Patterico's Pontifications

12/23/2004

All I Want for Christmas

Filed under: Immigration — AMac @ 11:13 pm

Is that, when record numbers of illegal aliens go back across the southern border, they stay there.

Wouldn’t it be great if the Border Patrol was stepped up by a factor of ten? Isn’t one of the main dodges by people who don’t want to enforce our nation’s laws that it is unacceptable to round people up inside the country? If so, then certainly we could, now that they’ve left, try to keep them from coming back, right?

Oh wait, I forgot, I live in George Bush’s America. Better than John Kerry’s, but still sucks.

Seipp Gorges the Trolls

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 9:37 am

I like Cathy Seipp, but I don’t think that her decision to give these guys even more attention is a particularly good idea.

Seipp notes a statement that one of them made about me — I won’t repeat it again here — and calls it an “odd insult.” It is not only odd, but also a deliberate and baseless lie. For what it’s worth, the guy who told this lie has issued a half-assed non-apology.

This is all starting to remind me of a story I have told here once before. LBJ (who was then running against Nixon for the presidency) decided that he wanted to spread the rumor that Nixon “fucked pigs.” An aide said: “Well, that’s ridiculous. Why would you want to spread that rumor?” To which LBJ replied: “I just wanna hear him deny it.”

[UPDATE: Commenter Stuart corrects me, noting that the story couldn’t have happened in exactly this way, since LBJ never actually ran against Nixon. Funny: I never thought about it before, but of course he’s right. I blame the federal judge from Dallas who originally told me the story. Commenter Bill Birmingham says that the story is attributed to an earlier campaign of LBJ’s, according to Hunter Thompson.]

One of these clowns made a false statement about me in a comment, and now it has been repeated on National Review Online, and I’m having to deny it. These guys must be thrilled. It’s my fault for bringing it up on Cathy Seipp’s site (which I did just to show what a liar this fellow is). I made the mistake Cathy Seipp is making today in a big way: I fed the trolls. But I don’t have the platform she has. I fed them. She’s gorging them.

P.S. The link to Xrlq’s post “Joseph and the Amazing Tinfoil-Colored Dreamhat” can be found here.

The Perils of Anonymous Blogging and Commenting

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 9:32 am

In these comments there is a cautionary tale for those who say nasty things about others, while hoping to remain anonymous themselves.

Happily, this particular episode ended without acrimony or irreversible embarrassment. But in another context, it might not have.

Media Matters — most selective “watchdog”

Filed under: Court Decisions,Judiciary,Law,Media Bias — Steve Sturm @ 6:59 am

Hey all — Dave Huber here from Hube’s Cube and OTLM. I want to thank Patterico for the opportunity to guest-blog while he enjoys his year-end vacation. (I’ll be on one too after today — you know us teachers and all those holidays we get … !) The following was inspired by a Patterico commentor:

Gotta love “my-whole-career-is-based-on-a-lie” David Brock’s Media Matters media “watchdog” site. They take on the incredibly “tough” job of — get this — monitoring conservative opinion. Hey, a liberal watchdog for conservative-leaning media is all fine and good, but opinion is just that, folks. (Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly is a favorite target of MM; I recently dissected a few of their “complaints” here.) Contributors to Oh, That Liberal Media have been called to the mat for utilizing editorials to point out liberal media bias, and in many cases rightly so.

I was recently (again) pointed to MM by a commentor at Patterico’s site. After perusing some of MM’s “headlines” like “Somewhere Jesus is weeping” over attacks on Bill O’Reilly (which itself was misleading — I saw the show in question and the clear message was that Jesus “is weeping” because the battle over Christmas has gotten more and more ridiculous), I came across yet another “tough” piece: Falwell wrong on 9th Circuit “eggheads” who he claimed “get their rulings overturned almost every time.” In it, MM contributor Nicole Casta rebuts Falwell by nicely utilizing selective data (my emphasis):

… according to Supreme Court litigation firm Goldstein & Howe, only four circuit courts had a better reversal record in 2003. As this chart (PDF) details, the 9th Circuit had the fifth-lowest number of reversals among the nation’s thirteen circuit courts. Six of the thirteen circuit courts — including the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — had 100-percent reversal rates.

In a July 3 Sacramento Bee article, Bee legal affairs writer Claire Cooper wrote: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals defied its renegade reputation by having its opinions upheld at a better-than-average rate during the just-concluded [2003] Supreme Court term.” Cooper also noted that “the results have changed little in recent years but much since the 1996-97 term. A record of 17 unanimous reversals and a single close affirmance that year earned the Western circuit [the 9th Circuit] its reputation as the nation’s ‘most reversed.'”

(more…)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1823 secs.