Patterico's Pontifications


O. J. Simpson co-defendant Pleads Guilty (Updated)

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 11:36 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

A co-defendant in the O.J. Simpson criminal case pending in Las Vegas who will plead guilty Monday has admitted guns were involved:

“Accused of being one of five men who joined O.J. Simpson in a hotel-room confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers, Charles Cashmore will plead guilty to a reduced charge and testify that guns were involved in the theft of sports collectibles.

Cashmore will testify that two of the other men who entered the room with the former football star were armed, his lawyer, Edward Miley, said Friday. Miley said Cashmore will plead guilty to being an accessory to robbery, a felony that could get him up to five years in prison.”

The dominoes may be starting to fall.

UPDATE 10/15/2007: Another co-defendant has decided to plead guilty.


John Howard Calls for Australian Election (Updated)

Filed under: International,Media Bias — DRJ @ 11:35 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Australian PM John Howard has scheduled a general election for late next month.


L.A. Times Blog Post About Edwards’s Alleged Affair Vanishes Into Thin Air

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 10:38 pm

[UPDATE: Don’t miss the updates to this post — in particular UPDATE x3. Bottom line: the blogger said, in parenthetical remarks to comments, that it would be censorship not to blog about Edwards’s denial. Then the L.A. Times removed the post. Then I posted this post, and e-mailed the blogger to ask why his post had disappeared. Within minutes, they put a shorter version of the same post back up. Then they removed the blogger’s parenthetical observations that it would be censorship not to blog about this! In other words, they censored the blogger, and then censored the blogger’s view that it was censorship! What in the world is going on?? I have retold this story here, with a clearer timeline.]

The other night I noted that, shortly after John Edwards denied rumors of an extramarital affair, the issue had been discussed in a blog on the L.A. Times web site.

Well, guess what? It’s gone now — with no explanation for (or acknowledgement of) the deletion.

The post in question was available at this link. Following that link now brings up an error message reading: “The requested URL /washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html was not found on this server.” Perusing through the blog itself, one sees that the October 11 post is entirely missing.

This is bad form. When a blogger takes down an entire post, there should generally be an explanation as to why it happened. Bloggers should not simply take posts down and pretend that they were never published.

But I have a feeling that it wasn’t the blogger’s decision to take down the post.

Here is why I say that. One of the commenters lectured blogger Andrew Malcolm for putting up the post. He responded within the comment, using language that seems mighty ironic now that the post is gone. Here is the comment, with blogger Malcolm’s response circled:

I remember seeing several more comments along the same lines, and virtually every one had a similar response from Mr. Malcolm.

I have sent an e-mail to Mr. Malcolm asking why the post was taken down. In light of his comment to Ellen, I have a feeling it wasn’t Mr. Malcolm’s decision to censor his post.

Let’s see if he’s willing to talk to me about it.

Here is a screenshot of the post for posterity:

UPDATE: Well, that’s plenty odd. Eleven minutes after I published this post, and nine minutes after I e-mailed Mr. Malcolm, commenter Itsme reported that the L.A. Times post had reappeared — albeit in much shorter form — with this explanatory note:

(This item was originally posted Thursday evening, Oct. 11. It was removed by an editor Friday but was reposted Saturday in a shortened form.)

Interesting. I’d love to know the story behind this.

UPDATE x2: Since Mickey Kaus has been following the Edwards story, I notified him about this. Here is his blogged reaction:

Why it will be hard to blog for the L.A. Times: You post something juicy on Thursday and then a middle-management twit will come in and censor it on Friday.Suggested solution for Mr. Zell: Attrit the twit!

Heh. Thanks to Mickey for the link.

UPDATE x3: Itsme now points out that the parenthetical responses in the comments, justifying the need for the post, are now all gone. Such as, for example, the one preserved for posterity in the first screenshot above, in which Mr. Malcolm says it would be “censoring” content not to be talking about Edwards’s denial.

Fascinating. I’m starting to think I won’t hear from Mr. Malcolm in response to my e-mail . . . There’s just too much here to explain.

Another Duke Lacrosse Lawsuit

Filed under: Law — DRJ @ 8:18 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Instapundit notes that former Duke University lacrosse coach Mike Pressler has sued Duke claiming it violated the terms of their confidential settlement entered into when he resigned. As a result, Pressler wants to void his settlement with Duke and bring a suit for wrongful termination:

“The Herald-Sun of Durham reported Friday on its Web site that his lawsuit alleges the university broke the terms of the confidential settlement when university senior vice president John Burness made disparaging comments about him.

The newspaper reported that the lawsuit asks the state court to void the settlement and hold a trial on Pressler’s claim of wrongful termination.”

Duke’s general counsel expressed disappointment and said Duke would “insist on honoring our existing agreement.”

(All quotes are from the original report here.)


Sports Talk: Mike Flynt Update

Filed under: Miscellaneous — DRJ @ 7:34 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Today (or as LSU and Cal fans call it, Sad Saturday, and you folks have my sympathy), 59-year-old Mike Flynt played college football for Sul Ross University for the first time since his senior year almost 40 years ago.


Balko Saga Continues: The WSJ Responds . . . to an Argument I Didn’t Make

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:17 pm

Robert Pollock, features editor for the Wall Street Journal, has responded to my e-mail faulting the paper for not disclosing Radley Balko’s hidden agenda in his recent piece on Dr. Steve Hayne.

Brace yourself for some eye-opening sophistry.


NY Times reports Israel Bombed Syria over Nukes

Filed under: International — DRJ @ 1:29 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Those who still wondered whether or why Israel bombed Syria last month can rest a little easier.


“It Got His Attention”

Filed under: Crime,Humor — DRJ @ 11:11 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

A Houston area man who used a shotgun to catch burglars outside his home and in his garage describes the capture:

“And I walked out of the house and I went around and confronted those guys on the side of the house. So, I aimed at him and said, ‘You sneeze, you’re dead man.’ And I called the other guy out of the garage.

I watch a lot of movies it sounded like a good thing to say. It got his attention.”

Video link here.

I bet he especially likes John Wayne-type Westerns and Clint Eastwood movies.


It Really Is About Oil

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 10:33 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

According to the President, America would take action against Iran if it disrupted oil supplies.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0731 secs.