Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and other luminaries tried last week, but it was Hugo Chavez who drew the lion's share of Opinion's modest traffic. Venezuela stories took two places in the top 10, including Number One. And two others — Michael Rowan and Douglas Schoen's "Will Chavez pull the trigger?" and the Bolivarian Republic's own argument that "Venezuela knows what it's doing" — barely missed making the list. With the can't-lose campaign slogan "Pax Americana, cyber-bullying and Earl Ofari Hutchinson too," we round out the list. And if you want to revive the old argument about the Times' alleged bias against women writers, this he-man woman-haters collection of bylines should give you a start:

1. "Venezuela's path to self-destruction" by William Ratliff

2. "Bush isn't the only decider" by Bruce Ackerman

3. "How to punish a cyber-bully" by Jonathan Turley

4. "My taco with Tancredo" by Joel Stein

5. "Bad for Huckabee, good for America" by Dan Gilgoff

6. "Unheralded military successes" by Robert D. Kaplan

7. "The black-Latino blame game" by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

8. "Ron Paul isn't that scary" by Jonah Goldberg

9. "Venezuela veers toward dictatorship" by the editorial board

10. "At peace with Pax Americana" by Jonah Goldberg

California voters, that is. That's according to the Sacramento Bee:

Since passage of a state law in 2002 allowing voters to sign up to cast their ballots by mail in every election, the number of permanent absentee voters has more than tripled.

According to a new Field Poll released Thursday, more than 4.2 million of the state's 15 million registered voters – 27.2 percent – have signed up to cast their ballots by mail. In the June 2006 state primary election, a record 47 percent of the ballots cast came from absentee voters.

Some in other states are even thinking about turning to a system like Oregon's, which is solely vote-by-mail. But that's not likely to happen in California until SoCal shapes up:

Twenty-nine percent of voters in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and 20 percent of voters in the Central Valley have signed up as permanent absentee voters. But only 10 percent of voters in Los Angeles County and 11 percent in Orange County have chosen to vote permanently by mail.

Just one more reason the Bay Area rocks.

Most permanent absentee voters seem to be rich, white homeowners. The original drive to make "absentee voting" easier was led by Democrats trying to counteract higher turnout by Republicans. In the 1982 race for governor, the GOP turned the absentee vote around, however, and Republicans still hold a 1% edge over Democrats among the mail-in crowd. The San Francisco Chronicle takes this opportunity to hate on both Republicans and Los Angeles:

The mail ballot numbers are skewed, however, by Los Angeles County. Although the county has 25 percent of the state's registered voters, it includes only 10 percent of the state's permanent mail voters. Election officials in that county, concerned that a flood of mailed-in ballots could overwhelm the system, have been reluctant to encourage people to sign up for permanent mail status.

Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in Los Angeles County, which means the low number of permanent mail voters there gives the GOP a statewide boost. While Democrats outnumber Republicans 42 percent to 34 percent among all California voters, the GOP holds a 41 percent to 40 percent edge with permanent mail voters.

It's too bad LA hasn't really rolled out the mail-in vote. California's been trying (in vain) to increase its influence among the state presidential primaries, and this could be one way to up the ante. After all, with a month-long voting period, people could be voting as early as January.

The California Progress Report also tries to think positive:

The extended voting period also should reduce the effectiveness of last minute "hit pieces." Expect to be bombarded once those ballots arrive.... Field reports that some county registrar of voters are encouraging VBM "as a way of reducing election costs." It should take some of the pressure off of having to assemble a large army of Election Day workers at polling places. The downside, however, is fewer polling places at greater distances for voters.

Hey, don't knock the silver lining. What with our dashed dreams of primary influence, we'll take what we can get.

This frontpage La Opinion headline goes out to tireless commenter Mitchell Young, who spanks us whenever our love of border-jumpers becomes too clear:

No hablar ingles afecta a latinos

Here's the interesting Pew Hispanic Center report that generated that story, as well as coverage, with fairly different emphases, in the Times and the O.C. Register.

The editorial board considers whether it's time to let USC run the Coliseum:

The Times has long promoted the Coliseum as the best place for an NFL team. Still, we have to hand it to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for recognizing the truth: The NFL and the stadium broke up long ago and aren't getting back together. At least, not as long as the commission acts as a marriage broker.

USC, of course, wants everything: the ability to run the Coliseum for the next four decades, lucrative naming rights, power to bring much-needed seating, lighting and facility improvements. And it wants it for a very long time. Would USC be able to demolish part of the stadium or to alter the look and feel of the historic structure with renovations?

The board doesn't like the GOP's new compassionless conservatism, on display at Wednesday night's debate. And the board wonders whether Lebanon's new leader can bring in democracy.

The University of Richmond's Carl Tobias takes a look at the newest member of the 9th Circuit. Mansoor Ijaz thinks neither Nawaz Sharif nor Benazir Bhutto would make for good Musharraf replacements. Columnists Joel Stein plots world domination, one drink at a time. And columnist Ronald Brownstein says there's still some fight left in the GOP.

Readers react to USC's proposal to leave the Coliseum for the Rose Bowl. Calabasas' Jonathan Kotler notes a trend of teams leaving the Coliseum: "The Los Angeles Chargers: gone. The Los Angeles Rams: gone. The Los Angeles Raiders: gone. The Los Angeles Lakers: gone. The Los Angeles Kings: gone. UCLA football: gone. USC basketball: gone. USC football: one foot out the door."

Remember California's short-lived experiment with open primary elections? After Proposition 198 passed in 1996, Californians were allowed to vote for any presidential candidate in a primary election regardless of party registration. Understandably, partisans found this a headach. State Democratic, Republican and other parties sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court nixed the California open primary in 2000, ruling that Prop. 198 violated a party's freedom of association.

Virginia has its own version of an open primary, and it too is a thorn in the side of the party establishment. So how does the state GOP respond? Vote Republican in the primary, and promise to vote Republican in the general election:

If you're planning to vote in Virginia's February Republican presidential primary, be prepared to sign an oath swearing your Republican loyalty.

The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they'll vote for the party's presidential nominee next fall. There's no practical way to enforce the oath.

Virginia doesn't require voters to register by party, and for years the state's Republicans have fretted that Democrats might meddle in their open primaries.

Tit for tat — very creative. Perhaps California could've come up with a similar solution to save its open primary: You get to violate parties' freedom of association in February, and parties get to violate yours in November. Everyone's rights are violated. Or upheld. It's a wash either way.

Hat tip to the New York Times' Opinionator.

Columnist Rosa Brooks notices an unusual turn of events:

Peace in our time?

All of a sudden, we're getting foreign affairs news that seems, well, good. The Israelis and Palestinians are restarting the long-stalled peace process. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has stepped down as army chief of staff and promises henceforth to serve only as a civilian leader. And violence in Iraq appears genuinely to be down.

After years of unremittingly bad news, no one seems quite sure what to do with good news. Should we cheer? Take back all those mean things we've said about George W. Bush? Or check to see if we still have our wallets, because it's probably some sort of trick?

Yale University's Bruce Ackerman says Bush isn't the only decider, and can't lock in a new Iraq treaty without congressional approval. Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, explains what could happen now that one of Bush's staunchest allies has been ousted. And Jeffrey Korchek quits copywriting for detergent boxes, text messaging, and writing notes for his kids to skip P.E., all in solidarity with striking writers.

The editorial board objects to the unfair allocation of transportation bond funds, and OKs San Diego County's surprise walk-throughs of welfare applicants' homes. The board needles L.A. Unified for spending money on image instead of solutions.

Readers react to a city plan to speed up traffic along Olympic and Pico Boulevards. L.A.'s Ellen Smucker says, "We need to craft solutions that aren't focused on finding ways to move more cars more quickly past quiet residential neighborhoods."

Okay, so probably no public personality can compare in influence and power to Oprah, who has thrown in her lot with the unbelievably lucky Barack Obama. But 'tis the season for celebrity endorsements, and it seems like this year anyone and everyone is taking a primary interest in the candidates — who in turn are more than happy to take advantage.

Hillary's still standing tall, even though Oprah passed her over:

The Clinton campaign, in an e-mail to The Associated Press, said of Winfrey: ''We're fans and we think it's great she is participating in the process. Everyone has wonderful supporters, and we're proud of ours'' — such as Steven Spielberg, Magic Johnson and Barbra Streisand, who threw her support behind Sen Clinton on Tuesday.

Then again, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark is siding with Obama. You're not out of the woods yet, Sen. Clinton.

It's got to be frustrating, what with so many political celebs shopping around. Earlier this year, the reverend and former White House candidate Jesse Jackson declared, "I reaffirm my commitment to vote for Sen. Barack Obama.... Any attempt to dilute my support for Sen. Obama will not succeed." But in a meeting with The Times' editorial board, he flip-flopped, admitting, "I have very strong feelings for Hillary because we've worked together 30 years." Now, he's even giving a nod to John Edwards, apparently at Obama's expense. In an op-ed for the Chicago Sun-Times, he wrote,

"The Democratic candidates — with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign — have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country."

Your more garden-variety stars are also prone to sowing their political wild oats. According to the Huffington Post, before she settled on Hillary, Barbra Streisand "covered her bases and [gave] $2300 to Obama, Edwards and Clinton. "

On the Republican side, forget Pat Robertson backing Rudy Giuliani. Mike Huckabee is milking his Chuck Norris endorsement for all it's worth, even as he flaunts one of his most recent prizes — former pro-wrestler Ric Flair, aka The Nature Boy. Meanwhile, according to AP, brothel owner Dennis Hof decided to throw his lot in with Ron Paul, adding, "I'll get all the (working girls) together, and we can raise him some money...I'll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1, $5 contributions."

For all you pundits wondering what fueled the Huckabee and Paul surges, look no further.   

What to make of reports from Kenya that more and more (old, rich, white) women are traveling to the country solely to cavort with (young, poor, black) locals?

According to Reuters — which follows two white English women, aged 56 and 64, as they troll for “big young boys who like us older girls” — the country’s tourism board isn’t pleased with the “unwholesome” situation, wherein women exchange gifts for sex. Officials stopped short of condemning it in the way they have male sex tourism, however. And the women Reuters interviews seem to see it as a far lesser crime — comparing it to ordinary courtship rituals like a man buying his female date dinner.

It’s certainly not so tame, despite sugar-coated terms for the trade like “romance tourism” and a slew of films that neuter the sexual fantasies and fetishes which many female pleasure-seekers want to fulfill. Before “How Stella Got Her Groove Back” there was “Shirley Valentine,” a British housewife bored of preparing her husband’s meals, who wins a vacation and finds her groove with a Greek man. Even the gritty, straightforward “Vers le Sud” — featuring the ever-experimental Charlotte Rampling — explores what happens when the female sex tourist feels romantic and even falls in love. 

Responses to the female sex tourism trend vary from disgust to vague unease. No one’s willing to make this out as a victory for feminism, even if it’s a case of women acknowledging sexual desires and having purses of their own to gratify them. (Heidi Fleiss would be proud, and possibly annoyed that her future clientele can find the frisson they seek for cheap overseas.) And it's older women at that—not the ones who are usually chided for "having sex like men."

What’s in a name? Rich material for feature writers. On a Thanksgiving visit to my home town, I enjoyed an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that put a local spin on that perennial trend story: fads in baby names.

Not surprisingly, in a town in which pro football is the official religion, the most cringe-making name in the story derived from our storied NFL team:  a boy named Steeler Gerard Petrocky. The grandson of a season ticket holder, little Steeler was born Nov. 19, 2006, “nine months after the Steelers won a fifth Super Bowl.” Maybe he’ll get to share a tailgate party (or an analyst) with Tré Rivers Kemerer, whose name is a Romance language play on the Steelers’ former home field, Three Rivers Stadium. And we laughed when George on Seinfeld wanted to name his hypothetical baby “Seven”!

Steelers monikers aside, Pittsburghers seem to be in the thrall of the same trends evident in baby names across the nation, including the fashion for place-names (Dakota, Montana, etc.)

When I attended my nephew’s graduation from my old high school last year, I noted that the roll call included all the trendy names that were unknown to my generation but ubiquitous on Facebook. You know: Ethan, Jared, Kyle, Joshua, Ryan. The kids I grew up with were named John and James and Robert and William. I did know some kids named Ryan — but that was their last name.

Some things do remain constant, though. Michael, a familiar name in the 1950s,  is still popular, finishing second (behind Jacob but ahead of Joshua) in the Social Security administration’s 2006 hit parade of baby names. I just hope some of those Michaels aren’t spelled “Mykal.” I wouldn’t want to win that way.

A few years back I was working on a story about gay asylum that never came to anything, partly because I couldn't get any documentation for the juiciest bits I was hearing about — tall tales of immigration bed checks, pamphlets circulating in the "community" that instructed asylum seekers about how to femme up their performances for credulous ICE and CIS agents, and so on. But the bigger problem was that what the story really wanted to be was not a trend piece but a sitcom: A pair of Saudi terrorists pose as a committed couple to get into the United States and blow up the Golden Gate Bridge. They settle in the Castro; a series of ludicrous mishaps keeps thwarting their terror scheme; Andy Dick shows up as a wacky neighbor; Kathy Najima puts in an electrifying performance as the anti-heroes' flamboyant "gal pal;" the two earn the enmity of a fire-breathing, gay-hating local Imam; and so on. In short, wackiness ensues.

Art, life, imitation, etc. CNN reports on how a group of alert soldiers manning a checkpoint near the Iraqi capital foiled the Cary Grant/Ann Sheridan routine of a group of insurgents:

Upon inspecting the convoy, soldiers found a stubbly-faced man, Haider al-Bahadli, decked out in a white bride's dress and veil.

Bahadli was wanted on terror-related charges, as was his groom, Abbas al-Dobbi, the official said.

Are we getting punked by CNN? The photos of the ill-shaven Bahadli (credited to the Iraq Defense Ministry) are ludicrous enough to make you think so. Why didn't he shave? What kind of lazy terrorist would put up such a halfhearted effort? I'm no expert on terrorism, but I know one thing: Men are always finding plenty of pressing, important reasons why they really need to wear women's clothes, and that's because men want to wear women's clothes. Even in Iraq, where the fashion options are so much narrower, and the opportunities for two men to follow their bliss are so few.

Courtesy of Radley Balko.