A closer look at the results of all 80 Assembly races shows the real reason why state Democrats will never support redistricting reform, whatever the promises of Fabian NÚñez, Don Perata and many others. That reason: It would cost them several seats, at least – especially those held by minorities.

The conventional wisdom holds that both parties are similarly motivated in opposing reform: Dem and Republican incumbents alike love having sure seats. Yet Democrats have an additional incentive that's rarely cited: Districts are equal in population, but voter turnout is far lower in districts with high numbers of minorities, who generally support Dems. So a gerrymander that packs high-turnout Republicans into a relative handful of districts while creating dozens of low-turnout minority-heavy districts is strikingly beneficial to Dems.

Consider this amazing stat from Nov. 7: Of the 22 pols who won Assembly seats with less than 50,000 votes, 21 are Democrats. All of the 12 Assembly members elected with less than 41,000 votes are minorities. Only one is a Republican.

The bottom line: Democrats would be crazy to ever go along with real redistricting reform. It would reduce their numbers, and it would punish minorities, their most loyal supporters. All the idealistic talk in the world is trumped by this hard reality.

Toni Atkins, non-stooge

During the San Diego City Council's discussion of its anti-Wal-Mart ordinance last week, Councilwoman Toni Atkins delivered a monologue on how tired she was of being mischaracterized as a union stooge by her U-T critics for backing the measure.

OK, let's take Toni at her word and review what she insisted were her actual motives:

1) She said there was nothing unusual about the City Council's plan because government at all levels gets involved in the private sector. She cited crop subsidies, loans to the auto industry and help for airlines. Uh, Toni, these are affirmative government measures, not punitive measures targeting a lone, unfavored company. There is a vast difference.

2) She cited a single study predicting economic disaster for San Diego County if a Supercenter opened. Uh, Toni, Wal-Mart is one of the most studied companies in history. There is plenty of evidence that Wal-Mart's low prices help the poor much more than such government programs as food stamps. If you're going to claim your decision is based on academic research, how can you ignore such people as Jason Furman, former lead economics adviser to John Kerry, who says Wal-Mart's cheap goods make it a “progressive force”?

3) She said she couldn't support allowing a company that doesn't pay a “living wage” or have adequate health benefits to expand in San Diego. Uh, Toni, if this is really your standard, how can you tolerate any mini-mart or fast-food restaurant or car wash? Or any of the mom-and-pop stores you seek to protect against the Wal-Mart menace? Do you really think they pay clerks $20 an hour?

4) She said the City Council's decision “is not going to affect negatively people's ability to be able to choose where they want to shop. And if they want to shop at Wal-Mart, please do, you know? And I'll continue to go to Target...”

This is insulting. Of course you're denying people a choice when you keep Wal-Mart out of the grocery business.

And just how is Target morally superior to Wal-Mart? Target's pay, benefits and effects on a community are “eerily similar” to Wal-Mart's, according to AlterNet corporate watchdog Kari Lydersen and lots of others on the left.

Yet Toni Atkins shops at Target instead of Wal-Mart because she is a moral beacon who worries about the community and is upset with big companies that pay badly and have few benefits. Please.

OK, Toni. I concede. You're no union stooge. Instead, based on your monologue, you are 1) an economics illiterate; 2) intellectually lazy; 3) an inconsistent hypocrite; and 4) a brazen, hopelessly uninformed dissembler. Congrats on clarifying where you're coming from.

Nowhere to go but up

With 27 percent and 25 percent, respectively, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were the leaders in a recent 2008 presidential poll of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents by the Cook Political Report and RT Strategies. Rep. Duncan Hunter had the support of 0.16 percent of those surveyed – meaning exactly one of the 626 poll participants was for the Alpine pol who would be prez.

Supply your own snarky observation. I report, you deride.