Think of Don Quixote, but with a suntan -– and a map instead of a lance.

Even before there was a California, Californians have wanted to divvy up the state. Too big. Too heterogeneous. Hispanic southern California mismatched with Gold Rush northern California. Coastal wedded to inland, wet northern California mated to dry southern California.

The latest state-splitting dreamer is Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, who wants a statewide summit to bring this matter and many other operational questions to local officials, and maybe, ultimately, create a 51^st state out of the Golden State.

The two-state map suggested by the Republican Stone would carve out of every southern California county except LA County, and then snip north-ish, raggedly up the middle of the state, to include counties bordering Arizona and Nevada, and reaching almost as far north as the inland "bend’’ of California. You can read my colleague Phil Willon’s story about it here.

This is a rare vertical configuration; most of the slice-up-the-California-baby proposals have argued for a horizontal split -– as long ago as 1849, when one proposal to the state constitutional convention involved drawing a line from San Luis Obispo due east, creating a state to the north and a territory to the south.

The Stone state, not unlike the vertical line of the San Andreas Fault, would mirror the state’s political divisions more accurately than a northern-southern divide. This is deliberate, Stone says, because Los Angeles has "the same liberal policies that Sacramento does.’’

You could practically hear the snort from Gov. Jerry Brown’s spokesman, Gil Duran, who told the Press-Enterprise, "A secessionist movement? What is this, 1860?"

As late as 1941, some people in extreme northern California and southern Oregon were agitating to become the state of Jefferson; they’d even elected a governor, and celebrated with a big parade in Yreka –- three days before Pearl Harbor put paid to that notion. 

Lest we forget, the other 49 states might have something to say about this too.

Historically, the prospect of multiple Californias raised a ruckus during the ferocious political slavery struggles before the Civil War, when a compromise declared California would be a free state -– but only one state. Divide California, and the new state head count could tip the nation toward abolition.

Here is a scholarly history of state-splitting from 98 years ago.

[Jon Winokur’s nifty blue-and-gold  book, "The War Between the State: Northern California versus Southern California,’’ is full of Californians’ observations about the differences between us. It includes, as I recall, one of mine, to the effect that San Francisco is where you go to get engaged –- and L.A. is where you go to write the prenup. The rivalry is ancient but, for some time now, I think San Francisco has been left behind; L.A. has pitched its rivalry with New York, except on the baseball diamond.]

Nearly 20 years ago, another Quixote, this one a former Republican state Assembly member and broadcaster named Stan Statham, nicknamed "Three-State Stan,’’ revived the cut-it-up argument, first in favor of two states, and then three.

It went nowhere, but it did inspire a contest with an inspired outcome. On the Emmy-winning "Life & Times’’ public affairs program on KCET, which I co-hosted, we asked viewers, if California were indeed divided, like Gaul, into three parts, what should the states be named?

I thought that two states, northern and southern California, might aptly be named Silicon and Silicone.

But three states? I was stumped. Here, from viewers’ suggestions, were my favorites:

North to south: Log-Land, Fog-Land and Smog-Land.

South to north: Id, Ego and Superego.

Supervisor Stone says he supports intrastate secession in part because state government is too dysfunctional to fix. To which I must ask, then isn’t it also too dysfunctional even to be able to split itself in twain?

RELATED:

Ted Rall cartoon: Greetings from Republican utopia 'South California'

Reader poll: Is 'South California' the only escape from Sacramento's sweeping failure?

-- Patt Morrison

Split California into two states? That's what Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone has proposed in hopes of creating "South California," a new state that would be founded on Republican principles. But, as Ted Rall suggests in his weekly cartoon, such a plan could backfire. A productive society isn't sustainable if its people aren't taken care of. And for that, government needs to collect taxes. (Click on the cartoon to see a larger image.)

We asked readers to weigh in on Stone's proposal, and of this posting at 6:15 p.m. on Tuesday, about 55% of the people who took our poll were against the idea of a creating this new state,  compared to 32% who were in favor and 13% who were undecided.

What do you think? Is Stone right that "South California" should become its own state?

MORE CARTOONS:

Prepare for carmageddon

Busting Amazon's tax chops

How to save the L.A. Dodgers

Rare display of integrity by a politician

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Cartoon by Ted Rall / For The Times

When it comes to the federal debt, Republicans are more willing to seek their own goal of no tax hikes than they are a solution for the nation, The Times editorial board said Tuesday.  Meanwhile, after ignoring the recommendations of his deficit reduction commission, Obama is finally ready to address the problem with a "balanced" approach. Cutting the projected deficit by $4 trillion in a decade may not be the best for a slow economy, the board said, but it might provide a sense of certainty that could encourage investment. Here's an excerpt:

Voting for such a plan would be hard for both sides. To save $4 trillion over 10 years, Congress would have to slow the growth in benefit programs that Democrats cherish. At a news conference Monday, Obama reiterated his willingness to support those cuts, but only if Congress also eliminated at least some tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy in 2013 and later years. That's a political necessity for Democrats, who are already grumbling about Obama's proposed deficit-reduction package being tilted much more heavily toward spending cuts than tax increases.

[…]

[Refusing to support an increase in revenue] rules out a deal that would make real progress on the deficit while also achieving some top GOP goals, including curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and simplifying the tax code with lower rates and a broader base. By confusing rigidity with principle, Republicans are letting Obama portray them -- accurately -- as extremists defending "egregious tax loopholes." Republicans would do well to remember that this a no-pain, no-gain situation for lawmakers from both parties.

Readers  are just as confused. Times editorial writer Jon Healey also joined the discussion  with some of his insight.

Scrooge endorses yachts for billionaires

Billionaires deserve bigger yachts -- so let's throw the handicapped out of their wheelchairs, condemn old people to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart, then eliminate the minimum wage, and then bust the unions.  I, Ebenezer Scrooge, endorse this program.

-- Steelsil

No one's taxes should be raised in a recession

Nothing wrong-way about this.  You don't raise taxes in a recession, period.  Not anybody's taxes.  You can spout all the class-warfare populist rhetoric you want, and I hope it makes you feel better.  But for the bottom line, refer to sentence #2 in this post.  If you don't understand the reasons for this, you need basic coursework in macroeconomics which you can find on any university campus.  And while you're at it, take Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, and Ms. Pelosi with you as well, since they appear to need remedial coursework in this regard.

--AaronCohn

If they don't reach an agreement, get rid of them all

To not come to agreement is an unacceptable abandonment of responsibility on the part of the congress...the entire congress, with a cascade of consequences not only to our entire country, but the world economy.  So, if congress refuses to do their job, draconian measures must be taken; no pay, no travel until a deal is done.  If the nation defaults, the president declares Marshall law, demands new elections for every seat, and implements the full set of budget reductions and raises the debt ceiling; the plan he has proposed, which both sides hate (a good sign), meaning there is pain for everyone but the nation gets put back on track to a healthy economy.

--galestorm3

Why did Obama wait until the 11^th hour for this?

If you take away all tax deductions, you can call it a "tax revenue increase", but it's really a tax increase.

Obama is within his rights to demand something in exchange for permanent spending cuts and entitlement reform.  This does beg the question, though, why didn't he push for the recommendations of his budget committee when he had the chance, rather than waiting until the 11th hour?

Something has to give here.  If no deal is reached, the U.S. will default on its debt and become Greece.  Printing more fiat money to pay down debt would be disastrous.

Republicans should agree to the elimination of all but a very few tax deductions, such as the personal deduction, deductions for dependents and a deduction for mortgage interest on one's residence, capped at, say, $25,000 per year.

Conversely, in exchange for this massive, de facto tax hike, Democrats should be willing to PERMANENTLY reduce the current tax rates (all of them) by at least 2%, including capital gains and the alternative minimum tax (a.k.a. Operation Soak the Rich).

You cannot tax your way out of this sort of economic crisis.  You CAN grow your way out of it, and that means encouraging people with capital to invest it and take risks while reassuring them that if they succeed they will reap some reward.  If not, expect little or no improvement in the nation's economy for some time.

--GregMaragos

Maybe it took him a while to realize another stimulus wouldn't happen, in response to GregMaragos

@Greg -- Excellent question re: why Obama didn't throw himself behind the deficit commission's recommendations. My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that it took a few months for him to realize that any prospects of further stimulus were dead in the new Congress, regardless of what was happening with the economy. At that point, perhaps, he accepted the argument from deficit hawks that adopting a plan to really fix the problem would send confidence surging, promoting the growth that (as you point out) is critical.

--Jon Healey, LA Times

What Obama thought about the debt ceiling in 2006

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Obama, 2006, when he voted against it.

--Pasquino Marforio

Spending is the problem, not the tax breaks

The compound problem requires a compound solution:  Washington and Sacramento take too much and spend too much.  Consequently, we not only need to rein in spending, but also taxation.  Bad class warfare theatre from the Democrats is the major point of contention.  Every tax break, such as corporate jets, creates jobs.  Removing these breaks will only add to unemployment, and the claimed revenue is so small, it is insignificant.  It's time to come down hard before we end up like Greece.

--TimBowman

*Spelling errors in the above comments were corrected.

 RELATED

America's depressed and it's the economy's fault

Government: Adding a dimension to the debt-ceiling game of chicken

Debt-ceiling: Forget a new roof, let's build a whole new economic house

Government: Shifting from stimulating spending to stimulating confidence?

Deb-ceiling negotiations: With the sky falling, is a big-picture deal do-able?

--Samantha Schaefer

Photo: President Obama meets with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week. Credit: Alex Wong/EPA

Despite assurances to the contrary from top lawmakers in both parties, the chances of the U.S. defaulting on its debts are growing by the day. The three emerging camps -- President Obama, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans -- don't appear to be closing in on a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Obama says he still wants a "big" deal  to trim future deficits with spending cuts and tax increases, but Republicans are rejecting any form of new revenue and Democrats are bristling at Obama's proposed cuts in Medicare and Social Security.

There's clearly a game of chicken going on, as often happens under capitol domes. As negotiators draw closer to the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department, each side appears to be waiting for the other to fold in the interests of avoiding a catastrophic default. (I know, some lawmakers and readers fervently believe that Washington could avoid defaulting  by continuing to pay interest on its debt but stiffing other creditors -- like, say, air-traffic controllers or bridge-repair contractors. I suggest that these folks stop paying 40% of their bills, then see what happens to their credit rating and the interest on their Visa cards.)

But like a 3-D chessboard, there's a whole 'nother level to this particular exercise in governing. Let's assume, as columnist Gerald Seib doesin Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, that Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) genuinely want a big deficit-cutting deal because it's good policy. Naturally, the version Obama supports isn't the same one Boehner advocates. The former reportedly would accept limited cuts in entitlements in exchange for a tax overhaul that eliminates some corporate tax breaks and raises revenue, possibly while lowering rates. The latter appears open to a deal that achieves its savings through spending cuts; he'd support a tax overhaul that eliminates some corporate tax breaks, but it would have to lower rates enough to offset those increases in revenue.

There's no guarantee that Democrats (or even Republicans) would accept the entitlement cuts that Obama is reportedly backing, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and providing lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security. But Democrats may not have to cast that vote -- the GOP's refusal to countenance an increase in revenue means that Obama's debt-reduction package isn't advancing, at least not at this point. That effectively liberates Obama to press publicly for a bigger, more dramatic deficit-reduction package than Democrats are comfortable with.

Republicans have argued that the entitlement changes Obama supports aren't all that meaningful. But that debate has gotten subsumed by the fight over taxes. The GOP appears to be betting that the public is so concerned about taxes, Republicans will be rewarded for standing even against the elimination of a handful of corporate tax breaks.

The fact that both sides are tussling over how to trim the deficit, not whether to do it, is a victory for the GOP. But give Obama credit for some rhetorical jujitsu: By holding out for a bigger deficit-reduction package than House Republicans favor, he seems to be leading again, not just reacting.

RELATED:

The debt ceiling and wrong-way Republicans

Shifting from stimulating spending to stimulating confidence?

Stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling

-- Jon Healey

Photo: Why are these people smiling? Credit: Charles Dharapak / Associated Press

To escape Democratic failure, Republican Supervisor Jeff Stone proposed that 13 of California’s inland counties break with the rest of the state to become "South California." The Riverside County Board of Supervisors will discuss the possibility of a statewide planning summit for the nation's 51^ststate, which would include Riverside, Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego and Tulare counties -- all areas that are mostly Republican and have a total of 13 million residents.

Los Angeles County is not part of the plan because it has the same liberal problems as Sacramento, Stone said, and he wouldn't want the same situation replicated in the new state.

"A secessionist movement? What is this, 1860?" Gov. Jerry Brown’s spokesman, Gil Duran, said to the Press-Enterprise.

"It's a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody's time," Duran told The Times. "If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there's a place called Arizona.''

Riverside County should probably focus on fixing its $130-million revenue gap for next year, Duran said.

Lawmakers in "South California" would not have term limits, the legislature would be part time and there would be controls on property taxes, Stone said.

But Stone's "South California" could end up being the 52^nd state if "Baja Arizona" beats it to the punch -- the southern region of Arizona is trying to escape the Republican politics its residents don't agree with. In fact, the group "Start Our State" symbolically declared its independence as the 51st state on July 4, according to the Tucson Sentinel. The group is trying to put a petition on the ballot in 2012 that would ask for the Legislature's permission for Pima County to ask Congress to consider making Baja Arizona its own state.

In order for a new state to be added to the nation, the state's legislature and Congress must consent to the addition, according to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Proposals to split California have come up more than 220 times since the 1850s. It's not likely to happen; a state hasn't been split since 1863 -- when West Virginia was created during the Civil War -- despite hundreds of proposals across the nation.

Should California's southern Republicans be freed from the state's Democrats?

 RELATED

California's morons in the Legislature 

California's grand budget bargain that wasn't

California's budget: The state takes a lesson from its people

California's initiative system: The gateway to citizens' rights or a process that needs fixing?

--Samantha Schaefer

You know the saying, "When in Rome ... "?

Well, here's "the Volga variation" of that one:  "When in Russia, don't ride the riverboats."

Over the weekend, the passenger boat Bulgaria sank on the Volga River, and at least 58 people are confirmed dead so far.

Sure, accidents happen. But as The Times' Sergei L. Loiko detailed, this one was an accident waiting to happen.

The riverboat Bulgaria, which sank Sunday about two miles from shore, was not licensed to carry passengers, had not undergone major repairs in 30 years and was operating without its left engine, said Marina Gridneva, a spokeswoman for the Russian prosecutor general's office.

Volga region transport prosecutor Sergei Belov said fuel for the left engine had been pumped to the boat's right side, which resulted in the boat listing 4 degrees. In addition, the 56-year-old double-decker pleasure cruiser was carrying about 50 passengers more than it was built to handle, Belov said.

Which sounds bad. But one bad apple, right?  Uh, no:

A 2010 report by the federal Sea and River Fleet Agency said that Russia's 1,100 passenger transport vessels were aging and that many should be "written off en masse." It said that "tourist cruise boats were in a particularly bad state."

And these were the guys we spent the Cold War being afraid of?

It reminds me of the story a Times foreign correspondent once told me of an Aeroflot flight he took. He recalled waving to his family before takeoff -- made easier by the fact that the plane had no glass in the window by his seat.

I also thought about this Russian regulatory lapse in light of Sunday's Times story on a move by Texas to skirt federal regulations that phase out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs in favor of more efficient lamps.  

Texas hopes to get around the law with a measure recently signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry declaring that incandescent bulbs -- if made and sold only in Texas -- do not involve interstate commerce and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

"I think that Texans as a whole are tired of the federal government trying to micromanage our lives," said George Lavender, a Republican state representative who sponsored the legislation.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that Lavender would like his state's regulatory environment to be like Russia's. But let's face it, this micromanagement argument can be a slippery slope: One day it's anything goes with light bulbs; the next, oh, I don't know, maybe a big dang oil rig blows up in the Gulf of Mexico.

You know, an oil rig you need because you refuse to endorse any kind of energy efficiency?

Not buying that argument?  Check out these eerily similar passages, first, from the Russia story ...

"The Volga tragedy tells us about the inability of the authorities to control the situation in all spheres of the country, including the shipbuilding industry, which is all but very dead," lawmaker Anton Belyakov said in an interview. "I am sure they will find the captain, who also sank with the boat, and the shipping company guilty of the accident and all will be forgotten until a new tragedy."

... and then from an April 20 Times Op-Ed article by Charles Wohlforth, on the first anniversary of the BP oil spill:

Now, the anniversary of the BP spill comes with a feeling of "Whatever happened to ... ?" Legislative efforts have stalled, and they're not particularly ambitious anyway. The BP spill spawned a commission, but its recommendations to Congress have been ignored.

So here's my two-cents' worth for today:

Let's get on board with this energy-efficiency thing.

But let's not get on board any riverboats in Russia.

RELATED:

Amazon wants voters to decide sales tax issue

U.S. to require more gun-buyer information in border states

Outsmart the law? There's an app for that

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: A relative greets a survivor in Kazan, Russia. Credit: Tatarstan Emergencies Ministry

We've known for months how close we are to hitting the federal government's debt ceiling.  The only remaining mystery is how the crisis will be resolved. Unfortunately, the headline on our board's July 3 editorial -- "Stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling. The impasse in Congress is disturbing. It's time for Republicans and Democrats to move out of their ideological corners and cut a deal" -- is still appropriate and timely now, nine days later.     

President Obama has proposed a plan to cut $4-trillion from the federal deficits over the next 10 years.  His plan includes raising $1 trillion from increased taxes, which Republicans oppose.  But the president also faces antagonism from liberal Democrats, who are against his proposed cuts in entitlement programs.

During Monday morning's news conference, he vowed not to approve any stopgap measures, saying, "I will not sign a 30-day, or 60-day, or 90-day extension. This is the United States of America. And, you know, we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments."

Time is decidedly against any compromise at this point.  July 22 is recognized as the last date by which an agreement can be made that would still give Congress time to write, analyze and pass it.

He has a tough road ahead, with partisan reactions to the debt crisis illuminating how far legislators must come, and soon.

Jennifer Rubin, author of the "Right Turn" opinion section of the Washington Post, has a clear and scathing interpretation of the news conference:

To summarize: He won't tell us his specific position on any issue; he is willing to talk tough to his party on entitlement reforms but not taxes; he wants a big deal, but didn't insist, as he had in the past, that it must take us through the 2012 election; and we all need to work together. Did I mention he want us all to work together? You get the drift.

 At a very fundamental level, persisting in a crucial negotiation without telling the American people what the White House position is with any precision on any issue is unseemly. There is no real means of determining what is going on and, consequently, of holding anyone accountable for the results or lack thereof. What is he willing to do? On what points is he challenging his party? He says to read the news. The press swoons -- we got it right! But which reports are correct: the ones that say he backtracked on entitlement reform, or the ones that say he is larding up the deal with more taxes?

Meanwhile, the Rev. Al Sharpton, writing for the Huffington Post, sees Republicans' refusal to compromise as part of their plan to take down Obama, even if they hurt the country while doing so. Here's his take:

Instead of working towards a compromise as the president has been diligently pushing for, Republican Congressional leaders would rather leave the American people out to dry while they continue to protect the rich. It's a tired tactic they have utilized for decades, and it's beyond time we call them out for their hypocrisy, their aversion for the working-class and poor, their blatant support for the wealthy and their desire to risk anything in order to attack the president -- including our  nation's future.

The reality is, these individuals will do anything to oppose and disparage this president, even if that means holding the rest of the nation hostage. In an effort to 'see him fail', Republicans continue to prove that they will allow us to default on our debt, eliminate fundamental programs or anything else that hurts the American people.

In his Opinion L.A .blog post, Paul Whitefield looks at the big picture with an idealism that rarely comes to pass in American politics:

Americans from both parties, and of no party, are sick and tired of partisan gridlock and baby steps. 

So go ahead, Mr. President: Let's overhaul Social Security and Medicare. Let's fix the tax system. Let's quit spending insane billions on defense. Let's stop farm subsidies that enrich people for growing the wrong crops, or no crops at all.

 We need jobs. We need to close the gap between rich and poor. We need to make sure that people who get sick can get medical care. We need immigration reform. We need the government to quit spending like a drunken sailor.

Most of all, we need a president who will lead -– and we need people in Congress who will lead with him.

 So c'mon, Mr. President, and Mr. Speaker, and all you special-interest types and you "tea party" types and you liberal types: Put up or shut up.

 Let's be this century's Greatest Generation.

 RELATED:

Stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling

The debt ceiling and wrong-way Republicans

At news conference, Obama portrays himself as compromiser in chief

Debt ceiling: Forget a new roof, let's build a whole new economic house

--Julia Gabrick

Photo: President Obama holds a news conference at the White House on Monday to discuss the ongoing budget and debit-limit negotiations with congressional Republicans and Democrats. Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Because I love downtown L.A., warts and all, and because Zooey Deschanel is a talented and charming actress, I am happy to hear that she really does love downtown Los Angeles.

After all, my post on Deschanel's observations began with my surprise at what she said to reporters Saturday evening at the Belasco Theatre, where the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, or BAFTA, hosted a party for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

In addition to her saying "I just don’t want them to see the worst of L.A.," she said, "This is such a big deal and there are, like, parking lots filled with trash all the way here. I hope they helicopter them in past that."

Downtown can be a tough place to love, but as I wrote, I think the royals, with their insulated lives, may actually appreciate getting a whiff of something other than roses  once in a while.

I also wrote that Deschanel lives on the Westside -- not so, say her people. But it's not like it wasn't checked: Voter registration records show that as of last November's election, she was registered to vote at an address in Pacific Palisades.

I hope Deschanel will head back to greater downtown L.A. one of these days. The vegetarian breakfasts at the Homegirl Cafe? I can't recommend them enough.

RELATED:

Patt Morrison replies to Zooey Deschanel's open letter

Full coverage: Will and Kate's L.A. visit

Takin' a royal ride: William and Kate, floor it!

Making the most of Will and Kate's skid row photo-op

-- Patt Morrison

Photo: Actress Zooey Deschanel poses on the red carpet at the "Brits to Watch Event."Credit: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times

It's not often that someone comes out in favor of kangaroo courts, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came close to doing so the other day. McConnell said that the acquittal of Casey Anthony proved that accused terrorists shouldn't receive civilian trials. McConnell and other Republicans prefer that they be tried by military commissions.

Problem is, military commissions -- though different in some respects from civilian trials -- still require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me quote: "Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge must instruct the commission members 'that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt.' "

McConnell is going to have look elsewhere for his idea judicial system. Maybe Saudi Arabia?

RELATED:

In Casey Anthony case, prosecution failed

Who's guilty, Casey Anthony or the jurors?

Robert Shapiro: In Casey Anthony's case, the law worked

Obama administration shows how to treat a terrorist suspect

--Michael McGough

Photo: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Credit: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

When it comes to resisting temptation, Deborah MacInnis, who has coauthored several studies about self-control, has found a powerful motivator: If you make people feel good, they're more likely to succeed.

In Sunday's Op-Ed pages, she argues this point in regards to the likes of former Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, who lack self-control, though I imagine one could take this very concept and apply it to many different situations, from rehabilitation programs to resisting chocolate cake. An excerpt from her piece:

The proof is in the devil's food. In one of our studies, we put three groups of subjects alone in a room with a very large piece of chocolate cake, the utensils to devour it and water. We told them they could eat as much or as little cake as they wished. But first, the members of one group were instructed to focus on the pride they would feel if they resisted the cake. Those in the second group were told to imagine the shame they would feel if they ate it, and the final (control) group was simply let loose, with no instructions at all.

We discovered that the study subjects who anticipated pride at resisting the cake consumed far less than those who focused on the shame of succumbing. They also ate less than the control group. In other words, when it comes to self-regulation, anticipated pride outperformed anticipated shame as well as unconsidered, heedless consumption.

To help illustrate MacInnis' article, artist Peter Ryan contributed "temptation" and "pride."

Which image looks more satisfying?

ALSO:

Admiring the enemy [Op-Art]

Curbing our junk-food appetite

Human memory: What did you do last Sunday?

Why we should show Anthony Weiner some sensitivity

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Illustrations: Peter Ryan