Patterico's Pontifications

8/1/2009

Balko’s Defense: I Don’t Have Time for Accuracy

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:20 pm

When I point out an error by Radley Balko (a fairly common occurrence), his corrections tend to follow a consistent pattern:

1) Delay and stonewall: Balko will first studiously ignore my correction, to the point where it’s clear nothing will be done unless I bring it up repeatedly.

2) Engage in denial: even as he corrects his error, Balko usually finds a way to imply that he was not wrong at all. (If he can’t do that, he emphasizes that the error was minor and meaningless.)

3) Blame-shifting: inevitably, Balko will find a way to blame me for the whole thing.

I’m not surprised to see that his latest correction follows the old pattern. Let’s take these points one at a time:

1) Delay and stonewall.

It’s clear to me that Balko had no intention of making this correction unless I made a federal case out of it. Here is Radley’s excuse for the delay:

I haven’t responded to point (1) because in the last 36 hours, I’ve been working on a breaking story, had a lunch appointment, had a drink with a friend, and for the last 12 hours have had a massive migraine.

Translation: he was going to do it when he wasn’t busy. And he’s always busy.

Let’s explore this excuse. Balko admits that he knew about the error for 36 hours. His correction — which he made only after I wrote a whole new post about how he seemingly had no intention of correcting his post — consisted of adding an asterisk next to the incorrect language, and adding these 14 words:

(*Note: Patterico insists he included this portion of Dunphy’s post in his initial post.)

I figure that took, what? A minute?

In that same 36-hour period of time, Balko found time to put up three posts, and write a five-paragraph comment telling two of his commenters to fuck off. But he didn’t have time to put a strike tag around the incorrect language, or put up 14 words to correct his error.

(I especially like his five-paragraph comment defending his honor, because it introduces a new phrase to the Internet: “what fluffy said.” See, in a previous comment, commenter fluffy had said: “Brad and Alex, Go fuck yourselves.” Balko echoed the sentiment: “Brad, Alex: what fluffy said.” All this happened in the same comment thread where, in between Brad and Alex’s comments, I had notified Balko of his error. When he wrote his five paragraphs yelling at Brad and Alex, he could have been spending that time adding 14 words to the post to correct an inaccuracy. But his honor was more important than accuracy.)

Let’s compare what Balko had time to write . . . to what he claims he didn’t have time to write:

What Balko Had Time to Write in Those 36 Hours What Balko Didn’t Have Time to Write in Those 36 Hours
A comment defending his honor, written in the same thread where I notified him of the error:

Brad, Alex:

What Fluffy said. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

I didn’t dishonestly “report” anything about Dunphy. I commented on a blog post he wrote, and linked to it so you could go read it and interpret it yourselves. You may disagree with my interpretation. That’s fine. It’s an interpretation that was shared by a hell of a lot of other people, including conservative bloggers like James Joyner. Your attempt analogize this to the actual reporting I do is crap.

Alex, I post links to 10 or more stories per day. I don’t have time to do my own reporting on everything I link to. Mostly because I spend my days doing actual reporting on other stories. In both of the stories you mentioned, I posted subsequent links to the corrections or to critiques of those stories once they were brought to my attention. Blog for any length of time, and you’re eventually going to link to something that later turns out to be false, or misreported. Again, I had no hand in reporting either of those stories. And I posted links to corrections/clarifications when they were published. To ask any more is to ask that I not post or discuss any news story I haven’t personally verified with my own reporting. Which is ridiculous.

As for my politics, if you think I’ve been overly critical of Republicans and haven’t criticized Democrats then you haven’t been reading very carefully. That said, I have no intention of trying to achieve some magical 1:1 balance of critical posts of either party. I’m sorry if you’re unhappy with the balance. Actually, no I’m not. I don’t really care.

If all of this isn’t satisfactory for you, go find other blogs to read. Oh, and Brad, my traffic is up significantly in the last year, both here and the traffic to my stories at Reason. In the last month I’ve been favorably linked by a number of right-of-center sites, including Volokh, Oustide the Beltway, First Things, The Weekly Standard, and National Review. And yes, if lefties want to read me and support my work, I’m more than happy to welcome them, too.

A post titled “Morning Links”:

Morning Links

# Liquor industry group, MADD part ways over MADD’s plans to push for mandatory ignition interlock devices for first-time DWI offenders. Good. That alliance was formed back in 2000, when the liquor industry agreed to support MADD’s push to lower the national minimum BAC to .08 in exchange for MADD also pushing to raise taxes on beer. It was a pretty shameless move. Glad to see the alliance has crumbled.
# This is also good to see at a place like Slate: Morbidly bese people save the health care system money, despite scary headlines to the contrary of late.
# I’m with the judge, here. I’m having hard time believing this kid was traumatized. Maybe if he sprained an ankle as he was being carried off on the shoulders of his friends.
# Someone at the Bowie County Citizens Tribune has a naughty sense of humor.
# So we can all agree that this was racist, right?
# Here’s a new puppycide twist: U.S. Marshall shoots police K-9 during search.

Each of those six links had to be embedded by hand. Then he wrote this post:

House Pushes Pork-Packed Defense Bill

Unbelievable. Well, okay. Totally believable.

The Democratic-controlled House is poised to give the Pentagon dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need to fund next year, acting in many cases in response to defense industry pressures and campaign contributions under an approach he has decried as “business as usual” and vowed to help end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday or Friday has a price tag of at least $6.9 billion…

Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds — all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee — would finance “earmarks,” or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request. About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a government-spending critic who has long campaigned against such earmarks, has said he will try again Thursday to strike all such spending. But his prior earmark-stripping efforts have succeeded only once in dozens of attempts, and never on defense spending.

“Simply put, Members of Congress should not have the ability to award no-bid contracts” to private firms, Flake said in a statement explaining the 540 proposed amendments he plans to bring up. “The practice has created an ethical cloud over Congress, and it needs to end.” He noted that at least 70 of the earmarks are for former clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm close to appropriations subcommittee head John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) that is now being probed by the Justice Department and the House ethics committee.

Every Democrat who ever muttered a word of criticism (justified criticism, in my opinion) about the Bush administration’s no-bid contracts to Haliburton ought to be condemned if they vote to allow this crap to pass. And yes, Republcians did the same thing when they controlled Congress. Trent Lott especially was famous for funding massive military projects in Mississippi that the military didn’t want.

Again, the link had to be added by hand, as did the links in the third post he wrote, which was another collection of links:

Another Cheap Bullet Point Post of Links:

…because I have a deadline today, and way too many browser tabs open.
# D.C. man arrested for disorderly conduct for singing “I hate the police” as a (admittedly odd and juvenile) form of protesting the disorderly conduct arrest of Henry Louis Gates.
# Grandstanding pols still going after Craiglist.
# Brits take aim at next class of weaponry citizens can’t be trusted with: pizza cutters!
# Man gets six months in jail for punching a police dog.
# Philly residents caught having fun. So city bans it.
# Eugene Volokh weighs in on the blogger arrested for blogging about a local undercover narcotics unit.

Again, each of the above bullet points contained a link. Six more links added by hand.

(*Note: Patterico insists he included this portion of Dunphy’s post in his initial post.)

During that 36 hours that Balko knew of his error, but did nothing to correct it, thousands of readers were coming in from links from Matthew Yglesias’s blog, a blog at the Atlantic, Outside the Beltway, and numerous other blogs across the Web. They read Balko’s assertion that I had suspiciously omitted a passage that supposedly undercut my argument. And Balko was content to let these thousands of readers read his inaccurate accusation against me — an accusation that he already knew wasn’t true.

Let’s move on to point #2:

2) Engage in denial.

Note that in his latest post, Balko doesn’t simply admit error. He claims that he read my post several times and never noticed the language that I “insist” was there all along:

I read and re-read Patterico’s initial post several times when composing my response to it. He says I wrongly wrote that he left out a portion of his excerpt of Dunphy’s post. Apparently, I skipped over that portion several times. I’ll take his word for it. Consider this a correction.

Balko says he’s taking my word for it, but look at the way he words that. Boy, it sure does seem strange that I would skip over the same exact passage several times, but if that’s what he’s claiming, I’ll take his word for it. The clear implication there is: I suspect Patterico changed the post and added the language, but I can’t prove it. Why else would he word it that way? This is reinforced by the language of his correction: “(*Note: Patterico insists he included this portion of Dunphy’s post in his initial post.)” He doesn’t say I did include the phrase — just that I “insist” that I do.

Well, Balko, if you truly read that passage “several times” and somehow missed that phrase every time, that doesn’t speak very well of your reading abilities. But it was there. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people read my post and saw the language there. The idea that I went back and added the language after seeing your post is absurd. But you have to leave that implication floating there, like a turd in the toilet bowl.

Can I prove that I didn’t add the language after seeing Balko accuse me of omitting it? Not to the satisfaction of people who refuse to be convinced. But I can show you this: a screenshot from my editing screen for the post:

Balko Screenshot of Edits

As you can see, I have about 15-16 edits for the post. (I read and re-read my posts for typos, infelicitous language, etc. before publishing.) Two of those edits occurred within 8 minutes after publishing; both were minor typos that I first noticed after publishing. (I even discussed one of those edits in the comments with happyfeet.) Five minutes after the last edit, there was an “autosave” which sometimes occurs when you have an editing screen open in two browser tabs, with different content in each.

The post has not been edited since 8 minutes after its publication on July 28, when I corrected a typo or two. Balko’s post appeared on July 29. Obviously, I didn’t go back and add the language after his post was published.

Are you convinced? Not if you’re a radical Balkobot. Like 9/11 Truthers and Birthers, there is always another way to dispute any proof offered. Maybe I photoshopped the screenshot. (I wouldn’t know how.) Maybe I deleted evidence of subsequent edits. (I didn’t, and I don’t even know if that is possible in WordPress’s software.) Etc. etc. etc.

Point #3:

3) Blame-shifting.

If you read Balko’s latest post about all this, you’d think I was the jerk. Balko a) suggested I was dishonest for omitting a passage; b) ignored my request for a correction for 36 hours; and c) told a laughable story about why he didn’t have time to fix the error.

And I’m the jerk.

I’m sure Balko will feel very oppressed and put upon because of this post. I don’t feel sorry for him one bit. This post would have been completely unnecessary if Balko had handled this properly. You don’t want a 2000-word post showing how dishonest you have been, Balko? Then correct your errors when you learn of them. Don’t suggest that the wronged party might have manufactured the error, and that you might really not have been at fault. And if you decide to stonewall, and you get called on it, don’t dissemble about why you failed to correct the error.

Hey, Radley? What fluffy said, right back at you.

P.S. Balko finally responds to my criticism of his Jimmie Duncan article — and it’s an airy wave of the hand that dismisses all my careful research as “nonsense.”

Everyone who read my analysis and thought it was careful and made good points, take note.

I’m glad. I was in trial when the full article on Duncan came out, and I didn’t have time to recapitulate how misleading the ultimate article was. I have since received the autopsy video. That, together with Balko’s dismissive response, is all the motivation I need to get that post done.

P.P.S. Balko says he’ll be ignoring me from now on, unless my criticisms of him get picked up by other bloggers. This is consistent with his handling of this incident. Balko believes that it isn’t worth responding to a critic he doesn’t like — unless there is a danger that people he respects will actually notice the criticism.

Well, guess what, Balko? Sometimes your errors get caught by, well, critics. If you have a true commitment to accuracy, you swallow hard and make the correction. Even if it’s brought to your attention by somebody you don’t like.

A journalist really should understand this.

154 Responses to “Balko’s Defense: I Don’t Have Time for Accuracy”

  1. This could be Balko’s “teachable moment”, if he’s willing to learn.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  2. And yet, all he has to do is link to one story about police officers tazing a deaf guy in a bathroom stall or another guy calling that professor a jungle bunny and people will look back and re-read Dunphy’s post and they’ll be a little more likely to see what Balko saw.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  3. As for “teachable moments”, there’s a meta-point worth exploring.

    Is the attitude of “the public” towards law enforcement getting better or is it getting worse? From here, it seems that it’s going downhill. From your perspective, perhaps it’s getting better. I don’t know. If that’s the case, you can probably ignore the next question.

    Is the stuff that Balko talks about representative of the attitude of “the public”? Even if he’s, oh, 20% wrong (and let’s hammer on that 20%!!!!), the attitude is still getting worse, isn’t it?

    Even National Review’s Corner mentioned something amazing to me: Goldberg talked about how the opinions he was having written to him of what the cop did were split. NATIONAL REVIEW!!!! We’re talking about an exceptionally conservative bunch of folks here… and half of the folks who wrote Goldberg a letter to yell about it were on the side of the Harvard Professor.

    I think that Balko is doing you a service by pointing out the stuff he’s pointing out, Patterico.

    There is a deeper problem here and posts pointing out how much Balko sucks don’t address the deeper problem.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  4. The question, Jaybird, is trust. When someone’s commitment to accuracy is demonstrably so fickle, I would think that people would be a little wary of trusting what he says when he points these things out.

    I have said before that he does some valuable work. But he is, first and foremost, an advocate. His advocacy makes him leap to believe bogus stories that others can see through; portray only one side of stories involving criminal defendants, etc.

    That doesn’t mean he does no good. But he could do a lot more good if he acted with a greater respect for accuracy.

    This has not happened in isolation. Maybe some day I’ll collect all the examples of past stonewalling, etc. Right now I don’t care that much; and I’m more motivated to dispute his characterization of my Jimmie Duncan criticisms as “nonsense.” That’s pretty rich, given all the evidence of Duncan’s culpability that he left out of his story.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  5. This has had one beneficial effect: I don’t usually try to publicize my posts about him; I just write them. But now that he says he’ll ignore them, I’m going to start sending out my posts about Balko to my e-mail list. Just did it with this one. Might as well start spreading the word about this guy.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  6. A journalist really should understand this.

    I don’t think there’s any basis for assertions that imply that there’s any such thing as journalistic standards.

    Not in Barack Obama’s America there’s not.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  7. Add me to the list Pat :) just in case I don’t make it by here often enough.

    Jaybird: Balko is only doing Balko a service and that’s all he seems to care about.

    Lord Nazh (c1b84f)

  8. The truth is secondary to Jaybird’s metamatanarrative.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  9. Well this is all very entertaining. And most remindful of Orson Welles’ great speech in The Lady From Shanghai about witnessing sharks in a frenzy which led to “the creatures eating pieces of themselves.”

    Meanwhile, there’s really big news out there cause THE PALINS ARE RENO-VATING!

    Yes the “other shoe” has dropped at last. And it’s not a Mahnolo.

    David Ehrenstein (2550d9)

  10. Why do you hold honesty in such obvious contempt, Jaybird?

    What Fluffy said.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  11. Balko is 100% loyal to current journalistic standards. He follows the narrative and, when that doesn’t work, uses excuses 1 through 4.

    Balko wants to change the world, so lying is OK. So is ignoring common decency, honor, and reality.

    jack (d9cbc5)

  12. “Why do you hold honesty in such obvious contempt, Jaybird?”

    It’s not that I hold honesty in contempt as much as I think that Balko is uncovering some very important things and the whole “you can’t trust anything he says!” response strikes me as, well, at the very least overreaction that relies a fair bit on wilful blindness.

    There’s a serious shift in how law enforcement is viewed… as demonstrated by the comments to National Review.

    Balko’s interpretation of, in this example, Dunphy’s post does not rely on whether you left in or left out that part. The strength of his criticism of it does not rely on whether he saw it or overlooked it.

    There are a lot, seriously, a lot of people who read that comment and saw *EXACTLY* what Balko saw without being prompted to do so.

    Your explanations of how that isn’t what Dunphy meant could very well be true.

    And yet… there are a lot of people who read that comment and saw *EXACTLY* what Balko saw.

    *THAT* is the meta-problem here.

    Of course, you may not see that as a problem at all.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  13. I also thought Balko’s rationale for bumping Patterico from his Twitter feed was completely lame. Balko contends it is private and does not want some of the things he twitters about repeated. Yet with more than 1,400 people receiving the feed, for all the lawyerly types here, if it were considered a security, Balko’s Twitter feed would require SEC registration based on the number of subscribers and not be eligible for a private placement exemption.

    Completely lameass excuse.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  14. There are a lot, seriously, a lot of people who read that comment and saw *EXACTLY* what Balko saw without being prompted to do so.

    I get that. I suspect most of those people are, to one extent or another, predisposed to believe the worst of police. Also, I suspect that most of these people were not viewing his writing in the context of a police officer making a felony stop. Most of these people had a vision in their heads of an officer walking up to a guy and asking “Can I search your car?” and then blowing the guy’s head off if he declines.

    I think it’s a rather bizarre interpretation, but if you’re literalist; totally uncharitable; and begin reading with a prejudice against police officers — yeah, you could get that.

    But once it’s explained, then I think to stick with that interpretatation is pigheaded.

    But, you know, Jaybird, there’s another comment thread where we discussed that topic, and you can discuss it there to your heart’s content. The topic of this thread is different: Balko’s dishonest failure to correct an error, and his dishonest explanation for that failure. Where do you stand on the topic of this post?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  15. Balko’s interpretation of, in this example, Dunphy’s post does not rely on whether you left in or left out that part. The strength of his criticism of it does not rely on whether he saw it or overlooked it.

    So what?

    The question is: why didn’t Mr. Balko example some humility and honestly acknowledge the error and apologize?

    Not much else is of consequence if a man can’t own up to his own behaviors.

    Why should we care what else he has to say if he can’t evidence to readers that he is, first and foremost, a man of integrity?

    This was a small moment, easily amended and righted. If this is beyond his abilities, how then are we to assume he will behave in the bigger, more critical *errors* where possibly his entire reputation is on the line?

    He is a journalist: integrity, honor and character are what drive that bus. Ideology is a brutal master and many have compromised the very thing that gave them credibility and believability to their readers.

    I would think any good journo would literally jump at the opportunity to publicly right an evidenced wrong. Good being the operative word here. Gad, where did all the honorable men go?

    Dana (57e332)

  16. Oh Noes! Does Mr. Balko own bassett hounds just like a certain Mr. TBagg, ’cause that might help explain a lot, but not reflect negatively on the dogs or anything. I hope I’m mistaken.

    A chihuahua named Hercules would be more better for Mr. Balko I think.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. daley,

    Since you brought up Balko’s Twitter feed, I’ll repost here a comment I posted on the relevant thread:

    Here’s some of Balko’s Twitter posts. These are the most recent ones that showed up in my Google Reader feed; I didn’t cut any out. It’s hardly all personal, or what he just ate:

    radleybalko: “keep your government hands off my Medicare…” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html

    radleybalko: @MZHemingway It’s “extremely important” that Reason adopt your views on culture, eh? I’ll be sure bring that up at next ed. meeting.

    radleybalko: @MZHemingway The whole discussion began with Carney’s attack on the article for tying Friar’s roasts to free speech, did it not?

    radleybalko: @MZHemingway, etc. Space for adults to be adults is very much an important part of a free society. And damned well worth defending.

    radleybalko: @TPCarney Envelope-pushing helps preserve less offensive free speech. Also, the roasts aren’t just vile, they’re also usually funny.

    radleybalko: My Mad Men avatar doesn’t really look like me. And it doesn’t really look Mad Men-ish. But it’s fun! http://tinyurl.com/mktjkn
    from Twitter / radleybalko

    radleybalko: My Reason piece today on the Gates arrest is bringing in some ugly email.

    radleybalko: Most convincing argument yet that Obama is not a U.S. citizen: http://bit.ly/NW2Bc

    radleybalko: @RushGal Gates is racist? His father was white. So is his wife.

    radleybalko: This week’s crime column: Gates arrest is about troubling scope of police arrest powers, not racial profiling. http://tinyurl.com/lsek5d

    radleybalko: Scale says I’ve now lost 50 pounds since October. Things that are 50 lbs: a grown basset hound, 6 gallons of water, an average 7-year-old.

    radleybalko: NRO’s resident cop says Gates lesson is: Hand over your rights when confronted by police, or you might get shot. http://tinyurl.com/naadve

    radleybalko: Re: My pup’s poop-eating habit, someone suggested that “pumpkin makes poop taste bad.” This is a fact I never imagined I’d need to know.

    radleybalko: Wow, are the Dems’ health plans scary. Basically keeping the worst parts of current system, ditching the best. http://tinyurl.com/nassft

    radleybalko: The world’s saddest zoos. http://www.slate.com/id/2222991/

    radleybalko: Your afternoon rage. http://bit.ly/8otvB

    radleybalko: OK cop who choked EMT who he says blocked him en route to emergency was actually picking wife up from auto shop. http://tinyurl.com/nqd5x2

    radleybalko: I’m quoted in two Christ. Science Monitor pieces on Gates arrest: http://tinyurl.com/ncr67q, http://tinyurl.com/momjgu

    Adding the Google Reader feed took about 10 seconds.

    And I don’t read his Twitter feed often at all; in fact, I don’t even read my favorite blogs often any more. I’m too busy at work.

    So Balko’s statement:

    When he tried to subscribe to it, I didn’t see a reason why a guy who clearly hates me would or should have any interest in what I’m eating for dinner.

    Is bullshit. Of course I don’t care what he had for dinner. (In fact, I don’t see why anyone would care what he had for dinner, and I don’t see why he posts what he had for dinner.)

    But I do care when he posts misleading bullshit like this:

    radleybalko: NRO’s resident cop says Gates lesson is: Hand over your rights when confronted by police, or you might get shot. http://tinyurl.com/naadve

    It’s not creepy and stalkerish to have a way of staying on top of bullshit like that, and it’s really just slander on his part to imply otherwise.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  18. Plus, some of the links he comes up with are interesting.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  19. “Gad, where did all the honorable men go?”

    Dana – I’ll gladly give you my number, but I thought you were already attached.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  20. “I suspect most of those people are, to one extent or another, predisposed to believe the worst of police.”

    Sure.

    But once upon a time, they’d all be reading The Nation. These people are popping up at National Review.

    There is a teachable moment here, Patterico. I don’t suspect it’s Balko’s.

    As for Balko’s error and his failure to correct it? Sure. He made a mistake. Unsurprisingly, he asks for the benefit of the doubt… the same benefit of the doubt that he fails to extend to you and Dunphy. As for his “dishonest” explanation, eh. If he did have a headache (which, I may point out, cannot be falsified), I could see him having the energy to talk about what he wanted to talk about but not having the energy to say “I was wrong”. I see it as more self-serving than dishonest, myself.

    Does that answer your question?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  21. Patterico – I didn’t bring up the Twitter feed to detract from this post, only because I felt it was part and parcel of the overall Balko response in this matter.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  22. “But once upon a time, they’d all be reading The Nation. These people are popping up at National Review.”

    Jaybird – I thought most of them came from Stormfront?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  23. Is the attitude towards law enforcement getting worse?

    Considering that the President of the United States felt he had to stage a “beer summit” after taking the side of his friend over that of a cop, I’m guessing that the White House and its pollsters would say the answer is “not much.”

    And to the extent that Balko would prefer otherwise, he hasn’t exactly advanced that cause with his behavior here.

    Karl (ade276)

  24. “why didn’t Mr. Balko example some humility and honestly acknowledge the error and apologize?”

    Because he’s a guy on the internet.

    Welcome to the internet. There are guys here. You’ll be amazed at the crap that folks refuse to show any humility about, the stuff they will refuse to acknowledge, and the stuff that they won’t be willing to apologize for.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  25. I think the teachable moment is that even after Patterico and Dunphy explained their intent, in the specific context as written, people like Balko, Jaybird, danny, et al continue to dishonestly misrepresent and mischaracterize their words. It teaches much about you and your ilk, Jaybird.

    What Fluffy said.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  26. Karl, if that’s the conclusion you reached, that’s the conclusion you reached.

    From my perspective, the “beer summit” wouldn’t have happened, say, 20 years ago… because it wouldn’t have had to.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  27. My politics are generally sympatico with Balko’s, and I think that some (not all, not even most) of reporting he’s done has been pretty darn good.

    But frankly the guy comes off as a complete ass, here — and if Jaybird’s correct, and “a lot of people” read Dunphy’s comment the same way Balko did, this merely demonstrates that “a lot of people” are tendentious fools who (a) are predisposed to think the worst of law enforcement and/or (b) remain unclear on the principle that Dunphy’s parable attempted to illuminate — i.e., that the private citizen usually does not know whether the cop’s orders are lawful or not, and, therefore, any defiance or resistance by the private citizen may well be wrongful, and justify the cop using force to effect compliance and ensure his own safety.

    Again: we have a place set aside for private citizens to argue about the finer points of Fourth and Fifth Amendment law with the government. It’s called a courtroom. If what the officer is doing is indeed outrageously outrageous, it will still be so at a suppression hearing or when put before a civil jury. Otherwise, grow up, tamp down your ego and your keyboard revolutionary impulses, and politely cooperate while reserving your rights.

    BC (b9ee56)

  28. This thread could really use some condescending polysyllabic profundity from somebody like SEK to tell us why we’re all wrong, every last one of us. Plus Fary Garber, Rich Blutarsky, the perseverating AO, Danny the sophist troll who isn’t really a troll, would really round it out nicely.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  29. As for his “dishonest” explanation, eh. If he did have a headache (which, I may point out, cannot be falsified), I could see him having the energy to talk about what he wanted to talk about but not having the energy to say “I was wrong”. I see it as more self-serving than dishonest, myself.

    Does that answer your question?

    No. Even he says he had a headache for only the last 12 hours of that 36-hour period. Why didn’t he do that 14-word correction instead of telling Brad and Alex to fuck themselves?

    He already knew about the error when he wrote that comment. Even with his penchant for skipping over text, he would have had to read Brad’s comment, somehow miss mine, then read Alex’s (which came after mine), then read fluffy’s, and then write his.

    He saw my assertion of the error, and he didn’t care enough about accuracy to correct it. And hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people SUBSEQUENTLY came and read his post, and absorbed his inaccurate suggestion that I had omitted material that he claimed undercut my argument.

    And you shrug your shoulders at that.

    Which proves that, when your guy is inaccurate and shows he doesn’t care about accuracy, you don’t much care. Because he’s your guy.

    Yup, that’s pretty typical for the Internet. But that doesn’t make it right. Such disregard for accuracy is a very poor trait in someone who claims the title of journalist.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  30. “I think the teachable moment is that even after Patterico and Dunphy explained their intent, in the specific context as written, people like Balko, Jaybird, danny, et al continue to dishonestly misrepresent and mischaracterize their words. It teaches much about you and your ilk, Jaybird.”

    JD, I (and my ilk?) am (are?) not the problem here. If I (and my ilk) were taken off of the street tomorrow to be put into a supermax, you would be no safer, no less likely to be mugged, no less likely to have your house/car broken into, and have no less reason to call the cops for this, that, or the other reason.

    I suspect (though, certainly, I don’t know) that the same is true of Balko.

    And even after Dunphy gave his explanation, there are plenty of people who remain creeped out.

    If Dunphy’s intention was to change the mind of people who saw a little black guy who beat the rap (but not the ride) as the victim here, I don’t think that he came close to doing that. The people who were inclined to agree with the cops still did so. The people who were inclined to side against the cops still did so. But I don’t think that anyone’s mind was changed.

    I reckon that’s a problem too… but I could see how you might not see it as one.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  31. Jaybird,

    Balko is a “journalist” who lets ego get in the way of accuracy.

    That’s a problem . . . but I could see how you might not see it as one.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  32. “Which proves that, when your guy is inaccurate and shows he doesn’t care about accuracy, you don’t much care. Because he’s your guy.”

    I see yet another dude on the internet getting into yet another pissing contest with the guy he got into yet another pissing contest with the last three (or is it four?) pissing contests he got into.

    I don’t see this as a real “holy cow, there are honesty, integrity, courage, and virtue issues at stake!!!” situation, myself.

    I see it as yet another pissing contest between two guys who get into pissing contests semi-regularly.

    Am I wrong and I should start seeing it as, seriously, a window into Balko’s soul?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  33. Jaybird -You’ll be amazed at the crap that folks refuse to show any humility about, the stuff they will refuse to acknowledge, and the stuff that they won’t be willing to apologize for.

    Especially the stuff they’ll refuse to acknowledge, as you did with this current post’s subject.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  34. Apparently dishonesty is a feature, not a bug, to this jaybird thingie. Teh Narrative reigns supreme!

    JD (b9ca6b)

  35. Balko can lie about someone, and if that someone gets upset, Jaybird will call it a pissing contest.

    Jaybird, you’re certainly welcome to come on here and be a Balko partisan who doesn’t give a shit about the fact that he has shown an utter disregard for accuracy.

    Just don’t expect to be treated as though you’re some kind of honest broker, or indeed anything but a person who will make any argument, no matter how dishonest, to defend the guy who shares your view of the world.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  36. I just learned that Jaybird is a sock puppet for a commenter who has been caught in numerous lies before.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  37. “He saw my assertion of the error, and he didn’t care enough about accuracy to correct it. And hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people SUBSEQUENTLY came and read his post, and absorbed his inaccurate suggestion that I had omitted material that he claimed undercut my argument.”

    I totally see how you are taking that part personally. I’m not going to say that you’re wrong to. Balko did post a correction. Now, if you want to say that it was not in a timely manner… well, sure. Okay. If I say “he posted a correction”, is that now beside the point for the rest of the thread?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  38. “I just learned that Jaybird is a sock puppet for a commenter who has been caught in numerous lies before.”

    Whoa, whoa whoa?

    I am?

    Who am I? I’m under the impression that I am the person in the email address attached to my name.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  39. I’m not going to say that you’re wrong to.

    And you’re not going to say that I’m right to.

    Even though I’m right to.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  40. Jaybird,

    What’s the problem?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  41. Let’s get back to the sock puppet thing, if you don’t mind.

    Who do you think I was in the past? I’m under the impression that I have only commented here as Jaybird and I’ve always used the email associated with that name (check your gmail and you’ll see an email from that address).

    I’d be fascinated to hear what I’ve been lying about in the past as someone else.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  42. Jaybird is a sock-puppet of another person who held the truth in cotempt?! I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  43. Let’s get back to the sock puppet thing, if you don’t mind.

    Why? Why do you want to talk about that?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  44. Being a sock puppet is fundamentally dishonest. How are we to engage in any serious discussion with a commenter such as Jaybird, whover the hell that really is?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  45. Looks like some people are starting to doubt your honesty based on something I said, Jaybird.

    Does that bother you?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  46. Jaybird,

    I think most Americans have confidence in the police, although that probably varies depending on where you live. Gallup recently polled Americans’ confidence in institutions and the police ranked third on the list after the military and small businesses. Specifically, 82% of Americans have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in the military; 67% in small business; and 59% in the police.

    PS — But you probably don’t care, since you’re a sockpuppet and all.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  47. He he he, Patterico.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  48. Because he’s a guy on the internet.

    So you are rationalizing this small moment to just come clean and make an honest apology, with ‘he’s just a guy on the internet’? Would that then make him like all the other guys on the internet who will say anything indecent, obtuse, lie, and behave however they want with no thought to consequences, because after all, he’s just a guy on the internet?

    I don’t personally know Mr. Balko but have found his work often compelling. And I would never have labeled him as just a guy on the internet. He has been a solid journalist, although there is some doubt in past few years about his loyalty to a politic rather than objectivity (an over-used, over-hyped broadbrushed descriptor, true… but for lack of better term). However, when a simple opportunity comes up to show some integrity and class, and one instead opts to pivot and monkey wrench their way through it rather than using it to strengthen their own integrity and professional credibility to their readers, not to mention possibly prevent an already strained relationship (w/Patterico) from further erosion, one has to wonder. Or should, at least.

    Dana (57e332)

  49. DRJ – and almost 0.0000457% confidence in our elected officials.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  50. Don’t go getting all fact-y on them, DRJ. Teh Narrative is more important than facts, or honest discourse.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  51. OH! I get it.

    Heh. Touche’.

    I’ll say that it becomes one of focus. There is an argumentation form called “weak-manning”. A guy says “here is an argument, here is support for the argument: A, B, C, D, and E”.

    As it turns out, D is, like, totally wrong. Completely wrong. Turning the argument into the merits of D, and whether the original arguer was merely mistaken or downright malicious in including D, and demanding a retraction of D, and then complaining that the retraction of D was not timely is a *SPECTACULAR* way to not focus on the original argument.

    Do you want me to say that Radley, who normally seems like a nice enough guy, turns into a complete horse’s ass when he gets into (yet another) pissing contest? Here you go:

    Radly normally seems like a nice enough guy to me. When he gets into (yet another) pissing contest, he sure turns into a complete horse’s ass.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  52. Tell you what, Jaybird. If I turn out to be wrong about this, I’ll correct it in about 36 hours, by saying: “Jaybird insists he is not a sock puppet.”

    I don’t have time for that right now. I feel a headache coming on, which will start in about 24 hours.

    Of course, in 36 hours everyone will have moved on to another thread. I don’t see a problem with that, do you? If you do, I assure you that you are simply engaging in a pissing contest with me.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  53. Apogee,

    And even less in the media.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  54. As it turns out, D is, like, totally wrong. Completely wrong. Turning the argument into the merits of D, and whether the original arguer was merely mistaken or downright malicious in including D, and demanding a retraction of D, and then complaining that the retraction of D was not timely is a *SPECTACULAR* way to not focus on the original argument.

    I wrote a very long post on the original argument, so please don’t pretend I focused only on the inaccuracy.

    And refusing to correct the inaccuracy is a SPECTACULAR way to focus even more attention on it.

    You dishonest sock puppet.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  55. Heh. Touche’.

    But then, Jaybird, the remainder of your comment shows that you have failed your ‘teachable moment’.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  56. DRJ – what media?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  57. “So you are rationalizing this small moment to just come clean and make an honest apology, with ‘he’s just a guy on the internet’?”

    Have you ever gotten into an argument over what year John Elway retired? I have. I happened to have been right. The other person argued, argued, argued and we looked it up and, sure enough, he retired in 1999 (*NOT* 2000). This was quickly followed by explanations of the thought process the guy had that led him to the conclusion, how it was a mistake that anyone could have made, so on and so forth.

    When I see people caught in an obvious error, I am not surprised that they respond by explaining their thought processes, giving themselves the benefit of the doubt, and so onning and so forthing.

    I don’t see this event as particularly momentous nor, particularly, as a window into anybody’s soul. It looks like yet another pissing contest from here.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  58. Weren’t a lot of leftists silent (or cheering) when homicidal cops were killing unfashionable people at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

    icr (304f90)

  59. It looks like yet another pissing contest from here.

    You would say that, but then, you’re a dishonest sock puppet with a history of telling lies here. So why would anyone care what you have to say anyway?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  60. “Of course, in 36 hours everyone will have moved on to another thread. I don’t see a problem with that, do you? If you do, I assure you that you are simply engaging in a pissing contest with me.”

    You gotta do what you gotta do, Patterico.

    I will say that I suspect that when Balko wrote what he did that he did so thinking that he was telling the truth. I’m suspect that, when he finally saw the words, the thought “those weren’t there last time” went through his head.

    If he saw the words and *THEN* wrote that you didn’t include them, that would be a wicked thing indeed. Yes, he would be deliberately lying and deliberately engaging in libel.

    Here is where I give him the benefit of the doubt: I think that his ideological blinders had him miss those words. Even when he looked at them a second time, he didn’t see them. When he finally did, I don’t know, a search maybe and the words were found and they were there, staring him in the face, his immediate response was to believe that they weren’t there before… rather than that, heaven forbid!, he made a mistake due to his ideological blinders.

    And, of course, his first inclination was that he didn’t make a mistake. After all, he didn’t see those words there before!

    And we’re back to Radley turning into a complete horse’s ass when he gets into a pissing contest.

    He’s also an ideologue.

    And, yes, a guy.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  61. This particular one is illustrative, in that he made an obvious error, to be generous, and when called on it, ignored it until he breezily dismissed it as he just missed it, which means he did not read the text that he was criticizing very well, and then doubled down by suggesting or leaving open the possibility that the text he claimed was not there was put in at a later point, something that dannynboy was advancing yesterday. But this is a little example in a sea of much bigger ones.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  62. Jaybird,

    My point is: how he he behave once he learned that he had put something inaccurate on his site?

    Something that, if true, would cause people to doubt my honesty?

    What he did was, he left it there, inaccurate, for 36 hours.

    Sure, he’s a horse’s ass when in a pissing contest. Sure, maybe the initial mistake was inadvertent. Sure, he accompanied the correction with a lot of self-serving bullshit.

    NONE OF THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT.

    The fucking point is that he knowingly left an inaccuracy on a widely-linked post for 36 hours.

    Once he knew it was inaccurate, then deliberately failing to correct it was little different than making the accusation knowing it was false. It was a sin of omission rather than commission, sure, but otherwise, he knowingly let readers be misled by something he wrote.

    And you are shrugging your shoulders at that. But I think we know why that is.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  63. “You would say that, but then, you’re a dishonest sock puppet with a history of telling lies here. So why would anyone care what you have to say anyway?”

    Well, at this point, I figure that I’m talking directly to you and you know what you know. You know that I am a sock puppet or you know that I am not one. Fair enough.

    I am going to assume that you know that I am not one.

    So I’ll go back to my main argument which goes directly to you and shrug off the opinions of the others who may or may not be reading this (I may yet plant a seed, however… though I’ll grant that, with one fell swoop, you did a great job of cutting my sowing out from under me):

    Balko’s (original) argument does not stand nor fall based on his claim that you left that part out (of course you did not).

    His subsequent horse’s assery in admitting that he made a mistake does not undercut his original argument.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  64. Comment by Jaybird — 8/1/2009 @ 2:26 pm

    While reviewing one’s thought process is helpful to learning and understanding, following it with an appropriate humble apology is always a sure sign that the error won’t likely be made again, and the honesty of person who made the error will not be in question. It solidifies the relationship, if you will.

    It looks like yet another pissing contest from here.

    Hm. If you squint and re-focus, you’ll see I never participate in pissing contests. They involve far more testosterone than I have, and generally bring out the worst in participants. I’m interested in why an opportunity to up one’s game in the eyes of his readers was ignored.

    (Your Elway analogy not withstanding, the person in question here is a public figure and a journalist whose reputation can make or break his career. This was a small moment, but there will be bigger moments to make choices about).

    Dana (57e332)

  65. I understand why you want to make the argument about the original argument, sock puppet. But that’s not what this post is about.

    If you could say that it was WRONG of him to deliberately leave an error uncorrected for 36 hours, this would be a different discussion. But you won’t admit that.

    You suggested that he just didn’t have the energy because he had a headache, which is just bullshit, because it doesn’t explain the first 24 hours of deliberately leaving a falsehood up.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  66. … won’t admit that.

    Hm, I’m seeing a theme here…

    Dana (57e332)

  67. Are you trying to say he didn’t correct the error because when I called it to his attention, he just assumed that I was lying, and only when I made a big deal out of it, and he realized that he couldn’t prove I was lying, he decided to do a half-assed “OK, this guy insists it was there, so fine” sort of correction?

    So it wasn’t dishonest because he gets to decide for 36 hours that I was just lying?

    If so, then he’s lying about why he didn’t make the correction. Because he claims he just didn’t have time. Which is obvious bullshit.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  68. you are unhealthily obsessed, and yeah, you act like a stalker. Like I said, have fun being the guard of these monkey cages, Richard. It is a shit-slinging fest of your own making.

    Balko also said that he’s tired of your obsessions with him. Grow up and get a life.

    5) You’d think I’d have learned by now that responding to this guy in any way invites hours of wasted time delving into tedious parsing, rehashing months- or years-old debates, and responding to personal attacks. And, apparently now, discussion of my Twitter feed. Lesson (finally) learned. This idiot doesn’t merit a response. If one of his inevitable future attacks on me includes allegations meritorious enough that a blogger or commentator I respect picks up and reposts, I’ll respond. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it. I’m sure Patterico will respond to this post, and will then take my failure to respond to that response as a concession of defeat. And I will let him.

    That’s you, to a T.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  69. Jaybird is right about one thing, the douchebaggery of Balko and his minions is far greater than this particular point. That they read the original post in the most uncharitable and ungenerous manner possible, and attributed positions not held and motives not held to Dunphy and those that did not agree with them, they were far more dishonest than they are being here. After Dunphy clarified his positions, and clearly laid out his intent, they continue to advance their dishonest and uncharitable interpretation of Dunphys’s words. That was exceptionally more dishonest.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  70. I’d like to talk about why it bothers you for me to reveal your sock puppetry and past dishonesty, Jaybird.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  71. “Once he knew it was inaccurate, then deliberately failing to correct it was little different than making the accusation knowing it was false. It was a sin of omission rather than commission, sure, but otherwise, he knowingly let readers be misled by something he wrote.”

    And he has now posted a correction.

    As for this part: “he knowingly let readers be misled by something he wrote.”

    This is where the horse’s assery and ideological blinders come into it. He was not able to see that he had made a mistake. He looked at the stuff and *DID NOT SEE IT* the first few times he looked at it.

    Then, when he finally saw it, he couldn’t believe that it had always been there.

    I am not shrugging my shoulders at that as much as saying “I’ve done it myself”.

    Was he a horse’s ass even as he wrote the correction? Absolutely.

    But, and don’t get me wrong here, I’m not defending him because he’s “my boy”. I don’t really comment over there that much. I am commenting over here because I am, in fact, troubled by the deeper argument that Balko was making which appears to have been lost.

    I understand that your focus is on how your integrity was attacked by his writing about the thing that he did not see as if it were something that you did not quote.

    I totally understand that. Even as he posted a correction (36 hours later!), he was completely ungracious about it and was a horse’s ass.

    I’ve done similar. It puts seeing someone else do it in perspective.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  72. when someone says “they do not have the time” that does not mean that they literally do not have it. Like when the homeless guy on the streets asks me for money, I say “I do not have it for you“, because you are undeserving.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  73. “I’d like to talk about why it bothers you for me to reveal your sock puppetry and past dishonesty, Jaybird”

    In 36 hours, it’ll become something that I reckon it’ll be a lot harder for you to complain about.

    Or, I suppose, it won’t. It’ll be something that other people should totally understand through the context of the post, I was completely humorless about responding, and, anyway, it’s not like my sock puppetry was the point of the original article…

    Right?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  74. when someone says “they do not have the time” that does not mean that they literally do not have it. Like when the homeless guy on the streets asks me for money, I say “I do not have it for you“, because you are undeserving.

    PRECISELY.

    He didn’t have time to correct the inaccuracy, because the naccuracy was about me. And he doesn’t like me. So I was undeserving of the correction.

    And that means that an inaccurate statement remained on his blog for 36 hours, because he didn’t like me, and his dislike for me trumped his need to have his blog postings be accurate.

    Thank you for reinforcing my point, TAO.

    He did have the time. He just didn’t have the time to make a correction that would benefit me.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  75. Shorter Frey: “WAAAA! Radley won’t pay attention to me, and he’s my biggest source of traffic! WAAA!”

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  76. I’ve got errands that I’ve been putting off.

    See you… Monday?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  77. He didn’t have the time to give to you. And the fact that you are obsessive about a wholly irrelevant mistake, instead of actually dealing with the original argument, just goes to show he was right. Here is yet another 1000+ post about how “right” you are, and you’re all pissy because the man finally said “Right. Frey clearly has WAY too much time on his hands.”

    It’s a common lawyer tactic, Frey: just throw up walls and walls of text (i.e. briefs) until you outspend your opponent and he’s tired of dealing with your parsimonious BS.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  78. Jaybird, let’s figure out your position point by point.

    When, precisely, do you believe he became aware that I was contending he had posted something on his blog in error?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  79. His subsequent horse’s assery in admitting that he made a mistake does not undercut his original argument.

    It doesn’t undercut the argument completely, because the mistake was not Balko’s entire argument.

    However, it was a portion of that argument, and, when combined with prior instances of Balko apparently avoiding questions related to arguments that he is making (as detailed in Patterico’s posts), begins to call into question the authenticity of Balko’s work. While Balko is anything but a lefty, this sort of aversion to questions regarding the details of his assertions does not help his positions.

    I’d much rather have Balko asking questions than our softball lobbing lapdog media schmoozers, but it’s important that Balko learn to answer questions as well as ask them. Without that capability, many will not see a difference.

    Kudos to Patterico for asking them.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  80. when are you going to get it, Mr. Frey? you just got dumped by your biggest crush. Obsessively writing about it in your LiveJournal makes you look more and more pathetic.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  81. Your continued attitude here actually makes me embarrassed that you’re a fellow member of the legal profession. It also tells me something about the way you do business as a prosecutor — it’s not about finding the truth, it’s about WINNING. I went to law school with a goal of working in a prosecutor’s office — I abandoned that once I saw how so many prosecutors acted just like that.

    Also, to repeat something I said over at Balko’s site:

    I still don’t buy your explanation for Dunphy’s post. At all. Between law school and passing three different state bar exams, I know what hypotheticals are. One of the things you learn about a hypothetical — there are no extraneous facts. Every single word in a hypothetical matters. You’re continually being intellectually dishonest by claiming that large parts of Dunphy’s article mean nothing. They mean something, and he said it for a reason.

    Andrew (e218e2)

  82. Patterico – the angry angry angry anarchist is at least a little accurate in his name selection. It is one angry hatey person, who much like jaybird, favors Teh Narrative over the truth.

    What fluffy said, douchebags.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  83. aw, JD, it is sweet for you to stand by your man during his time of need.

    And Andrew is right: to claim that vast swaths of Jack Dunphy’s hypo meant nothing is BS to the highest degree. The fact is, is that Dunphy said what he said and most people read it the way it was meant to be read. Only Frey’s obsession with the Authoritarianism of the police is preventing him from seeing what everyone else sees.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  84. Patterico, I have errands that I have to run.

    I have said that Radley is a horse’s ass. I have said that he was completely ungracious in the correction he printed.

    I can also totally see how a guy who is giving himself the benefit of the doubt and assuming malice on the part of the people with whom he has gotten into multiple pissing contests would do the same.

    He’s a horse’s ass. He did something he ought not have done but then posted a correction. And, yes, he’s still being a horse’s ass about it.

    If you want me to say that I should read everything he writes as a (perhaps researched) opinion piece, well… yeah. That’s how one ought to read journalism. That’s how one ought to read *ANYBODY*. I know he’s an ideologue. I suspect that everyone knows that, though.

    If, however, you want me to see the fact that it took him 36 hours to post a correction as something that only an evil person would do…

    Eh. We’re back to me coming back on Monday. I look forward to reading your retraction then.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  85. Oh well. It looks like Jaybird is leaving.

    As should have been obvious, he’s not really a sock puppet. I leveled that accusation as a rhetorical maneuver, in an attempt to make it sink in why someone would get upset when someone says something about them that a) isn’t true, b) causes people to question their honesty, and c) isn’t corrected until all the observers have gone away.

    He seems to have somewhat gotten the point. But he is still desperately trying to refocus the discussion away from Balko’s 36-hour failure to correct the inaccuracy, to anything else, including: whether Balko honestly misread the passage to begin with (sure, that’s possible); whether he was a jerk about how he issued the correction (he most certainly was); or whether he said self-serving things in that regard (you betcha).

    The one thing that Jaybird studiously refuses to answer is whether it is dishonest to DELIBERATELY leave a falsehood on your site for 36 hours, until most of the readers have gone away, and then lie about why you waited 36 hours.

    You will notice that Jaybird will NEVER address that issue.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  86. Shorter Richard: Radley should have paid attention to ME ME ME first!

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  87. If, however, you want me to see the fact that it took him 36 hours to post a correction as something that only an evil person would do…

    Not evil. Just someone who lets ego trump accuracy.

    I have said that Radley is a horse’s ass. I have said that he was completely ungracious in the correction he printed.

    And I have said that neither one is the issue. And I have said that you repeatedly talk about things that aren’t the issue, to make it look like you’re being responsive, when in fact you’re evading the issue.

    Which is, and I’ll repeat it for your benefit:

    whether it is dishonest to DELIBERATELY leave a falsehood on your site for 36 hours, until most of the readers have gone away, and then lie about why you waited 36 hours.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  88. It wasn’t a lie. your repeated assertions that it was show what a lack of honor and integrity you have.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  89. TAO @ 3:04 PM PDT — Exactly.

    I can take a couple of days sometimes to get something out for a client. Doesn’t mean I’m ignoring them — it’s just that I have other stuff to do.

    Guess what, Patterico. You’re not Balko’s #1 priority. If you expect him to be sitting and immediately posting some sort of retraction the absolute second you expect it… well, I’m not even sure how to respond to that.

    Andrew (e218e2)

  90. Andrew – it’s not about finding the truth, it’s about WINNING.

    Projection. Patterico isn’t hiding. Why not debate him on the merits of his post.

    Unless you’re all about scoring points.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  91. It wasn’t a lie. your repeated assertions that it was show what a lack of honor and integrity you have.

    You admitted that it was.

    He said he didn’t have time. You admitted he did, just not for a correction that would benefit me.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  92. You are all just bootlicking racist authoritarians. How do I know that? The angry angry angry hatey douchenozzle told us so, repeatedly, over the last several days. Teh Narrative must be serviced.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  93. Patterico — I love the part of his nonresponse on the Duncan story where he suggests that relying on summaries of testimony in appellate decisions is somehow inferior to reviewing trial transcripts. I suppose he thinks appellate judges just get on the phone and ask the court clerk for his/her best recollection of what was said and adopt that in their opinions — rather than, uhhhh, reading the trial transcript.

    I’m 100% sure he’s referring to the fact that one of the authors of the appeal confirming the conviction commented on the FACT that Duncan’s own expert stated on the stand that the girl died at the hands of another, and not from accidental drowning. Given that there was NO evidence of involvement by a third party, the only conclusion supported by the evidence was that Duncan killed her.

    Now, if the defendant’s expert didn’t testify in the fashion stated in the appellate decision, and Balko has the transcript showing that, I would expect that he would post that portion of the transcript.

    Of course, we know, he hasn’t.

    This guy’s reputation continues to sink lower and lower.

    WLS Shipwrecked (042297)

  94. Guess what, Patterico. You’re not Balko’s #1 priority.

    But accuracy should be.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  95. Aw, JD, keep defending your man. Maybe someday he’ll get over Balko and pay attention to you.

    Sorry, Richard, but it is not a lie to say that you are not his first priority. I think what infuriates you more is the only reason you have a measure of internet important is because of Mr. Balko in the first place. now that he’s resolved to ignore you, you are going to be desperate for attention.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  96. Andrew – Patterico in not Balko’s #1 priority.

    But apparently enough of a priority to comment on his posts. Strange how those priorities seem to shift as statements are questioned.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  97. Apogee – do you even know what is at stake here? An inaccurate aside – absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the argument. Harping on it is like harping on someone’s grammatical errors: it shows that you are bereft of substantive replies and have to resort to juvenalia.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  98. TAO – It seems that it is you who is standing by his man, as you’re not a regular commenter here, and only became interested the minute Balko’s honor and integrity were questioned.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  99. Angry angry hatey person – You are the one defending “your man” at another’s site. Who is the bootlicker now, beeyotch?

    What fluffy said

    JD (b9ca6b)

  100. Andrew at 81 – you know why prosecutors are viewed as being committed to “winning” as you say????

    Because LONG BEFORE the case gets filed our lands in a courtroom, we’ve made our best professional judgment based on the witnesses and evidence that the the defendant is GUILTY.

    We don’t walk into the courtroom with a “presumption of innocence” in our mind — we are ADVOCATES for the prosecutorial function.

    Not every piece of information/evidence that supports our view is admissible in court, so the jury might never see it. But that evidence informs our judgment about whether a crime was committed and whether the prosecution should be initiated.

    Your argument is akin to accusing a doctor who does a lot of surgeries as simply being motivated by the desire to cut people open whether they need it or not.

    The only parties OBLIGATED to presume the defendant to be innocent is the Judge and the Jury.

    WLS Shipwrecked (042297)

  101. TAO – do you even know what is at stake here?

    I sure as hell do – This country increasingly needs people like Balko to ask the questions that he does. People not affiliated with large media outlets staffed by political party proxies.

    When his accuracy is in doubt, it’s a problem for Reason subscribers like myself, as well as for the truth.

    When cops break the law or act against the constitution, I will not take their side. When Radley Balko is inaccurate, he gets the same treatment.

    If this is such a unimportant aside, it shouldn’t be that hard to defend and/or correct.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  102. Maybe we put a 36-hour hold on every comment that supports Balko. After all, it doesn’t mean we’re ignoring them — it’s just that we have other stuff to do.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  103. WLS @ 100 — That’s a rather frightening thing to be saying.

    I’m not saying that in court that you have a presumption of innocence. My problem is long before a case gets to court. When that “best professional judgment based on the witnesses” happens. When the case is first presented by the police. At that point, yes, you should have an assumption of innocence. Too many prosecutors take the “the case has been presented, he’s guilty, and I’m going to do what it takes to prove it”, even if it involves ignoring exculpatory evidence.

    Andrew (e218e2)

  104. Maybe we put a 36-hour hold on every comment that supports Balko. After all, it doesn’t mean we’re ignoring them — it’s just that we have other stuff to do.

    Yeah, and in 24 hours I might develop a headache.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  105. And like dogs to a whistle, Andrew makes his usual inane appearance – with gems like these, who needs sitcoms anymore?

    “Your continued attitude here actually makes me embarrassed that you’re a fellow member of the legal profession.”

    Step one – profess moral outrage

    It also tells me something about the way you do business as a prosecutor

    Case review? I DON’T NEED ANY STINKING CASE REVIEWS! I JUST KNOW IN MY GUT!

    — it’s not about finding the truth, it’s about WINNING.

    Andrew lamely attempts to plagiarize the Nicholson line in “A Few Good Men.”

    I went to law school with a goal of working in a prosecutor’s office — I abandoned that once I saw how so many prosecutors acted just like that.

    I got kicked out for my sub – par grades so all lawyers suck.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  106. WLS – The dishonest mischaracterizations shall commence in 1, 2, 3 …

    JD (b9ca6b)

  107. “whether it is dishonest to DELIBERATELY leave a falsehood on your site for 36 hours, until most of the readers have gone away, and then lie about why you waited 36 hours.”

    I thought I did address this.

    Let me scroll up and repost what I said:

    “I will say that I suspect that when Balko wrote what he did that he did so thinking that he was telling the truth. I’m suspect that, when he finally saw the words, the thought “those weren’t there last time” went through his head.

    If he saw the words and *THEN* wrote that you didn’t include them, that would be a wicked thing indeed. Yes, he would be deliberately lying and deliberately engaging in libel.

    Here is where I give him the benefit of the doubt: I think that his ideological blinders had him miss those words. Even when he looked at them a second time, he didn’t see them. When he finally did, I don’t know, a search maybe and the words were found and they were there, staring him in the face, his immediate response was to believe that they weren’t there before… rather than that, heaven forbid!, he made a mistake due to his ideological blinders.

    And, of course, his first inclination was that he didn’t make a mistake. After all, he didn’t see those words there before.”

    That’s where I addressed it.

    He still thought he was right and remembered not seeing them even though he thought he looked. It took him a day and a half to come around.

    I don’t think that he deliberately sat down and said “I’m going to engage in some deliberate lying!!!” but posted what he thought was the truth at the time and, when called on it, turned into a horse’s ass and dug his heels in and it took 36 hours for him to come around and print a correction.

    For the record, if he *DID* sit down and say “I’m going to lie about Patterico”, I’d see that as libel. As it is… eh. I see it as a guy making a mistake and then digging in when called on it.

    Which, of course, may or may not bring us back to the meta-problem…

    Anyhoo, I’ve taken my shower and it’s time to get the errands on track.

    Thanks for the retraction, by the way.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  108. Oops – Andrew was too fast.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  109. If that’s what happened, Jaybird, then (as I already said) he lied about why it took 36 hours.

    Your hypothesis is that it took 36 hours for him to admit to himself that I wasn’t lying, and that he had simply fucked up.

    But instead, he claimed that it took 36 hours just because he didn’t have the time.

    Which is obvious bullshit.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  110. Jaybird, who just like any other moonbat that says they are leaving, comes back for at least one parting shot.

    peedoffamerican (acdf1e)

  111. Jaybird – I see it as a guy making a mistake and then digging in when called on it.

    Which, since Balko is in control of the flow of information regarding his posts, calls into question whether or not there are any challenges to the accuracy of what he is writing.

    I like Balko, but if he’s going to be obstinate and evade criticism, then I will have a much harder time accepting his assertions.

    When your words are your wares, you must be the one executing quality control. If not, others will do so.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  112. No, give Jaybird the benefit of the doubt. He has stuff to do, but I wanted him to respond.

    Tough to get him to address my actual questions, though.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  113. They have Teh Narrative to service, folks. This is playing out just like the last several threads. Dishonesty and misrepresentations are a feature, not a bug.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  114. I’m trying to understand Angry Optimist. Evidently when his buddy writes posts creating strawmen, false allegations and nitpicking on side issues, that’s brilliant journalism. But when Patterico responds, Patterico is an obsessed stalker.

    Hmmm, nope, its not dawning on me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  115. Patterico, remember this quote;

    “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!”

    And Jaybird certainly seems qualified, however, from what I’ve read of your posts, you are not qualified as an idiot.

    peedoffamerican (acdf1e)

  116. –noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
    2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

    peedoffamerican (acdf1e)

  117. “Is the attitude towards law enforcement getting worse?”

    It is so far as the public’s perception that the police brass has allowed themselves to become props for political photo-ops, and that they have just become a bunch of self-serving pols.
    If they would maintain some independence from the politicians, they would find that their public support would increase.
    It’s the pols that the public despise, and as long as the police are aligned with the pols, they will share the same disdain.

    AD - RtR/OS! (486a83)

  118. A well-known person to whom I sent the link (won’t say who) responds:

    It seems to me that his actions towards you were: 1). malicious. 2). intentional and 3). dishonest.

    If you’re gonna have an enemy, what better one than a total prick whose lack of integrity is completely transparent?

    Indeed.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  119. This can help determine if you are an idiot;

    The Idiot Test

    Or this one;

    The Idiot Test 2

    peedoffamerican (acdf1e)

  120. Patterico – That was funny, concise, and spot on.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  121. Due to being distracted when this whole issue blew up, until just now I had never gone back to read Dunphy’s original post, nor Balko’s and Doherty’s criticism of it.

    Frankly, my reading is that they completely missed and mis-stated the point Dumphy was making. It’s clear that Dumphy’s post was put together rather quickly, and the Hupmobile hypo is just one portion of that post.

    Contrary to some suggestions here, it doesn’t bear the hallmarks of the kind of hypo from law school using the Socratic method where the hypo generates analysis, commentary, criticism, then the facts are changed to prompt further analysis, commentary, criticism, etc.

    Rather, in my view, the hypo served to illuminate one proposition and one proposition only — that innocent Joe Citizen, when stopped by the police, has NO IDEA what is motivating the police action, and should be mindful that he can’t understand their perspective of the scene during those first moments of interaction, and should act accordingly in the self-interest of their own safety.

    The reason is that the unfortunate combination of what Joe Citizen doesn’t know (why the police are stopping him) and what Joe Citizen choses to do out of a sense of righteous indignation (assert constitutional rights) MIGHT legitimately manifest itself from the perspective of the police officer as a threat to him and others.

    The hypo was meant to be ILLUSTRATIVE of that potential peril — an example of a circumstance where that might come to pass based only on a misunderstanding caused by the different perspectives of the two parties involved.

    The reason the caution is directed to Joe Citizen is that in almost every conceivable circumstance where this might happen, only one party will possess the means and apparent authority to do great bodily injury to the other.

    If the police officer were to approach the encounter with the occupants of the Hupmobile with the primary concern to not offend them, he increases the chances of getting himself shot if the worst case scenario turns out to be true – the driver is armed with a Glock 40.

    Conversely, if innocent Joe Citizen approaches the encounter with the police officer with his primary concern to not offend, he decreases the chances of getting himself shot if the best case scenario turns out to be true — he’s innocent and the stop is a case of mistaken identity.

    The hypo is a cautionary parable, nothing more.

    WLS Shipwrecked (042297)

  122. That makes you a bootlicking authoritarian, WLS.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  123. Of course Dunphy’s hypo didn’t bear the hallmarks of a law school hypo. Dunphy’s a cop, not a law school professor.

    Which actually backs up Dunphy’s point. Cops aren’t law school professors. Even if they’re in the wrong, you might end up dead. And Dunphy doesn’t want that outcome.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  124. In reading some more of the backstory here, I don’t think I agree completely with Patterico’s initial point — that what Dumphy was illustrating is that the officer would be acting lawfully and the driver has a legal obligation to comply with the officer’s orders while he seeks to determine if the occupants of the Hupmobile had robbed the Piggly-Wiggly.

    While that is true — I agree with Patterico on that point — I didn’t read Dumphy’s post as making that point (i.e., the officer is acting lawfully and the driver must obey the lawful order).

    I read Dumphy’s point to simply ask Joe Citizen to understand the officer’s predicament from the view point of the officer when making a felony car stop if Joe Citizen happens to be the unfortunate target of the car stop based on mistaken identity.

    In this instance, I think Balko got the basic premise correct, but then he lent to it a pejorative mischaracterization — “submit or be shot” — as being Dumphy’s “teachable moment” from the Gates affair.

    In that respect, Balko’s analysis is dishonest and, unfortunately, all to common for him.

    WLS Shipwrecked (042297)

  125. Dunphy.

    With an n.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  126. Apogee — tell that to Andrew @ 81. He states that he knows a hypo from his law school days and all facts in hypos are important.

    My point was that Dumphy didn’t set out his “hypo” as the basis for a lesson in the Socratic method.

    WLS Shipwrecked (042297)

  127. JD, the strategy is to put down your joint, sneer, and type “badge licking authoritarian.”

    Then flinch when someone knocks on the apartment door.

    Eric Blair (957fb5)

  128. An n.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  129. WLS – I was telling that to Andrew at 81. I just wasn’t clear. Sorry for the mistake.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  130. I stepped away from the bong a couple decades ago, but I can work on my sneer.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  131. Let me see if I can imitate Danny.

    I stepped away from the bong a couple decades ago, but I can work on my sneer.

    Comment by JD — 8/1/2009 @ 4:52 pm

    Since you haven’t specifically stated that you have not stepped away from the joint, can we assume that you still partake in recreational drug use. Note, I am not saying that you still use marijuana, I am just asking.

    peedoffamerican (acdf1e)

  132. Andrew @ 103 — well, you have a very inaccurate view of how prosecutors do their job. When a file lands on my desk when I was not involved in the conduct of the investigation, I have to make a judgment based on what’s presented about whether or not the person is guilty. It would be a legal and ethical violation for me to pursue prosecution of someone about whom I am not convinced of their guilt. As a result, prosecutors turn down — we call it issuing a “declination” — many cases submitted by law enforcement agencies for prosecution. But, when we accept a case we do so because we are convinced from the witnesses and the evidence that the defendant is guilty.

    You say we ignore exculpatory evidence — that’s simply false. Why would we? What possible motive is there for a prosecutor to chose to spend his time and effort going after someone who is actually innocent? Do you harbor under the misapprehension that criminal prosecutors lack legitimate targets so we chose to pass our idle time by going after innocent people?

    One quick story about a case where I took a likely innocent guy to trial where he was acquitted. And I make that admission here, as I did in court.

    Case comes into the office, and all witnesses (six of them, none of whom knew the defendant and had no reason to lie) tell the same story about what happened. Not a complicated matter, witness testimony is consistent, pretty much open and shut. The defendant makes no statement to the police at the time he’s arrested, other than one that doesn’t seem to make any sense in the context. Why? Language barrier.

    So, defense attorney gets appointed, and for the 4 months leading to trial the defense never gives me even a hint about what the theory of the defense is going to be. All I get is an expert designation that seemed strange, but I didn’t make a big deal of it.

    Case goes to trial, my witnesses testify just as they had reported to the investigator, and I sit back thinking “Slam dunk.”

    Next the defendant takes the stand and tells his side of the story. Now, he’s not inconsistent with what my witnesses said in terms of what he did, other than to say that they misunderstood what he told them. This is the first time I heard his side because he didn’t make a statement when he was arrested, and his attorney never talked with me about his side of the story. I’ve got to admit his story had me scratching my head a little.

    Next the expert takes the stand — its a foreign language expert. And, the expert starts talking about the particular dialect of the foreign language this defendant speaks as his primary language – with some broken english mixed in. The expert states that the words used by the defendant in the encounter — which everyone agreed on — while sounding in english like a threat, actually mean something very different in his particular dialect, and the meaning of those words in his native language served to explain in large measure his subsequent actions, taking them from appearing threatening to being merely innocuous. While it didn’t establish concretely that he was factually innocent, it was the kind of info that would have probably led me to not file the case in the first instance because it did add up to reasonable doubt.

    After the closing arguments, I discussed with my office dismissing the case before the jury’s verdict. We decided to allow the verdict since the jury had sat through everything and it’s the jury that is charged with determining the credibility of the witnesses, including the defendant. If they acquitted him, fine. If they convicted him, we could always discuss with the Court whether it should set aside the guilty verdict.

    The jury did acquit him, but even the judge said he thought the guy was guilty until the foreign language expert testified. He said he would have set aside the verdict had he been convicted.

    I’ve often think about that when trying to figure out what it is I might not know about a new case presented to me.

    So, you can stick with your biased prejudices about how jobs you don’t fully understand get done. Or listen to the people that actually do them and then make your judgment.

    WLS Shipwrecked (042297)

  133. “Then flinch when someone knocks on the apartment door.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 8/1/2009 @ 4:42 pm ”

    Eric – Then show the Officer your boobs or they’ll shoot you if you are a woman because that’s what they always demand to see according to one of our rational Balkobot visitors.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  134. Balko would stop having massive 12 hour migraines if he was honest when he makes a mistake.

    Taking care to do the story accurately the first time would also reduce the incidence of migraines.

    slp (ce5353)

  135. WLS – I don’t think this TAO character has been able to follow any of the arguments clearly from the start and has a piss poor understanding of the law. Hey, but he sure loves him some Balko.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  136. “I’m 100% sure he’s referring to the fact that one of the authors of the appeal confirming the conviction commented on the FACT that Duncan’s own expert stated on the stand that the girl died at the hands of another, and not from accidental drowning. Given that there was NO evidence of involvement by a third party, the only conclusion supported by the evidence was that Duncan killed her.”

    WLS – I was sort of hoping to see something out of Balko about this because as you point out, if it’s in the transcript and it was also at the trial level, it makes Balko look like an idiot for saying the only reason for the conviction was the bitemark analysis.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  137. Yeah. Or what about all that evidence of past abuse by Duncan? Balko really whitewashes that too.

    I just started looking at the autopsy video. The description of her cheek as unblemished is misleading. I plan to have screenshots.

    I still can’t explain it. Something bizarre with the lighting? Beldarls theory about video software blending the images? I don’t know — but there certainly are red marks on her cheek during the portion where Balko describes it as unblemished. Just not in the same place as where you see them later.

    Patterico (957946)

  138. but there certainly are red marks on her cheek during the portion where Balko describes it as unblemished. Just not in the same place as where you see them later.

    I’m looking forward to your post, and maybe this will be clear when the full post comes out; but if the cheek is unblemished where Dr Hayne said there were bite marks and blemished somewhere else, How much does that matter?

    Also, I thought Balko’s argument was
    “Hayne is bad and makes up evidence.”
    –Not–
    “Duncan didn’t do it.”

    If you’re going to write another post on it, I’d suggest framing any errors about Duncan’s likely guilt as an effort to add weight to the accusations about Hayne since fabricating critical evidence is worse that fabricating non-critical evidence.

    Also, I’d really like to know if you think Hayne is a bad ME. Balko has written a lot about him, and you’ve spent a lot of time on this one particular case. Would it really be that hard for you to come to an opinion on the overall question? This isn’t meant as a challenge or accusation, I’d really like to know what you think about the broader question about Dr. Hayne. Especially since it’d be ironic if while writing a story about someone who misrepresented the facts to convict a guilty man Balko misrepresented the facts about a guilty ME.

    Lot’s of suggestion and requests there, so maybe you could make me a sandwich while you are at it? ;)

    Time123 (c0e4f8)

  139. Time123, that post already occurred.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  140. There are two stages to the video. Balko’s big argument was that in stage 1, you see no discoloration in a particular area of her cheek. In stage 2, you do. Ergo, West “manufactured evidence.”

    So you tell me: if in stage 1 there are no marks on her cheek (different portion of the cheek), and in a different shot during stage 1, there are marks on that same part of her cheek . . . does that matter?

    Patterico (d3184f)

  141. It matters if
    1. It shows that the video is bad at capturing the level of detail required to show the marks and thus the marks will appear to come and go. I’d like to hope that an autopsy video is capable of capturing this level of detail. Although in that case I’d expect to see both other lacks of definition and a consistent error in the video. Or a technical explanation for the problem. It would seem weird to me that the video would miss and than show marks and than mis marks.

    2. The marks are close to what’s shown in stage two.

    Basically, if it looks like the marks were there all along but we just couldn’t see them clearly in stage one it matters a lot. If he should have written “unblemished in the particular region of concern but there is a small blemish in another area of her cheek” it doesn’t affect his point but does show it’s crap writing.

    Also, if you can edit my comment to remove the sarcasm at the end I’d really appreciate it. The context of this discussion just hit me and I feel like an ass for making a joke in a discussion about a child’s murder. It was grossly inappropriate and I wish I hadn’t done it.

    Time123 (c0e4f8)

  142. You’re hardly the first person to make a snide, sarcastic remake about something horrible.

    Hell, its’ kind of my trademark…

    Scott Jacobs (c470eb)

  143. Really, these six links <a href="hotair.com"took a little over two and a half minutes, but that’s because I forgot to put ‘blog’ in powerline’s url

    Kolohe (72b7a1)

  144. Here’s another question regarding Balko’s accuracy. He’s characterized the American College of Forensic Examiners as a “lacking credibility in the forensics community”

    What do you with knowledge of this organization say?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  145. dang it.

    Kolohe (72b7a1)

  146. Kolohe,

    The Live Preview feature below the comment field is very helpful in vetting links before posting. Hover your cursor over the link and see if it goes to the intended destination.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  147. How hard do you think it is to embed links?

    Harder thank it looks, apparently… :)

    Scott Jacobs (c470eb)

  148. How hard do you think it is to embed links?

    Just a touch harder than it is to do a strikeout.

    So if you do, say, a dozen links, then you have ample time for a single strikeout.

    See what I mean?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  149. Enough about baseball.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  150. Is Jeff Goldstein still banned from this site?

    Someone, Joe, let me know when that’s lifted. I might start reading here again.

    serr8d (2e21b9)

  151. “I think that his ideological blinders had him miss those words.”

    Ideology has blinded the left for years. They often see only what they want to see, then report or blog not what happened, but the portion they allowed through the blinders to suit the meme they are selling…..and if that doesn’t suffice, make sh*t up.

    This really was a great example of the ‘report dishonestly, allow lie to be formed as the conventional wisdom, ignore facts and refuse to clarify or correct until the parade has passed and nobody’s looking’ form of disinformation campaign.

    And the key to why some still believe in Joe and Valerie Wilson, Michael Moore, Barney Frank, Al Gore, Scott Beauchamp, Barack Obama etc.

    harkin (f92f52)

  152. Amen, harkin. Well said.

    JD (4e8277)

  153. “If that’s what happened, Jaybird, then (as I already said) he lied about why it took 36 hours.

    Your hypothesis is that it took 36 hours for him to admit to himself that I wasn’t lying, and that he had simply fucked up.”

    As someone who now looks at the clock and says “holy crap, it’s 15:30??? WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?”, I can see how a guy might see a day devoured by locusts.

    I’m not saying that Radley didn’t fuck up, mind.

    I’m saying that he didn’t go out of his way to fuck up. He fucked up accidentally… and posted a correction. Yes, he was a horse’s ass. I don’t see it as malice, though. He’s an ideologue.

    Jaybird (f420c4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7534 secs.