's among households that have any 401(k) at all (fewer than 70%, according to researchers at Boston College).

Don't forget that many of today's seniors cashed in historic gains in asset values before retirement, including their homes and stock portfolios. We haven't begun to see the full effect of the housing crash and two successive stock market crashes on the wealth profile of newly retiring workers; but we can be sure that it will be ugggggly.

"Since World War II, we've never had a cohort that did worse in retirement than the cohort before," says Teresa Ghilarducci, a retirement expert at the New School for Social Research who participated in the Berkeley meeting. That's about to change.

The California program is the first gingerly attack on that dismal trend line. De Leon has worked carefully around the possible pitfalls — he's made several visits to Washington to get the Internal Revenue Service to certify that contributions will be tax-exempt, as are 401(k) contributions. He's also seeking an agreement from the Labor Department that the plan will be exempt from ERISA, the paperwork-heavy law safeguarding pension plans sponsored by employers. (That's why California won't accept employer contributions.) Most experts think the program will get the agency's green light.

The plan is aimed at low-income workers, the group with the lowest participation rate in 401(k)s and the smallest nest eggs of any kind. The minimum investment guarantee would be set low enough that the pool's investments could be low-risk and the chances of missing the mark over the course of a career's contributions would be almost nil. Any residual risk of falling short would be covered by an insurance policy to be purchased by the program's board, not by the taxpayers. The state's role would be limited to pooling all the contributions to keep costs down, though every participant would have a claim on his or her individual account.

This won't make anyone rich. But for many working-class retirees it would be an important supplement to Social Security, which today pays an average retirement stipend of $1,230 a month. It's the first step toward restoring the retirement security that used to come from defined-benefit pensions, especially for the working class.

"It's not as good as a good defined-benefit plan," says Monique Morrissey, an economist at the progressive Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, "but better than what they have now."

She says government guaranteed programs like California's are a hot topic in the pension community right now. "Everyone's trying to figure out something workable."

Massachusetts is developing a plan to cover employees of small nonprofits, and Oregon and Connecticut are considering their own programs.

De Leon says he's amazed that his unassuming first step is being hailed in Washington as a breakthrough, even before all the Ts are crossed and the I's dotted. That speaks volumes about how Congress has ceased even to pretend to care about the American worker.

"When people there tell me I've done more to advance this idea than anyone in the nation," he says, "it's a little surreal."

Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.

Read More..

Jerry Buss dies at 80; Lakers owner brought 'Showtime' success to L.A.

Longtime Lakers owner Jerry Buss has died at the age of 80. Last week, it was revealed that he was hospitalized with an undisclosed form of cancer.

When Jerry Buss bought the Lakers in 1979, he wanted to build a championship team. But that wasn't all.

The new owner gave courtside seats to movie stars. He hired pretty women to dance during timeouts. He spent freely on big stars and encouraged a fast-paced, exuberant style of play.

As the Lakers sprinted to one NBA title after another, Buss cut an audacious figure in the stands, an aging playboy in bluejeans, often with a younger woman by his side.

PHOTOS: Jerry Buss through the years

"I really tried to create a Laker image, a distinct identity," he once said. "I think we've been successful. I mean, the Lakers are pretty damn Hollywood."

Buss, 80, died Monday of complications of cancer at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Lakers fans will remember Buss for bringing extraordinary success — 10 championships in three-plus decades — but equally important to his legacy was a sense of showmanship that transformed pro basketball from sport to spectacle.

Live discussion at 10:30: The legacy of Jerry Buss

"Jerry Buss helped set the league on the course it is on today," NBA Commissioner David Stern said. "Remember, he showed us it was about 'Showtime,' the notion that an arena can become the focal point for not just basketball, but entertainment. He made it the place to see and be seen."

His teams featured the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal and Dwight Howard. He was also smart enough to hire Hall of Fame-caliber coaches in Pat Riley and Phil Jackson.

"I've worked hard and been lucky," Buss said. "With the combination of the two, I've accomplished everything I ever set out to do."

A Depression-era baby, Jerry Hatten Buss was born in Salt Lake City on Jan. 27, 1933, although some sources cite 1934 as his birth year. His parents, Lydus and Jessie Buss, divorced when he was an infant.

His mother struggled to make ends meet as a waitress in tiny Evanston, Wyo., and Buss remembered standing in food lines in the bitter cold. They moved to Southern California when he was 9, but within a few years she remarried and her second husband took the family back to Wyoming.

His stepfather, Cecil Brown, was, as Buss put it, "very tight-fisted." Brown made his living as a plumber and expected his children (one from a previous marriage, another son and a daughter with Jessie) to help.

TIMELINE: Jerry Buss' path

This work included digging ditches in the cold. Buss preferred bell hopping at a local hotel and running a mail-order stamp-collecting business that he started at age 13.

Leaving high school a year early, he worked on the railroad, pumping a hand-driven car up and down the line to make repairs. The job lasted just three months.

Until then, Buss had never much liked academics. But he returned to school and, with a science teacher's encouragement, did well enough to earn a science scholarship to the University of Wyoming.

Before graduating with a bachelor's degree in chemistry, when he was 19 he married a coed named JoAnn Mueller and they would eventually have four children: John, Jim, Jeanie and Janie.

The couple moved to Southern California in 1953 when USC gave Buss a scholarship for graduate school. He earned a doctorate in physical chemistry in 1957. The degree brought him great pride — Lakers employees always called him "Dr. Buss."

Read More..

APNewsBreak: Jenni Rivera memoir due in July

NEW YORK (AP) — Some final words from the late Mexican-American singer and TV star Jenni Rivera will be out this summer.

Atria Books announced Monday it's publishing a memoir by the multimillion-selling artist, who died in a plane crash in December at age 43. "Unbreakable," coming out simultaneously in English and Spanish, is scheduled for July and has been authorized by Rivera's family.

Rosie Rivera, the late singer's sister, said the family had decided to share Rivera's book with her fans so they could "enjoy her as we have."

"I miss my sister every moment, but on days that I want to feel her close, I open her book written in her own words, and feel her right next to me," Rosie Rivera said in a statement issued by Atria.

Atria vice president and senior editor Johanna Castillo said she had talked to Rivera about the impact she hoped her book's message would have on readers.

"This book is her legacy to all of her fans," Castillo said.

Rivera had worked on "Unbreakable" for several years and completed it before her death, Atria spokesman Paul Olsewski said. She had been in talks with Atria, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, since 2011.

According to Atria, "Unbreakable" will provide "an intimate look into the heart and soul of this self-made woman, who ascended to the top of the charts against all odds, becoming a legend in a completely male dominated music category," grupero, a type of Mexican folk music.

A candid memoir would be in character for Rivera, a mother and grandmother of two known as the Diva de la Banda, or Diva of the Band, for her frank talk about her life. At the time of her death, she had been recently divorced from her third husband, former Major League Baseball player Esteban Loaiza.

Rivera, who was born in Los Angeles, launched her career by selling cassette tapes at flea markets. She went on to sell more than 15 million copies of her 12 major-label albums.

Read More..

Personal Health: Health Effects of Smoking for Women

The title of a recent report on smoking and health might well have paraphrased the popular ad campaign for Virginia Slims, introduced in 1968 by Philip Morris and aimed at young professional women: “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

Today that slogan should include: “. . . toward a shorter life.” Ten years shorter, in fact.

The new report is one of two rather shocking analyses of the hazards of smoking and the benefits of quitting published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine. The data show that “women who smoke like men die like men who smoke,” Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a professor of health and health care at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

That was not always the case. Half a century ago, the risk of death from lung cancer among men who smoked was five times higher than that among women smokers. But by the first decade of this century, that risk had equalized: for both men and women who smoked, the risk of death from lung cancer was 25 times greater than for nonsmokers, Dr. Michael J. Thun of the American Cancer Society and his colleagues reported.

Today, women who smoke are even more likely than men who smoke to die of lung cancer. According to a second study in the same journal, women smokers face a 17.8 times greater risk of dying of lung cancer, than women who do not smoke; men who smoke are at 14.6 times greater risk to die of lung cancer than men who don’t. Women who smoke now face a risk of death from lung cancer that is 50 percent higher than the estimates reported in the 1980s, according to Dr. Prabhat Jha of the Center for Global Health Research in Toronto and his colleagues.

After controlling for age, body weight, education level and alcohol use, the new analysis found something else: men and women who continue to smoke die on average more than 10 years sooner than those who never smoked.

Dramatic progress has been made in reducing the prevalence of smoking, which has fallen in the United States from 42 percent of adults in 1965 (the year after the first surgeon general’s report on smoking and health) to 19 percent in 2010. Yet smoking still results in nearly 200,000 deaths a year among people 35 to 69 years old in this country. A quarter of all deaths in this age group would not occur if smokers had the same risk of death as nonsmokers.

The risks are even greater among men 55 to 74 and women 60 to 74. More than two-thirds of all deaths among current smokers in these age groups are related to smoking. Over all, the death rate from all causes combined in these age groups “is now at least three times as high among current smokers as among those who have never smoked,” Dr. Thun’s team found.

While lung cancer is the most infamous hazard linked to smoking, the habit also raises the risk of death from heart disease, stroke, pulmonary disease and other cancers, including breast cancer.

Furthermore, changes in how cigarettes are manufactured may have increased the dangers of smoking. The use of perforated filters, tobacco blends that are less irritating, and paper that is more porous made it easier to inhale smoke and encouraged deeper inhalation to achieve satisfying blood levels of nicotine.

The result of deeper inhalation, Dr. Thun’s report suggests, has been an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or C.O.P.D., and a shift in the kind of lung cancer linked to smoking. Among nonsmokers, the risk of death from C.O.P.D. has declined by 45 percent in men and has remained stable in women, but the death rate has more than doubled among smokers.

But there is good news, too: it’s never too late to reap the benefits of quitting. The younger you are when you stop smoking, the greater your chances of living a long and healthy life, according to the findings of Dr. Jha’s international team.

The team analyzed smoking and smoking-cessation histories of 113,752 women and 88,496 men 25 and older and linked them to causes of deaths in these groups through 2006.

Those who quit smoking by age 34 lived 10 years longer on average than those who continued to smoke, giving them a life expectancy comparable to people who never smoked. Smokers who quit between ages 35 and 44 lived nine years longer, and those who quit between 45 and 54 lived six years longer. Even quitting smoking between ages 55 and 64 resulted in a four-year gain in life expectancy.

The researchers emphasized, however, that the numbers do not mean it is safe to smoke until age 40 and then stop. Former smokers who quit by 40 still experienced a 20 percent greater risk of death than nonsmokers. About one in six former smokers who died before the age of 80 would not have died so young if he or she had never smoked, they reported.

Dr. Schroeder believes we can do a lot better to reduce the prevalence of smoking with the tools currently in hand if government agencies, medical insurers and the public cooperate.

Unlike the races, ribbons and fund-raisers for breast cancer, “there’s no public face for lung cancer, even though it kills more women than breast cancer does,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview. Lung cancer is stigmatized as a disease people bring on themselves, even though many older victims were hooked on nicotine in the 1940s and 1950s, when little was known about the hazards of smoking and doctors appeared in ads assuring the public it was safe to smoke.

Raising taxes on cigarettes can help. The states with the highest prevalence of smoking have the lowest tax rates on cigarettes, Dr. Schroeder said. Also helpful would be prohibiting smoking in more public places like parks and beaches. Some states have criminalized smoking in cars when children are present.

More “countermarketing” of cigarettes is needed, he said, including antismoking public service ads on television and dramatic health warnings on cigarette packs, as is now done in Australia. But two American courts have ruled that the proposed label warnings infringed on the tobacco industry’s right to free speech.

Health insurers, both private and government, could broaden their coverage of stop-smoking aids and better publicize telephone quit lines, and doctors “should do more to stimulate quit attempts,” Dr. Schroeder said.

As Nicola Roxon, a former Australian health minister, put it, “We are killing people by not acting.”

Read More..

Chinese car companies likely Fisker Automotive investment partners

Fisker Automotive Inc. has what it is calling “detailed proposals” from several investment partners that could save the maker of expensive hybrid sports cars.

The Anaheim company behind the $110,000 Karma plug-in hybrid sports car has previously said it needs about $500 million to launch a second, less expensive model, which would be made at a factory in Wilmington, Del.

Fisker ran into a cash crunch after the federal government froze a Department of Energy loan to the company and its battery maker went bankrupt.

“We can only confirm that the company has received detailed proposals from multiple parties in different continents," the company said in a statement, "which are now being evaluated by the Company and its advisors.”

A deal could be reached in March.

Previously reported potential partners include Geely Auto, the Chinese company that owns Volvo, and Wanxiang Group, another Chinese company, which recently purchased battery maker A123 Systems out of bankruptcy. A123 builds the lithium-ion battery that goes into Fisker’s cars.

Fisker also is in talks with Wanxiang to start purchasing batteries again. But for now, production of the Karma, which is built in Finland, has been halted until the automaker secures a battery supply. The company had built up an inventory of cars prior to A123’s bankruptcy and there are cars still for sale at dealerships in the U.S. and Europe.

The automaker is looking for funds to restart work on the Atlantic, a $55,000, four-door rechargeable sports sedan that Fisker sees as a higher-volume model that would have a broader market.

Work on the Atlantic came to a halt last year when the federal government suspended a $529-million loan after delays in the introduction of the Karma. Fisker had drawn down about $192 million of the loan.

ALSO:

Lexus bikini ad comes to life

Alfa Romeo will launch new sport car in U.S.

Lexus, Toyota top JD Power dependability list

Follow me on Twitter (@LATimesJerry), Facebook and Google+.

Read More..

Hollywood directs its star power toward a campaign closer to home

A stylish crowd waited beneath a flashing marquee outside the Fonda Theatre. "Appearing tonight!" the sign read. "Eric Garcetti 4 Mayor."

In a city where political campaigns are typically waged at neighborhood meetings, not Hollywood concert halls, last week's star-studded fundraiser for Garcetti highlighted the entertainment industry's outsized role in this year's mayoral race. Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel started the show with a stand-up routine and musician Moby got the crowd of several hundred dancing. Actress Amy Smart urged everyone to tweet about the campaign, and actor Will Ferrell beamed in via video to pledge that if Garcetti is elected, every resident in the city will receive free waffles.

Hollywood is taking to City Hall politics like never before, veterans say, with power players such as Steven Spielberg leading a major fundraising effort and celebrities such as Salma Hayek weighing in via YouTube. A Times analysis of city Ethics Commission records found that actors, producers, directors and others in the industry have donated more than $746,000 directly to candidates, with some $462,000 going to Garcetti and $226,000 to City Controller Wendy Greuel.

Several of Greuel's big-name celebrity supporters, including Tobey Maguire, Kate Hudson and Zooey Deschanel, recently hosted a fundraiser for her at an exclusive club on the Sunset Strip. She is getting extra help from Spielberg and his former partners at DreamWorks, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, who have given at least $150,000 and are raising more for an independent group funding a TV ad blitz on her behalf.

The burst of support is coming from an industry often maligned for paying little attention to local politics.

While Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is often photographed at red carpet events and former Mayor Tom Bradley was famously close to actor Gregory Peck, serious Hollywood money and star power has tended to remain tantalizingly out of reach for local politicians. "It's no secret that the entertainment industry has never really focused on the city that houses it," said Steve Soboroff, who ran for mayor and lost in 2001.

Political consultant Garry South, who has worked on mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns, recalled having to pay celebrities to appear at fundraisers in the past. Hollywood has long embraced candidates in presidential and congressional elections, South said, in part because they have more influence over causes favored by celebrities.

"The mayor of L.A. is not going to get us out of Afghanistan. The mayor of L.A. is not going to determine whether or not gay marriage is legal," South said. "The local issues are just not as sexy."

But this year, if you're a part of the Hollywood establishment, chances are you've gotten invitations to fundraisers for Greuel, Garcetti or both.

The difference this time is that both candidates have worked to cultivate deep Hollywood connections, observers say. Garcetti has represented Hollywood for 12 years, overseeing a development boom and presiding over ceremonies to add stars — Kimmel recently got one — on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Greuel is a former executive at DreamWorks, where she worked with the moguls who founded the studio. She has also served for 10 years on the board of the California Film Commission.

City Councilwoman Jan Perry and entertainment attorney Kevin James have reaped far less financial support from the industry, records show, although each claims a share of celebrity endorsements. Dick Van Dyke sponsored a fundraiser for Perry and Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black has given to James.

Agent Feroz Taj, who attended Garcetti's Moby concert, said a flurry of activity around the race, involving friends and colleagues, piqued his interest. He said he's never been involved in a political campaign, but now when he receives invites to Greuel events, he says he is supporting Garcetti.

Industry insiders have been buzzing about a letter they say is being circulated by an advisor to Spielberg and Katzenberg, urging people to give $15,000 to an independent group supporting Greuel. The DreamWorks founders have made a difference for Greuel in previous elections. In 2002, financial support from the studio executives and their allies helped her squeak out a victory in one of the closest City Council races in history.

This time around, billionaire media mogul Haim Saban is getting involved, providing his Beverly Hills estate for a Greuel fundraiser featuring U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Greuel has also received contributions from Tom Hanks and actresses Mariska Hargitay and Eva Longoria, neither of whom have given to a local political campaign before, according to records.

Garcetti, on the other hand, has picked up contributions from former Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner, as well as newcomers to local politics Jake Gyllenhaal and Hayek, who once traveled with Garcetti on a global warming awareness mission to the South Pole. The actress released a video endorsing Garcetti and thanking him for helping her find her wallet in the snow.

Campaign consultant Sean Clegg linked the industry's burgeoning interest in mayoral politics to President Obama's election, which he said had "a catalyzing effect on Hollywood." Indeed, many Greuel and Garcetti supporters were Obama backers. Hayek hosted a fundraiser for Obama and Longoria served as a co-chair of his reelection campaign.

Clegg is a consultant for Working Californians, an independent campaign committee that hopes to raise and spend at least $2 million supporting Greuel, with donations from Spielberg and others in Hollywood, as well as the union representing Department of Water and Power employees.

Generally, Clegg argued, Hollywood money is different than the special-interest funding campaigns collect. "Money is coming out of the entertainment industry more on belief and less on the transactional considerations," he said.

But Raphael Sonenshein, director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., said Hollywood's new interest in local elections may be tied to growing concerns about film production being lured elsewhere by tax incentives.

Garcetti and Greuel have both pledged to reverse job losses tied to runaway television and film production, with Garcetti touting a recent proposal to eliminate roughly $231,000 in annual city fees charged for pilot episodes of new TV shows. The number of pilots shot locally has dropped 30% in recent years, but city budget analysts say the tax break would have a minimal effect because city fees represent only a small portion of production costs.

On the council, both candidates voted to eliminate filming fees at most city facilities. Greuel tells audiences she has an insider's perspective on the industry's needs and says she will create an "entertainment cabinet" to help it thrive. "I have sat with studio heads," she said in a recent interview. "They want a city . . . that is a champion for film industry jobs in Los Angeles."

Greuel may have Garcetti beat on experience in the studio front office, but he is the only candidate with his own page on IMDb.com — a closely watched industry website that tracks individuals' film and television credits.

The councilman, a member of the Screen Actors Guild, has made several television appearances, including one for the cable police drama "The Closer." He played the mayor of Los Angeles.

kate.linthicum@latimes.com

Times staff writer Maloy Moore contributed to this report.

Read More..

Discovery bets on 2 dope series about pot growers

NEW YORK (AP) — Cupcake makers, pawnbrokers and storage container raiders have all had their moments in reality television's spotlight. Now the time may be right for marijuana growers — and the people who chase them.

The Discovery network debuts a six-episode series, "Weed Country," at 10 p.m. Wednesday and will replace it with "Pot Cops" in April. Both examine the marijuana trade in northern California.

It fits Discovery's efforts to introduce interesting subcultures to viewers, said Nancy Daniels, the network's executive vice president for production and development on the West Coast. Discovery tried a series about a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland two years ago, "Weed Wars," and is sticking with dope even though the show didn't do very well in the ratings.

"We still think it's an interesting world and maybe we didn't tap into the right part of it," Daniels said.

Based on its first episode, "Weed Country" is a nuanced effort at giving equal time to both sides of the issue. Producers find colorful growers who use science to make the best product possible. They don't believe what they are doing is wrong. "We're flying the flag of civil disobedience," one grower said.

The growers may be trying to dodge the law, but don't hesitate to open up different facets of their business to television cameras.

At the same time, "Weed Country" shows the challenges faced by law enforcement. It follows one group's careful training for backwoods missions to find farms guarded by growers who are armed and intent upon protecting their crops.

"It surprised me with how deep and complex it was," Daniels said.

The show does have some distracting reality TV contrivances. Before one commercial break, a grower making a late-night delivery to a customer becomes suspicious of a van that ominously pulls out behind him on a dark road. After the break, the van drives innocently by. At another point, producers lead you to believe the grower is about to be pulled over by police when, after a commercial, it becomes clear the officer is going after someone else.

The "Pot Cops" series will be told from the point of view of law enforcement, after producers reached an agreement for access to officers hunting down marijuana farms in California's Humboldt County.

Discovery had planned to air the two programs back-to-back on the same night and promote it as "Weed Wednesday" on the network. But those plans were dropped because unrelated programming expected to be available this spring had fallen through and Discovery needed "Pot Cops" to fill a hole on its schedule in April.

The change had nothing to do with feeling cold feet about a "Weed Wednesday" promotion, Daniels said.

Read More..

Cuomo Bucks Tide With Bill to Lift Abortion Limits

ALBANY — Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Mr. Cuomo, seeking to deliver on a promise he made in his recent State of the State address, would rewrite a law that currently allows abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy only if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. The law is not enforced, because it is superseded by federal court rulings that allow late-term abortions to protect a woman’s health, even if her life is not in jeopardy. But abortion rights advocates say the existence of the more restrictive state law has a chilling effect on some doctors and prompts some women to leave the state for late-term abortions.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

Abortion rights advocates have welcomed Mr. Cuomo’s plan, which he outlined in general terms as part of a broader package of women’s rights initiatives in his State of the State address in January. But the Roman Catholic Church and anti-abortion groups are dismayed; opponents have labeled the legislation the Abortion Expansion Act.

The prospects for Mr. Cuomo’s effort are uncertain. The State Assembly is controlled by Democrats who support abortion rights; the Senate is more difficult to predict because this year it is controlled by a coalition of Republicans who have tended to oppose new abortion rights laws and breakaway Democrats who support abortion rights.

New York legalized abortion in 1970, three years before it was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Cuomo’s proposal would update the state law so that it could stand alone if the broader federal standard set by Roe were to be undone.

“Why are we doing this? The Supreme Court could change,” said a senior Cuomo administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the governor had not formally introduced his proposal.

But opponents of abortion rights, already upset at the high rate of abortions in New York State, worry that rewriting the abortion law would encourage an even greater number of abortions. For example, they suggest that the provision to allow abortions late in a woman’s pregnancy for health reasons could be used as a loophole to allow unchecked late-term abortions.

“I am hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one,” the archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, wrote in a letter to Mr. Cuomo last month. Referring to Albany lawmakers in a subsequent column, he added, “It’s as though, in their minds, our state motto, ‘Excelsior’ (‘Ever Upward’), applies to the abortion rate.”

National abortion rights groups have sought for years to persuade state legislatures to adopt laws guaranteeing abortion rights as a backup to Roe. But they have had limited success: Only seven states have such measures in place, including California, Connecticut and Maryland; the most recent state to adopt such a law is Hawaii, which did so in 2006.

“Pretty much all of the energy, all of the momentum, has been to restrict abortion, which makes what could potentially happen in New York so interesting,” said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. “There’s no other state that’s even contemplating this right now.”

In most statehouses, the push by lawmakers has been in the opposite direction. The past two years has seen more provisions adopted at the state level to restrict abortion rights than in any two-year period in decades, according to the Guttmacher Institute; last year, 19 states adopted 43 new provisions restricting abortion access, while not a single significant measure was adopted to expand access to abortion or to comprehensive sex education.

“It’s an extraordinary moment in terms of the degree to which there is government interference in a woman’s ability to make these basic health care decisions,” said Andrea Miller, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York. “For New York to be able to send a signal, a hopeful sign, a sense of the turning of the tide, we think is really important.”

Abortion rights advocates say that even though the Roe decision supersedes state law, some doctors are hesitant to perform late-term abortions when a woman’s health is at risk because the criminal statutes remain on the books.

“Doctors and hospitals shouldn’t be reading criminal laws to determine what types of health services they can offer and provide to their patients,” said M. Tracey Brooks, the president of Family Planning Advocates of New York State.

For Mr. Cuomo, the debate over passing a new abortion law presents an opportunity to appeal to women as well as to liberals, who have sought action in Albany without success since Eliot Spitzer made a similar proposal when he was governor. But it also poses a challenge to the coalition of Republicans and a few Democrats that controls the State Senate, the chamber that has in the past stood as the primary obstacle to passing abortion legislation in the capital.

The governor has said that his Reproductive Health Act would be one plank of a 10-part Women’s Equality Act that also would include equal pay and anti-discrimination provisions. Conservative groups, still stinging from the willingness of Republican lawmakers to go along with Mr. Cuomo’s push to legalize same-sex marriage in 2011, are mobilizing against the proposal. Seven thousand New Yorkers who oppose the measure have sent messages to Mr. Cuomo and legislators via the Web site of the New York State Catholic Conference.

A number of anti-abortion groups have also formed a coalition called New Yorkers for Life, which is seeking to rally opposition to the governor’s proposal using social media.

“If you ask anyone on the street, ‘Is there enough abortion in New York?’ no one in their right mind would say we need more abortion,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, the executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which is part of the coalition.

Members of both parties say that the issue of reproductive rights was a significant one in November’s legislative elections. Democrats, who were bolstered by an independent expenditure campaign by NARAL, credit their victories in several key Senate races in part to their pledge to fight for legislation similar to what Mr. Cuomo is planning to propose.

Republicans, who make up most of the coalition that controls the Senate, have generally opposed new abortion rights measures. Speaking with reporters recently, the leader of the Republicans, Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, strenuously objected to rewriting the state’s abortion laws, especially in a manner similar to what the governor is seeking.

“You could have an abortion up until the day the child would be born, and I think that’s just wrong,” Mr. Skelos said. He suggested that the entire debate was unnecessary, noting that abortion is legal in New York State and saying that is “not going to be changed.”

The Senate Democratic leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins of Yonkers, who is the sponsor of a bill that is similar to the legislation the governor is drafting, said she was optimistic that an abortion measure would reach the Senate floor this year.

“New York State’s abortion laws were passed in 1970 in a bipartisan fashion,” she said. “It would be a sad commentary that over 40 years later we could not manage to do the same thing.”

Read More..

A secret agent reveals her secrets of success

The prospect of a business book written by a former CIA officer fills one with dread at the inevitable 007 anecdotes and labored corporate parallels.

But "Work Like a Spy: Business Tips From a Former CIA Officer," published by Portfolio, turns out to be rather different. There are no gadgets, few cloaks and fewer daggers: Instead it is a bracingly realistic book about people at work. It is short. It is sharp. Better still, it is sensible.

It is also about spying, though only enough to lend a sprinkle of glamour and danger. The book jacket photo shows author J.C. Carleson, an undercover agent for eight years, looking like a real-life Carrie from "Homeland" — without the blond hair and the bipolar disorder.

Yet her stories from the field are as much blunder as conspiracy. The book opens with the heroine as a young case officer in an armed convoy in Iraq. It is 2003 and she is going to inspect a plant that the U.S. is convinced makes biological weapons. They disarm the guards and terrify everyone — only to discover it is a salt factory.

"Salt. (Insert your own expletive of choice here.) Salt!" she writes.

Carleson assures us that not all CIA work is suitable for general adoption: The threatening, lying, trapping, cheating, misleading and detaining that go with the territory should not be tried in the office.

But the spy can teach the general manager about human nature. Spies are simply better at observing people because they have spent more time practicing and because the stakes are too high to screw it up.

By comparison, the rest of us are pretty hopeless, only we don't know it. Reluctantly, I have started to reappraise my own view of myself as a brilliant judge of character and admit that such a belief is a liability.

I've just tried the following exercise: Pick a stranger and try to guess their education, profession, religion, income bracket, marital status and hobbies. Disaster: I was wrong on every score.

Because we cling to this idea that our gut instincts are reliable, we make a lot of avoidable mistakes. We make bad hiring decisions. We talk vaguely about wanting passion and creativity rather than setting to work corroborating resumes and seeking out references. Employers should make a short, precise list of the traits a job requires and hire to fill it. It is all obvious. Yet it takes a spy to point it out.

Less obvious but no less valuable is her tip for job candidates: Get the interviewer to do most of the talking and then hang on their every word. Since hardly anyone can resist talking about themselves to a rapt audience, a job offer is almost bound to follow.

To the public speaker and the salesman, Carleson has further good advice: Never rely on a script and never learn what you are going to say by heart. When you do this you use a different tone of voice, go on to autopilot and all trust is lost in an instant. Carleson is right. I have done this, but never again.

I also liked the observation about newly minted CIA officers (for which read new Harvard MBAs and so on) who emerge from the yearlong training process all swagger and irritating charm. This doesn't wash in the agency, any more than it does elsewhere. More seasoned colleagues slap them down. "Don't try to case officer me," they say.

Not everything from the book can be copied. The CIA keeps its best staff by doing sensible things such as moving people around, giving them interesting work and letting lone wolves be lone wolves.

Yet the perks of being an undercover agent also involve wearing disguises, learning how to crash cars and jump out of aircraft — all of which are big pluses, but not terribly transferable.

The main lesson from "Work Like a Spy" is that we are much more likely to get what we want if we watch other people carefully. It helps to identify the other person's weaknesses, and for this there are some common denominators: "… ego, money, ego, ego … ego, ego, ego."

Lucy Kellaway is a columnist for the Financial Times of London, in which this review first appeared.

Read More..

Deasy wants 30% of teacher evaluations based on test scores

L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy announced Friday that as much as 30% of a teacher's evaluation will be based on student test scores, setting off more contention in the nation's second-largest school system in the weeks before a critical Board of Education election.

Leaders of the teachers union have insisted that there should be no fixed percentage or expectation for how much standardized tests should count — and that test results should serve almost entirely as just one measure to improve instruction. Deasy, in contrast, has insisted that test scores should play a significant role in a teacher's evaluation and that poor scores could contribute directly to dismissal.

In a Friday memo explaining the evaluation process, Deasy set 30% as the goal and the maximum for how much test scores and other data should count.

In an interview, he emphasized that the underlying thrust is to develop an evaluation that improves the teaching corps and that data is part of the effort.

"The public has been demanding a better evaluation system for at least a decade. And teachers have repeatedly said to me what they need is a balanced way forward to help them get better and help them be accountable," Deasy said. "We do this for students every day. Now it's time to do this for teachers."

Deasy also reiterated that test scores would not be a "primary or controlling" factor in an evaluation, in keeping with the language of an agreement reached in December between L.A. Unified and its teachers union. Classroom observations and other factors also are part of the evaluation process.

But United Teachers Los Angeles President Warren Fletcher expressed immediate concern about Deasy's move. During negotiations, he said, the superintendent had proposed allotting 30% to test scores but the union rejected the plan. Deasy then pulled the idea off the table, which allowed the two sides to come to an agreement, Fletcher said. Teachers approved the pact last month.

"To see this percentage now being floated again is unacceptable," the union said in a statement.

Fletcher described the pact as allowing flexibility for principals, in collaboration with teachers, first to set individual goals and then to look at various measures to determine student achievement and overall teacher performance.

"The superintendent doesn't get to sign binding agreements and then pretend they're not binding," Fletcher said.

When Deasy settled on 30%, his decision was in line with research findings of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has examined teacher quality issues across the country. Some experts have challenged that work.

The test score component would include a rating for the school based on an analysis of all students' standardized test scores. Those "value-added" formulas, known within L.A. Unified as Academic Growth Over Time, can be used to rate a school or a teacher's effectiveness by comparing students' test scores with past performance. The method takes into account such factors as family income and ethnicity.

After an aggressive push by the Obama administration, individual value-added ratings for teachers have been added to reviews in many districts. They make up 40% of evaluations in Washington, D.C., 35% in Tennessee and 30% in Chicago.

But Los Angeles will use a different approach. The district will rely on raw test scores. A teacher's evaluation also may incorporate pass rates on the high school exit exam and graduation, attendance and suspension data.

Deasy's action was met Friday with reactions ranging from guarded to enthusiastic approval within a coalition of outside groups that have pushed for a new evaluation system. This coalition also has sought to counter union influence.

Elise Buik, chief executive of the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, said weighing test scores 30% "is a reasonable number that everyone can be happy with."

The union and the district were under pressure to include student test data in evaluations after L.A. County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant ruled last year that the system was violating state law by not using test scores in teacher performance reviews.

A lawsuit to enforce the law was brought by parents in Los Angeles, with support from the Sacramento-based EdVoice advocacy organization.

If the "actual progress" of students is taken into account under Deasy's plan, "it's a historic day for LAUSD," said Bill Lucia, the group's chief executive.

All of this is playing out against the backdrop of the upcoming March 5 election. The campaign for three school board seats has turned substantially into a contest between candidates who strongly back Deasy's policies and those more sympathetic toward the teachers union. Deasy supporters praise the superintendent for measures they say will improve the quality of teaching. The union has faulted Deasy for limiting job protections and said he has imposed unwise or unproven reforms.

In the upcoming election, the union and pro-Deasy forces are matched head to head in District 4, with several employee unions behind incumbent Steve Zimmer and a coalition of donors behind challenger Kate Anderson.

Anderson had high praise for Deasy's directive, saying it struck the right balance and that teachers and students would benefit.

Zimmer said that although he understands that principals need guidance, "I worry about anything that would cause resistance or delay in going forward. I hope this use of a percentage won't disrupt what had been a collaborative process."

howard.blume@latimes.com

Read More..