This 138-year-old German shoe company still crafts everything by hand.

Available for around-the-world charters, Crystal Skye features butlers, a wine cellar, and plush seats.

The Wider 130 joins the 150 and 165 yacht models as one of the most innovative, fuel-efficient superyachts with lots of usable deck space.

The French vigneron behind Sonoma’s Vérité has watched the wine world change around him.

Sip some of the world’s most exclusive Pappy Van Winkle whiskey next week.

It is beginning to look like Lake Forest is in for a recall, as the second attempt at unseating Councilman Andrew Hamilton gained ground.

“Larissa Fellick Clark and other recall supporters gathered 16,307 signatures requesting Hamilton’s recall,” the Register reported, adding, “In order for the recall election to proceed, the petitioners need at least 8,834 of those signatures to be certified by the Orange County Registrar of Voters.”

The main point of contention seems to be Hamilton’s vote on the contract with the Orange County Animal Center, which has been controversial. But recall proponents also contend that “he will vote to rezone the 45-acre Nakase nursery to allow hundreds of homes on Bake Parkway,” according to the Register, and they “allege he secretly videotaped residents during the previous recall effort, and creates copycat Facebook sites with misinformation about other council members.”

While his vote on the animal center is a matter of public record, the others seem harder to prove. One appears to be pure speculation, and the other, if true, is certainly unbecoming of an elected official, but there also doesn’t seem to be any proof of the claim.

Hamilton denies the allegations regarding his social media activity.

The reality is, like or dislike Andrew Hamilton, the councilman was elected by the voters in 2014, and he is up for re-election next year. Recalls should be a political weapon of last resort. They should be used sparingly, and only when the claims of impropriety surpass typical election-year differences into the realm of the immoral, unethical or criminal, which requires the immediate removal of the offender from office.

Hamilton’s “crime” was casting a vote. It may not have been a vote with which some, or even a majority, of his constituents agree, but that is the job he was elected to perform. That is how our republican form of government works.

If Lake Forest residents want to lodge their disapproval, they already have a venue to do so: the next regularly scheduled election.

Sometimes recalls are necessary, other times they are not. This one appears to fall into the latter category.

But it appears that residents will push ahead with it anyway.

It is often noted that Americans live in a very litigious society. This criticism is typically leveled at frivolous tort cases and ambulance-chasing trial lawyers, but it extends equally to the legislators who write unnecessary laws and the government agents such as district attorneys, judges and police who enforce them.

The U.S. has the largest incarceration rate in the world, aided by the prevalence of victimless crimes (particularly nonviolent drug crimes) and a predilection for incarceration as primary option for punishment. But while there may be a strong drive to “do something” when someone is harmed by another, locking people up is oftentimes not in the interest of justice. Perhaps this is best illustrated in cases involving accidents, especially when those at fault are family members.

In one high-profile example, just last month an 18-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of gross vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving after she crashed her car in Merced County, killing her 14-year-old sister, who was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the vehicle. The case received heightened attention because the accident was captured in a graphic livestreamed video recording on Instagram, which showed her fatally wounded sister lying in a grassy field.

Last year, a 53-year-old Arkansas man was charged with felony manslaughter for the death of his 4-year-old grandson, who was killed in an accident while mowing some brush on the family ranch. A tractor tire hit a hole in the ground and the boy fell off the tractor and was run over by the mower.

Then there are the instances where distracted or forgetful parents have been charged for the death of a child inadvertently left in a hot — or even mildly warm — vehicle.

I cannot imagine how those at fault in the cases above will be able to deal with what they have done. That torturous guilt is a greater punishment than any that could be inflicted by a judge and prosecutor.

A family is only doubly punished, however, when a second family member is taken from it, this time by the state, to waste away in prison. It is as much a punishment to the other victims — the remaining children, who must grow up without a mother or father, or the spouse, who is now rendered a single parent who must support the rest of the family alone — as it is to the one at fault. In an added cruel twist, the family is forced to support these efforts to further tear it apart through their taxes.

In such cases, society is not served by turning a private tragedy into a larger public burden. Sometimes a tragic accident is just an accident, and the consequences are punishment enough.

Even in cases that do not involve parties within the same family, victims should have more say on the punishment of perpetrators, and the focus should be more on restitution than incarceration.

Sentencing someone to prison may pad a district attorney’s “tough on crime” bona fides, but it does little to compensate the victims. The criminal will rot in prison, on the taxpayers’ dime, and perhaps learn even more criminal, anti-social behaviors from his fellow prisoners, which he may then inflict on society if he gets out.

But before government assumed a greater role in crime and punishment, and even still today in places like Japan or informal tribal arrangements, perpetrators and victims were encouraged to negotiate to agree upon an appropriate restitution to compensate the victims, or their families. If the criminal could not afford the restitution all at once, he could pay it off over time through his labor. In a stark contrast to the incarceration model, this also encourages him to develop skills and to once again become a productive member of society.

In cases of extreme violence, where the facts are clear and the criminal exhibits no remorse, incarceration and an “eye for an eye” approach may be appropriate. But we should recognize that, as in other areas, the politicization of crime and punishment has led those in government to lose sight of individual rights in the pursuit of a nebulous “societal” good, and to serve the interests of the government agents charged with enforcement, not necessarily the interests of victims. A system of true justice and compassion would recognize that sometimes accidents result in tragedy that no prison cell can remedy, and would focus on addressing the needs and wishes of the victims, not adding another notch on a DA’s belt before the next election.

Adam B. Summers is a columnist with the Southern California News Group.

With the U.S. Treasury exhausting its current borrowing capacity in October, House Republicans should follow the Trump administration’s lead and lift the debt ceiling — without tacking on any conditions, no matter how well-intentioned.

Both the “crisis” atmosphere and the proper response should be familiar to any Americans who have followed similar debates in the past. Because there is no sizable political constituency for a balanced budget, and economic growth has been patchy, Republicans uncomfortable with seemingly endless or reflexive increases in the debt ceiling have tried to tie those hikes to spending cuts.

Herein lies the problem. Although millions and millions of Americans support spending cuts in general, so many citizens are so dependent on the current budget and tax structure that the cuts that Republicans seek in return for higher debts tend toward the relatively symbolic.

Given the seriousness of the structural challenges facing the country today, and the weak political position of congressional Republicans compared to the White House, risking a costly and unpopular default over token spending cuts would be a big mistake.

One apparent fix would be to target cuts around the parts of the imbalanced budget that Republicans have always worked to reduce. Sure enough, some House conservatives think they can force a party-line cut to entitlement spending by tying it to their debt ceiling vote.

This would be an irresponsible and unwise way of trying to finesse the GOP’s failure to replace or even repeal Obamacare. Republicans are now in a position where they must stand by and watch Obamacare’s failures worsen without looking smug. Hacking away at entitlements will not strengthen their hand come November.

Certainly not every policy judgment is trumped by naked political considerations. But Democrats are themselves in a moment of weakness that will not last much longer if Republicans fail to rise to the occasion and establish greater consensus and confidence among American voters. Holding the debt ceiling hostage, even for “the right reasons,” will not make that challenge any easier.

Fortunately, House Speaker Paul Ryan recognizes that the effort required to move ahead with a clean bill is nowhere near as onerous as the alternative. In 2011, Ryan went to the wire against then-President Obama on this same issue, a battle that resulted in a misbegotten budgetary “supercommittee” whose ineffectiveness begat the dread “sequester” — a deep and wide-ranging series of cuts that fell especially hard on the military. This time, Ryan has lined up behind the White House.

In an ideal world, the federal budget would not only crawl back down from the stratosphere, but it would do so in a balanced way. In the real world, while perpetual debt ceiling increases do add to the risk of economic calamity, our budgetary and financial systems are already precarious enough that reform should flow through separate and comprehensive bills. Mere tack-ons will not do the trick. It doesn’t take a public policy expert to understand that fact, and the American people are watching.

From North Korea to Iran and well beyond, severe crises are on track to consume the rest of 2017. Public patience for a manufactured crisis is low, as well it should be.

Republicans who bite the bullet and hike the debt ceiling, the better to train fire on our most urgent needs, should be rewarded.

Re: “Hands off D.C.’s, states’ laws on aid-in-dying” [Opinion, Aug. 8]: I have changed my opinion on the merits of being a Republican, and that can easily be explained. Many holier-than-thou Republicans offer a far-right conservative approach to issues too numerous to opine on now, but one that they are sticking their unwanted noses in is the “Death with Dignity Act.” They are taking a stand on a recently passed act by the Washington, D.C., council. They claim it is an affront to their moral compass to allow human beings with six months to live to take the medication or shots necessary to end their lives and not have to continually suffer.

Some doctors say that it is not incumbent on them to give their patients the wherewithal to end their lives. They call into question the Hippocratic oath with the saying, “I will utterly reject harm and mischief,” and not the words frequently inferred of “do no harm.” They claim the patient, for the most part, needn’t suffer with the palliative care they can be given, but what is the rationality of being kept alive even longer than six months against the will of the patient when there is no hope of recovery, but for a life languishing in bed waiting for nature to take its course?

Patients would think they have autonomy over their own lives by exercising their directive of choosing death with dignity. But they may be denied that directive by their doctor, who may disagree with ending their lives not so much due to a moral compass, but rather by strong religious convictions. It is not the God they believe in who speaks to them to deny the patient’s wishes, but instead their own interpretation of what His intention may be, thus channeling their own self-demi-God approach. It is best, in any case, to have a legal form with one’s doctor or lawyer regarding one’s desire whether or not to not use extraordinary means of keeping one alive when treatment doesn’t offer hope of a natural course of life. It is wise to make sure, when choosing a physician, that he or she will abide by your wishes.

— Barry Wasserman, Huntington Beach

No joke

Re: “We’re asking readers to share their favorite political joke” [Opinion, Aug. 8]: Was it tongue-in-cheek that you asked readers to tell a political joke, while just above was an editorial about the people of D.C.’s right to aid-in-dying? I can think of quite a few in Congress and the U.S. Senate that are doing that quite effectively all on their own, law or no law.

— Suzi Andersen, Costa Mesa

In 2017’s first six months, the Cypress housing market looked strong.

CoreLogic statistics for the first half of 2017, compared with the same period a year earlier, show these trends for Cypress …

1. 65 homes sold this year vs. 46 a year ago.

2. That’s a sales gain of 41.3 percent vs. a homebuying gain of 2.2 percent countywide.

3. Median selling price this year of $649,000 vs. $500,000 in 2016.

4. That’s a price gain of 29.8 percent. Countywide median was $675,000, up 3.1 percent vs. first-half 2016.

Here are six countywide trends to ponder, first half 2017 vs. first half 2016 …

1. Prices rose in 70 of 83 Orange County ZIPs. Sales rose in 50 of the 83.

2. In the 27 least expensive ZIPs — median price at $597,500 and below -– 5,258 homes sold. That’s up 0.8 percent.

3. In the 27 priciest ZIPs — median price of $755,000-plus -– 6,431 homes sold. That’s up 5.7 percent.

4. In nine ZIPs with medians above $1 million, sales totaled 1,256 homes, up 7.8 percent.

5. In 16 beach-close ZIPs, 3,158 homes sold, up 3.27 percent.

6. There were 10 ZIPs with median prices under $500,000 with total sales of 1,799 homes. A year ago, 18 ZIPs had medians under $500,000 with 2,793 sales.

DID YOU SEE? It’s been 10 years since Orange County’s housing bubble … or … Half of us rent: L.A.-Orange County homeownership rate 2nd lowest in U.S.