Once again, John R. Lott offers a spirited defense of something that goes “bang.”

Just when you thought the Bush haters had bottomed out, they went and outdid themselves again. Warning: extremely graphic and extremely sick, and not even original.

(more…)

Daniel Weintraub has the numbers on November’s ballot initiatives. Boifromtroy has his recommendations; here are mine.

(more…)

Who uttered the following sentence?

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Possible answers:

1. Karl Marx
2. Josef Stalin
3. Mao Tse-Tung
4. Kim Jong Il
5. Salvador Allende
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Fidel Castro
8. Ho Chi Minh
9. Nicolae Ceaucescu

Good luck! Answer here.

David Houston of the Los Angeles Daily Urinal appears to have stolen another page from the Dog Trainer’s playbook: when injecting one’s own opinions into a story, cite anonymous “experts.” Last Thursday, on p. 2, they reported that interim Los Angeles County Counsel Raymond G. Fortner faces diminishing prospects due to his seven-page “legal opinion” on the alleged unconstitutionality of the Los Angeles County Seal. By all accounts, that opinion, which I have thus far been unable to locate on the web, reads like an ACLU talking points memorandum, devoting only two paragraphs to any arguments cutting in favor of the seal’s constitutionality.

Although most legal experts believe Fortner’s advice was solid, the politics surrounding the opinion could ratchet up pressure on the Board of Supervisors to open up the process – as some good government advocates are suggesting – and conduct a nationwide search to replace Lloyd W. Pellman, who retried [sic] earlier this year.

As usual, none of the Experts™ question are named. My guess is that if you were to ask Mr. Houston which Experts™ he had interviewed while preparing this report, you’d learn that he had consulted one or both of the following groups of Experts™:

1. “Some law professor named Chemerinsky, and three guys from the ACLU.”
2. “Me, myself and I.”

Michael Williams has long maintained that it’s a matter of time before science forces the majority to become anti-abortion. This article and these ultrasound photos (h/t: Patterico) make it hard not to agree.

On the other hand, if you’re thinking of aborting me, that’s illegal, and has been for 37 years to the day.

This article from today’s New York Times on the alleged housing bubble underscores the difference in education levels in Republican vs. Democratic strongholds. Check out these two consecutive paragraphs:

But the experts worry that problems may be just over the horizon, especially in markets where housing prices have risen far faster than personal income. Here in Orange County [California], one of the frothiest markets of all, the median price of a single-family home is $572,000, up 28 percent in the last year alone.

In the New York area, the median home price – half were less expensive, half more expensive – rose 88 percent from 1998 to 2003, to $353,000 from $188,100; in Miami, prices jumped to $226,800 from $121,500. The median home price for the Washington area increased to $286,200 from $172,100.

Notice how they casually assume any reader interested in the housing market in Orange County, CA probably knows what the word “median” means; it’s only when they go on to discuss New York prices that they feel the need to spell it out for the reader. On the bright side, the Times staff does assume that even New Yorkers know what such words as “expensive” and “percent” mean.

Here you go, Iraq: a republic, if you can keep it.

UPDATE: George at Pathetic Earthlings has a Pathetic™ roundup of fake reactions from the blogosphere, and Bryon Scott has a real one.

UPDATE x2: Michele has another.

No, really.

The Council has spoken. Congratulations to Patterico for the winning Council entry, “Who Are You Going to Believe? Me, or Your Lying Transcript?” and to Protest Warrior HQ for the winning non-Council “Operation Tiger Claw – Debriefing.”

Semi-honorable mention to Alpha Patriot for the runner-up Council entry, “A Commercial Worth Shooting,” which would might have won the Council race if he had voted. [Or might not have, depending on who he would have voted for. Duh on me.]