All who support journalism’s constitutional check on the government should push back against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ threat to make it easier to subpoena reporters.

After being excoriated by President Trump for being “very weak” on executive branch leaks, Sessions pledged Friday to rein in unauthorized disclosures of information by government officials.

That’s fine. Sessions should clean up his own house — or, rather, President Trump’s. But don’t trample on press freedoms in the process.

Sessions said he was reconsidering Justice Department policies put in place during the Obama administration to make it harder for the government to subpoena reporters about their sources. He would not rule out the possibility of prosecuting a reporter.

But the rules he is reviewing were set by then-Attorney General Eric Holder only after the Obama administration had gone way overboard in its pursuit of government leakers and journalists. Under President Obama, prosecutors had subpoenaed records, secretly obtained journalists’ telephone logs and threatened jail to pressure reporters to reveal their sources.

Holder’s 2015 guidelines tell federal prosecutors that subpoenas of news media should be “extraordinary measures, not standard investigatory practices,” and that they should subpoena news organizations only after exhausting all reasonable efforts to get the information from other sources. Those are perfectly reasonable guidelines.

We get that this administration, like others, struggles to keep a lid on its own employees and is embarrassed by leaks that turn into published reports.

But the founding fathers established a free press so that it could hold the people’s government accountable — revealing, at times, what the government is up to but doesn’t want the people to know about. Threatening journalists with subpoenas and search warrants diminishes their ability to inform the people about their government’s activities.

That constitutional check on the government is much more important than any administration’s anger at seeing internal information get out. Attorney General Sessions should not dial back the Justice Department’s guidelines on subpoenas of reporters.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for the state of California to shut down a restaurant; but unless the Salisbury steak competed the night before at Santa Anita Racetrack, or the letter grade on display in the front window tells you which type of hepatitis you’re going to get after trying the veal, the state and the restaurant should be able to settle any disagreements without the need for armed police officers and padlocks.

The key word in that sentence is should. But thanks to the newly minted California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, the heavy hand of government just got heavier.

First, some background; up until recently, the state Board of Equalization acted as an appellate body for income tax cases. If you had a tax dispute with the state, the five member board would adjudicate your appeal.

The BOE, which consists of four elected members and the state controller, has long had the reputation as being a pay-to-play agency. If you had a case pending before the board it’s no secret that hiring the right attorney or writing the right check could reap big dividends.

It was never an ideal situation, but if you were at odds with the tax man, your elected representatives at least had to feign concern for your plight.

But Board of Equalization member Jerome Horton, D-Inglewood, had to ruin it for everyone.

In a private meeting with actor Rob Lowe and his wife Sheryl Berkoff, Horton asked them whether they had “Jewed down” the contractors who had built their house.

In an email first obtained by Bloomberg, Lowe described the incident, “Appalled, we asked him to explain his comment. He doubled down, saying, ‘C’mon. You know what I’m saying. Did you Jew them down? You must have.’”

As if the problem was that Lowe didn’t hear him correctly.

Then Horton generated more negative headlines after he spent $118,000 of taxpayer money on office furniture, despite being barred from running for re-election due to term limits.

I guess he’s not into IKEA.

That proved to be the final straw for the BOE, as the governor and Legislature stripped them of most of their power and gave it to the newly created California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Now, if you end up in a tax dispute with the state, a horde of unelected bureaucrats have the power of God over you.

What could go wrong?

As its first order of business, the new department sent uniformed and armed California Highway Patrol officers to shut down the popular Palm Springs restaurant The Tropicale over a “tax-related” investigation, despite the fact that no arrests were made and by their own admission “the operation posed no problems.”

Agents told KESQ that they couldn’t comment on the specific warrant, due to “taxpayer confidentiality laws.”

Patrons were turned away and employees were sent home. A sign placed on the door read, “Due to unforeseen circumstances, The Tropicale will be closed for the evening. We will re-open tomorrow at our regular time. We apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to seeing you tomorrow!”

So far, the department has given no reasonable explanation as to why this dispute required such a major disruption to business operations and this show of force.

Unless, of course, they were trying to send a message to the rest of us. If they aren’t paid what they think they’re owed, they’re going to show up to our places of business like gangsters and shut us down.

This sort of physical intimidation is an unbelievable abuse of power, and may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now that elected officials have been replaced by a state agency with absolute power and a thirst for money, this type of shock-and-awe campaign could be coming to a restaurant near you.

John Phillips is a CNN political commentator and can be heard weekdays at 3 p.m. on “The Drive Home with Jillian Barberie and John Phillips” on KABC/AM 790.

The California State University system has decided to end its current remedial classes, but what will that mean for students and the value of a college degree?

CSU Chancellor Timothy White issued an executive order last week to eliminate the schools’ placement exams and remedial courses for incoming freshman whose math and English skills may not meet college standards.

Campuses may offer replacement programs, such as additional tutoring or the option of stretching general education courses out over multiple semesters to give students more time to catch up.

The changes are intended to improve graduation rates and college affordability, since remedial courses do not count toward graduation requirements. The CSU system suffers from a mere 19 percent four-year graduation rate, which it has pledged to more than double to 40 percent by 2025.

“The idea that students have to take courses that don’t count toward their degree costs them money and costs them time,” James Minor, CSU senior strategist for academic success and inclusive excellence, told the Sacramento Bee. “It really invites first-generation students to question whether or not they really belong in college,” he added.

But is it really such an imposition to require up to three remediation classes during a student’s first year, particularly if their skills are subpar? If students — first-generation or otherwise — cannot demonstrate a very basic level of proficiency in key academic skills, then they probably don’t belong in college.

If the remedial program really is totally ineffective, then scrapping the program is the right move. If not, however, it is a disservice to students and taxpayers alike to shove more unqualified students into college, which will only lead to more dropouts and/or the dilution of the value of the college degrees they receive. How much will a CSU degree be worth to employers if campuses are graduating more students that lack basic math and English skills?

The large percentage of those entering college unprepared suggests that something must be done to catch them up if they are to remain in, much less graduate from, college.

The larger problem is that so many high school graduates are unprepared for college in the first place. Nearly 40 percent of incoming CSU freshmen are required to take remedial classes. This reflects a failure of the K-12 system. No wonder so many parents and students, particularly in disadvantaged communities with failing schools dominated by teachers unions that seek to actively stifle innovation and competition, are clamoring for school choice, particularly in the form of charter schools.

This is out of CSU’s control, but if CSU really wants to improve graduation rates, it could start by cutting its administrative bloat and redirecting those resources to instruction. The California State Auditor’s Office issued a biting report in April castigating the CSU system for its lack of justification for administrative management positions — whose numbers and compensation grew at more than twice the rates of those for faculty over the previous decade — as well as a lack of adequate budget monitoring.

If a CSU college degree is to be worth the paper it is printed on, both CSU and K-12 schools must enact solutions to improve student learning and college preparation, not just redefine the problem.

Reason’s Baruch Feigenbaum raised some good points in a recent column in these pages regarding declining transit ridership, and for more than two years now, OCTA has been working to implement many of the measures he suggests could help turn the trend around.

Changes in employment, demographics, housing and technology have all contributed to a 30 percent drop in O.C. bus ridership following the Great Recession, a trend being mirrored throughout the nation. For decades, ridership had closely tracked with the ups and downs of employment, and more service on the streets translated into more ridership. However, post-recession, our analysis showed this was no longer the case and past trends could no longer predict future performance. So in 2015, we launched an initiative to make significant changes and reinvent bus service in Orange County.

Called OC Bus 360°, our efforts to boost ridership are centered on one basic principle: matching the service OCTA provides with the market demand. To put it simply, one size does not fit all when it comes to running bus service and we are delivering solutions that best meet the varying needs of each community within the county.

The changes come following data-driven research and after significant public input, including an industry peer review, a comprehensive fare study, in-depth customer surveys, as well as new branding and marketing efforts. We heard a consistent theme from current and former riders. They wanted faster, more frequent and more convenient service.

Starting in June 2016, we began reducing or eliminating unproductive and inefficient routes so that we could cost-effectively boost service in areas where we know the demand is strong. We made adjustments to nearly half of our routes and increased the frequency on popular lines. We also launched Bravo! Route 560, a new limited-stop service between Santa Ana and Long Beach, which according to 57 percent of riders, has shaved 15 or more minutes off their commute. The new service has also attracted new bus riders, with about one-third saying they have been riding the bus for less than a year.

In addition, OCTA has been implementing technology solutions and working with cities and third-party partners to find alternative transit models that meet local needs. Along with the Lyft pilot program in San Clemente, OCTA has helped launch — and is continuing to work with cities on — options like shuttles and community circulators, many of which operate on weekends or for special events. In the coming months we are preparing to launch an on-demand pilot program in areas with fewer transit options. We also have made taking the bus more convenient for riders by introducing mobile ticketing and real-time passenger information through the OC Bus mobile app.

Two years of planning and a year after starting to implement the changes, we are beginning to see positive results. Most notably, we have seen a 13.7 percent increase in ridership on routes that were adjusted in October 2016. And system wide, where we were consistently seeing double-digit declines each month from 2015 to 2016, we are now stemming the drop. For example, comparing June 2015 to June 2016, there was a 10.5 percent ridership decline. From June 2016 to June 2017, there was a 3.1 percent drop.

While we are starting to head in the right direction, there is still work to be done before our service is optimized for the county’s residents and visitors. And as always, we welcome any suggestions from the public as we explore new ways to truly reinvent how we deliver transit service to Orange County.

Darrell Johnson is chief executive officer at the Orange County Transportation Authority.

When it comes to voting rights, any obstacles outrage liberals; even free government-issued IDs are viewed as disenfranchising the poor and disproportionately blacks. But when it comes to the right to own a gun for self-defense, they don’t hesitate to pile on fees, ID requirements, expensive training and onerous background checks.

That’s too bad, because many law-abiding citizens in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. Since poor, urban blacks are the most likely victims of violent crime, there is little doubt that they stand to benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the average fee for a concealed handgun permit is $67, but it is much higher in the most Democratic states. Each 10-percentage point increase in a state’s presidential vote for Hillary Clinton was associated with an additional $30 in the concealed handgun permit fee. In California, where Clinton won by over 30 points, fees can be as high as $385 for just two years. In New York City, where she won by 60 points, a three-year permit costs $430.

In addition to prohibitive fees, some blue states — California, Illinois — require four times as many training hours as the national average, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of obtaining a concealed-carry license. In California counties, the mandated cost of training can run from $250 to over a $1,000. Compare heavily Democratic Illinois where the cost of permit and training runs over $450 versus neighboring Republican Indiana where the total cost for everything is $50.

In some states, the poor need not apply even if they are willing to pay these costs. In the heavily Democratic-leaning states of California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island as well as the District of Columbia, people have to demonstrate need for a permit to a local public official.

Los Angeles County illustrates how this discretion results in only a select few wealthy and powerful individuals getting permits. If Los Angeles County authorized permits at the same rate as the rest of the country, it would have around 600,000 permit holders. Instead, only 226 permits have been issued within a population of about 7.9 million adults, and many of them have been to politically connected individuals, including judges. Indeed, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca earned a reputation for awarding permits to people who gave him campaign donations or generous gifts.

While women make up 36 permit of permit holders nationally; they only got 7 percent of the permits in the county. Though almost half the county’s population is Hispanic, only 6.5 percent of permits were given to Hispanics. Few were given to blacks.

In New York City, permits seem to go only to a politically approved segment of the rich and powerful. This includes union heads and people like Donald Trump, Howard Stern and Robert De Niro. Those who aren’t politically approved — Fox News’ John Stossel, for instance — don’t get permits no matter how many death threats they provide evidence of.

Are influential individuals really the only ones who have legitimate concerns for their safety?

Democrats continue to fight for higher fees. In Connecticut, the state fee for a concealed handgun permit is already $70. Gov. Dannel Malloy wants to raise it to $300. Adding local charges and additional payments for training and fingerprinting, this increase would bring the total cost of a permit to more than $500.

In Texas, the state fee for a concealed-handgun permit, $140, is one of the highest in the country. In May, the state Legislature passed a bill that will reduce the fee to $40, starting September 1. Not one Republican opposed the cut. In the state House, only 32 percent of Democrats supported it.

In 2013, the Colorado House of Representatives voted on whether to exempt people in poverty from a tax imposed on the transferring of guns between individuals. All but two Democrats voted against the amendment.

After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., in 2008, the city quickly imposed the most onerous licensing and registration fees in the country. The total costs for a permit temporarily reached an incredible $834. Who but the affluent can afford such a fee?

Dozens of published peer-reviewed studies, including my own book “More Guns, Less Crime” from the University of Chicago Press (2010, 3rd edition), have demonstrated that those who are the most likely victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns.

The cops can’t be everywhere at once. Indeed, they rarely respond to live crime scenes at all. But unfortunately for poor people living in the country’s most violent neighborhoods, Democrats just don’t trust them with guns.

John R. Lott, Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of “The War on Guns.”

REEBOK’S ACADEMY EFFORT: With “Wonder Woman’s” Gal Gadot, “Baby Driver’s” Ansel Elgort and “Atomic Blonde’s” Charlize Theron earning strong reviews for their chiseled physiques this summer, it’s not surprising that Reebok is appealing to the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences to create an Oscar for best fitness trainer.
In an open letter to academy president John Bailey posted Wednesday afternoon, Reebok president Matt O’Toole noted that the best scenes and storylines often require “amazing physical transformations” thanks to a small field of expert trainers.
While uber-fit overhauls aren’t exactly new (as Sylvester Stallone, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Jennifer Lawrence can attest) the C-suite lobbying is an unprecedented tactic. O’Toole notes that for the last 36 years the Academy has handed out Best Makeup and Hairstyling awards. And he made reference to the fact that sound mixers have been recognized by the Academy since 1930. “Why not also reward the people who keep our role models in peak condition?” he wrote.
Reebok wasted no time in reaching out to Bailey, a cinematographer in his own right, who was voted in to head up the academy Tuesday night. But reached Wednesday afternoon, a spokesman for the organization said he was unfamiliar with the

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

He’ll be joined by a lineup of all-star chefs for a blowout at the Hotel Bel Air.

The pink-and-blue tourmaline is a one-of-a-kind collectible with a serious price tag.

These tiny wonders are like no in-ear headphones we have ever heard before.

The collaboration will be available for a limited time at the original Shake Shack and EMP’s Summer House in the Hamptons.