And he does it with insight — placing the primary blame not on McClellan, but on Bush’s domineering teasing and valuing loyalty above all else. Read it all — it rings true.

Let the spin begin.

For half, that is.

ALTERNATE POST TITLE: “The 2.5-Fifths Compromise.”

NEW ALTERNATE POST TITLE: “The Less Than Three-Fifths Compromise.”

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

My latest piece for Pajamas Media is up today. In it I discuss the strained relations between the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Times. I was happy to report that, unlike last year, the Times deigned to give some coverage to the LAPD’s Medal of Valor Awards ceremony which was held on Wednesday. But read the piece for a look at how important they thought the story was.

I also note in the column that only six of the 21 officers recognized for bravery were identified in the Times story. If those same 21 officers had instead been accused of corruption or brutality, don’t you think the Times would have found room in their newspaper for all their names?

–Jack Dunphy

I’m taking a survey, and I want maximum participation. You don’t have to understand the ins and outs of statistics. This is a simple and straightforward question, having to do with the meaning of the English language.

Assume police have a DNA sample. They run the profile through a DNA database. They get one match: to a man named Puckett.

The L.A. Times then writes:

The statistic that leading scientists consider the most significant is the probability that the database search had hit upon an innocent person. In Puckett’s case, it was 1 in 3.

My assertion: the paper is saying there was a 1 in 3 chance that Puckett was innocent.

The L.A. Times says I’m wrong. They say there is another way to read that language — but they won’t tell me what it is. (Yes, I asked.)

I say I’m right. This is the only way to read that passage.

What say you? Am I right or wrong?

Please begin your comment with the single declarative statement: “You’re right” or “You’re wrong.” Then explain away to your heart’s content.

If you say I’m wrong, please give me an alternate explanation of that quoted passage, that is consistent with the facts provided: a database search resulting in only one hit, to a man named Puckett.

Please, no discussions about whether the 1 in 3 number is actually right or wrong. This is a simple question about what the paper said, and whether it’s ambiguous or clear. I want to keep the question that simple.

I claim the quoted language can be read only one way: as an assertion that there is a 1 in 3 chance Puckett is innocent. Am I right or wrong?

Posted by WLS:

I’ve watched with dismay as Dan Abrams has lowered himself into the sewer over at MSNBC by going completely in the tank for Obama, and turning the network into a full-time operative of the DNC.  But Abrams is clearly one of the principal players behind that move, as it began after he gave up his prior show a couple years ago to be program director for the network.  I never imagined he was anything but a New York liberal, but in his prior incarnation when his show focused mainly on legal affairs, I found him to be a fair and insightful inquisitor of his guests and their viewpoints.

Abrams new show is only marginally less partisan than Dolpermann’s, but last night he reached a new low for himself.

At about the halfway mark the show he did a segment on the new video that emerged yesterday of the South Side Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger and his ridiculous “sermon” last Sunday at Obama’s church in Chicago.  Pfleger is a long-time ally retired Rev. Wright, and has appeared with and spoken glowingly of Louis Farrakhan.

(more…)