What can we learn from this week's top traffic-getters in Opinion?

• David Ehrenstein and Andrew Breitbart are bigger than The Beatles, taking first, second and fifth places in the ratings, and the last installment in their Dust-Up on Hollyweird's un-American values isn't even counted here.

• The death of dead-tree media has not been greatly exaggerated, as yet another web-only feature — our Primary Source with Jack Cole and David Fleming discussing the failure of the war on drugs — grabs a spot in the hall of fame.

• You may score big numbers with immigration and affirmative action, but you can never go wrong making fun of Dan Rather.

Keep those cards, letters and clicks coming. Here are the numbers:

1) What are Hollywood values? by David Ehrenstein and Andrew Breitbart
2) Antiwar season by David Ehrenstein and Andrew Breitbart
3) Letters to the editor
4) We're losing in Afghanistan too by John Kiriakou and Richard Klein
5) Hollywood reporting for duty? by David Ehrenstein and Andrew Breitbart
6) Drug war takes a flying LEAP with Jack Cole, David Fleming and the Ed Board
7) Does affirmative action hurt minorities? by Vikram Amar and Richard H. Sander
8) Rather's unraveling anchor cult by the Ed Board
9) Fewer migrants mean more benefits by Mark Krikorian
10) O.J., straight and cold by T. Jefferson Parker

Columnist Joel Stein asks if Paris Hilton is a plagiarist:

I've spent five weeks e-mailing and calling Elliot Mintz, Hilton's publicist, making it clear that the L.A. Times was about to run a story about this accusation. Though he said he'd get back to me, he hasn't. I'm guessing when you're Hilton's publicist, you're a busy guy. In retrospect, I should have gotten his attention by saying Hilton wore the same dress as [Judi] DeBella.

Meanwhile, DeBella's family and friends -- who mocked her ruthlessly when she told them she was writing letters to Hilton -- are encouraging her to sue.

Columnist Rosa Brooks imagines the Columbia University president introducing Bush the way he did Ahmadinejad. Claremont McKenna's John J. Pitney Jr. explains why the California GOP is at war with itself. And Ohio State Univeristy's Daniel P. Tokaji argues that asking for ID at the polls could burden poor and minority voters.

The editorial board advises the governor how to reach his goal of reduced carbon emissions by 2020. The board shows how a pro-choice group has inadvertently made a strong case for net neutrality, and praises the mayor for bringing in a major private donation for L.A. schools.

If you haven't been reading this week's Dust-Up on Hollywood political values, you've missed one of the most pull-no-punches debates we've hosted. Today, media mavens Andrew Breitbart and David Ehrenstien answer the question, "Where are all those Holly-cons?" A little from Breitbart:

Conservatives do exist in reasonable numbers in greater Hollywood. However, the vast majority hold "below the line" jobs. That's Industry-speak for the less sexy middle-class tasks such as lighting, transportation, bookkeeping, etc. Show business' silent working-class mass exists in a right/left ratio far closer to its split in American society. And because they get paid far less than the "talent," they live in the far suburbs of L.A., including the flats of the San Fernando Valley

...

David, you've been baiting me to mention George Soros and MoveOn.org throughout this weeklong exercise. Here it finally goes: The prominent Hollywood non-liberals that come quickly to your encyclopedic mind are mostly past their prime and opened up about their atypical politics during the popular Reagan era. Bruce Willis has not talked much politics since. He's smart. And Schwarzenegger, the governor, got almost no institutional support from his Hollywood peers during his run.

Ehrenstein:

Returning to the "conservative" pity-party, the most important right-wing writer-director Hollywood has seen since DeMille, John Milius ("Apocalypse Now," "Big Wednesday," "Red Dawn"), has forsaken Tinseltown entirely for the lucrative cyber-shores of video-game creation. Shouldn't he be making "Red Dawn II: Al Qaeda in America"? Give him a nudge, won't you? I'm sure it would be as big a box-office winner as Mel Gibson's "NASCAR Jesus" (a.k.a. "The Passion of the Christ").

Having achieved not only box-office success but Oscar glory with "Braveheart" -- his epic tribute to 13th century Scottish face-painter William Wallace -- Gibson followed up with "Passion." But failing to see the wisdom of yet another film about the founder of Christianity, the major studios gave Gibson a pass on what has turned out to be his signature project. And, all glory to capitalism at its "invisible hand" best, the independently financed result was one of the greatest box-office bonanzas of all-time.

...

As always, money talks, and should Mel elect to make a film out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," I haven't the slightest doubt he'd get a backer -- even in "liberal" Hollywood.

Click on the jump to read what others are saying about the Ehrenstein-Breitbart battle.

With the first primaries only a few months away, the field of presidential candidates remains confusingly full. So many choices, so many issues! Thankfully, the helpful folks at Minnesota Public Radio have developed a 12-question survey that tries to match you with the candidate from either party that best reflects your views and priorities. Sure beats watching those debates, now doesn't it? For those who don't have time for 12 questions, or who simply don't want to think about bombing Iran, WQAD in Moline, Ill., offers a shorter version that steers clear of President I'm-a-dinner-jacket.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa revealed that he and Hillary Clinton talked about the affair that helped break up his marriage, and she said ... what? We don't know, because Michael Eisner, who used to interview Mickey Mouse at the start of Disney programs on ABC but now interviews movers and shakers on his CNBC talk show, barely let Villaraigosa get in a word edgewise.

Eisner spoke with, or rather to, Villaraigosa on a program that aired last night. The segment was sandwiched between two parts of an interview with Kiss rock star Gene Simmons, who took the opportunity to hold forth on the sanctity of marriage.

You can watch part of the Villaraigosa segment, although not all of it, here.

About Hillary Clinton:

Eisner: She's never -- because you were very close to her before it came out that you were having martial problems, let's say. She's not annoyed at you like she was annoyed at her husband?

Villaraigosa: We actually had a very good conversation about that and I am without question someone who intends to work really hard on behalf --

Eisner: She asked you about that, though?

Villaraigosa: We had a conversation about it.

Eisner: That's impressive. What are the big things you have to accomplish in the next two years?

The program bills itself as recreating "the experience of being at a power lunch with the giants of their industries."

The editorial board asks if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really matters:

To what extent are his views shared by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who really calls the shots in Iran? Ahmadinejad is reported to enjoy the supreme leader's full support. Certainly Khamenei is as rhetorically anti-American and mistrustful of Western intentions as his protege. Yet some see signs -- in Iran's dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the recent release of four Iranian Americans held in Tehran, among other moves -- that the quiet Khamenei may be less eager than the flamboyant Ahmadinejad to provoke a confrontation with the West.

The board praises the governor's decision to get tough with prison guards, and thinks it's time nations of the world did something to stop the brutal crackdown in Myanmar.

Columnist Patt Morrison objects to a Republican plan to divvy up California's electoral votes. Writer Kate Johnson and Assn. of Flight Attendants for Northwest Airlines vice president Albert Garcia tell the story of the man who fought discrimination to be a flight attendant. President of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative Seth Berkley urges scientists not to give up the quest for a vaccine. And the World Bank's Vinod Thomas discusses how to save the tiger from extinction.

On the letters page, Garden Grove's Chi Huu Do asks, "The symbolic and peaceful form of resistance executed effectively by the Buddhist monks makes one wonder: What if the religious factions in the Middle East conflicts chose to apply it to resolve their perennial differences?"

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, law professor Ilya Somin lays an eight-post smack-down on an issue near and dear to my 25-year-old heart -- forced or induced government labor of young citizens, otherwise known as its more politically appetizing title of "national service." In an Opinion Daily column last week, I wondered exactly what it is about we sub-30ers that inspires presidential candidates to call for our government servitude. Somin answers:

Why then the focus on the young? I suspect it is because they are politically weak. Research shows that 18-21 year olds are less likely to vote, less likely to engage in political activism, and have lower political knowledge levels than any other age group (see e.g. - this book). Obviously, they also have less money, make fewer campaign contributions, and are least likely to actually hold positions of power in government. The AARP would crucify any politician who had the temerity to suggest that the elderly be required to do forced labor. Unfortunately, the young lack that kind of power.

Somin also points out the obvious moral repugnance of national service:

It would still strike at the heart of the liberal idea that each person owns his or her own body, and cannot justly be compelled to work for others merely because it might be convenient to do so. Short of outright slavery or the murder of innocent people, it is hard to think of anything that violates individual liberty more clearly than forced labor.

The rhetoric of "national service" obscures the true nature of the idea, perhaps intentionally. It suggests that forced labor at the orders of the government ("national service") is somehow morally different from forced labor at the behest of other private individuals. But there is no intrinsic moral difference between the two. Yes, forced labor for the government might benefit the nation (though that result is by no means guaranteed). But so could forced labor for a private enterprise. Indeed, even outright slavery was regularly defended on the grounds that the labor of slaves produced valuable benefits to society as a whole.

Media Matters has a new report about the “conservative advantage in syndicated op-ed columns.”  Its  title — “Black and White and Re(a)d All Over” — is presumably a reference to “red” as in “red states,” not, as in my formative years, to Communism. (Maybe Media Matters can follow up with a report on Republican-leading TV and radio and call it “Red Channels.”)

If you accept Media Matters’  division of columnists into “progressive,” “centrist” and “conservative” — a big if, at least if you’re a libertarian — the results are interesting in the way that the results of any quantitative analysis are interesting. But they don’t prove that the “liberal media” are really the “conservative media.”

One quibble:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom suspended a county supervisor Tuesday for alleged misconduct and immediately appointed and swore in a replacement.

So is that such a big deal? Yes. It's further proof that San Francisco, although physically on the Pacific, is an East Coast city in spirit and law, and not even remotely in the same universe as Los Angeles. The mayor is firmly in charge up there, and can boot another elected official (although, true, only temporarily). That will never happen in L.A., at least not under the laws as they are written today. By culture, history and temperament, residents here would never allow their mayor to kick out a city council member. And that's fine. Still, San Fran may have some lessons for this town.

First, the details: San Francisco is a city. But it's also a county. Everything is wrapped up together. No fights between the city and the county over how to handle homelessness, housing or anything else. The mayor is in charge of the whole thing. The legislative branch is the county board of supervisors, which is also the city council.

S.F.'s city attorney began investigating Supervisor Ed Jew's residence after evidence emerged, as it did here with Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, that he didn't live in the district he represents. Meanwhile, the FBI had opened a corruption probe on Jew.

Unlike here, the San Francisco mayor can start misconduct proceedings, oust the charged supervisor and appoint someone to replace him pending a final determination. The city's ethics commission will hold a hearing and make a recommendation on whether to permanently remove Jew from office. The Board of Supervisors has the final say.

It's different here, and supposedly less political. Only a court, the voters, term limits or the grim reaper can remove an elected official from office in L.A. (see Article II of the Los Angeles City Charter). The full City Council (but not the mayor) can suspend a member, but only pending a criminal trial. If there are no criminal charges, the best the council do is censure one of its own. If a member isn't living in his or her district, it's the apolitical city clerk, not (as in San Francisco) the elected city attorney, who has the task of asking the attorney general to remove the person from office.

In L.A. County, there is no mayor to suspend a supervisor. In the city of Los Angeles, the mayor can't touch a council member. It's less political here. More professional. Less efficient. More convoluted. In San Francisco, the mayor is in charge, and if the voters don't like him, they kick him out. In Los Angeles, it's, well, complicated. Better? Worse? Let's just say it's different.

Law professors Vikram Amar and Richard H. Sander ask if affirmative action hurts minorities:

The schools involved are dozens of law schools in California and elsewhere, and the program is the system of affirmative action that enables hundreds of minority law students to attend more elite institutions than their credentials alone would allow. Data from across the country suggest to some researchers that when law students attend schools where their credentials (including LSAT scores and college grades) are much lower than the median at the school, they actually learn less, are less likely to graduate and are nearly twice as likely to fail the bar exam than they would have been had they gone to less elite schools. This is known as the "mismatch effect."

The mismatch theory is controversial.

Former New York Times correspondent Barbara Crossette says that while industrialized nations worry about their declining populations, developing countries face a bigger problem -- uncontrolled growth. Columnist Ronald Brownstein wonders if Bush will veto a bill to expand kids' health insurance, which was once a priority of the president's.

The editorial board says speeches at the U.N. by Bush and other leaders revealed that the new big debate in the world is between liberty and inequality. The board also asks Gov. Schwarzenegger to save the condor instead of pandering to the gun lobby, and argues that companies should have to ask consent before selling customer data.

Letter writers react to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speeches and the editorial board claim that the audience was rightly laughing at him, not with him.  Santa Monica's Edward Singer says, "There is no humor when a leader who has the power, means and intent to bring about evil speaks. Both Columbia University and your editorial board need to grow up."