Patterico's Pontifications


What Should This Blog Be? (Lurkers Weigh In)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:23 am

I’m not saying I am going to make it what you want it to be. Ultimately it will be what I want it to be.

But I’m curious what people think the site should be.

A place for like-minded people to hang out?

A place for people with a diverse set of viewpoints to debate issues?

Something else?

I would like to hear from people who don’t usually comment.

UPDATE: I didn’t mean to imply I’m not interested in hearing from the regular commenters. I am, very much so. But I wanted to especially invite lurkers to comment — and I see that they are, which I think is delightful.

257 Responses to “What Should This Blog Be? (Lurkers Weigh In)”

  1. I personally like your legal insights on criminal law, particularly those criminals who write the law. {wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more}

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  2. let’s keep it flexible… to bend like the reed in the wind, that is the real strength, grasshopper

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  3. I like it the way it is… whatever that is.

    Kat (637090)

  4. I’m a lurker with an authoritative answer for your question:

    Romans 11:36 – “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
    1 Corinthians 10:31 – “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”

    So in my opinion, the goal of this blog should be to glorify God. And since God loves truth and honesty, you are doing the right things. But to glorify God, you have to do the right things for the right reason, that being to gloriy Him. So I hope you have good motives! And so more specifically, I urge you and this community and guests to continue to strive for truth and understanding in analyzing the events of the day, and in analyzing the storylines being peddled regarding them. Press on for truth, and do it to please God.

    Best wishes (and prayer) for your walk.

    RepentNLive! (6abbf9)

  5. I like it the way it is, and a more civil and charitable discourse will only improve it. This is basically the only blog I lurk every day, and have for years. It has got it all. I also like Patterico’s sharing of music tastes, compelling personal stories like his young children reenacting ‘Princess Bride’ dialogue.

    TimesDisliker (f88992)

  6. This is one of the very few sights dealing with political issues that I still look in on, and it is the only one where I even look at the comments. It offers an interesting mix of political, legal, philosophical, and general interest posts that keep it fresh and varied. Most important it offers a perspective that while coming from a conservative viewpoint, shows fairness and integrity rather the posts come from the host or one of the interesting and worthy guest posters. The commenters are an interesting group that can discuss a wide range of topics with knowledge and intelligence. The discussions in comments can be the best and most informative parts in a very informative site, when the commenters are at their best. What set this site apart in that respect was that the commenters were not fanboys or attack dogs but educated and articulate people from varied backgrounds and viewpoints that could make any subject a stimulating and interesting discussion.

    I think these qualities are a reflection of the integrity and character of the host, and the type of people who are drawn to such a host’s site, people who value fairness and truth, and admire and respect civil discourse and interaction. While I greatly admire the principles found in a site like Powerline it just doesn’t seem to have the interest and dynamic I found here.

    Unfortunately the obsession with baiting trolls and the personal issues and conflicts that seem to dominate the discussions now have changed the character that was so unique and compelling before, at least to me. I hope your new moves bear fruit as I think this site at it’s best as I described above is what I would most like to see it be. It really can be something unique and admirable and I salute you for putting it together and inspiring such a group.

    Machinist (497786)

  7. I like the legal system insights. Pointing out changes in law, the way a case is argued, or the way a law is interpreted.

    Jay (4bbcc9)

  8. More Machinist and Pons, less JD. That would be better for you.

    JD (0d0a58)

  9. I personally don’t like this site. When I use twitter to get news I expect the site to take me to the newspaper site or a news site with Pictures or Graphics or video.

    I find blogs very boring unless they have something to back up there story.

    If all you want to do is talk then there are a million blogs out there.

    You have to stand out if you want to be relevant.

    Just my opinion, besides you asked.

    socalsifu (26189c)

  10. I also visit here several times a day and the make the occasional post…

    Sometimes I would like a poster ignore button–but I can skip through those just fine.

    One sort of related question… Your blog I get and for the most part, I agree with the posts (or at least find other well thought out points of views interesting)–At least in the “sane” comments… 😉

    Twitter “exchanges” (to me), on the other hand, is like listening to one end of a telephone conversion. Alternating between boring and having to click and figure out the other 1/2 of the conversation (hardly ever worth the effort–See David W. tweet entry below).

    Am I missing the secret “Threaded Twitter” feed?

    BfC (e660ad)

  11. Continue to rag on the LA Times and analyze legal issues. That is what got patterico added to my blog reader.

    trackerk (04b86d)

  12. Your perspective & sanity, just like it is.

    Jim (d084ab)

  13. Pictures of starlets in bikinis and college football talk.

    Or just the way it is now. Whatever. But with more bashing of the Dog Trainer.

    JVW (eccfd6)

  14. I learn as much from some of the comments as I do from the posts. Certainly the variety of political and legal subjects is worthwhile. I particularly enjoy the frequent criticism of the LA Times. I haven’t needed to subscribe to the LA Times since my parrot died. Please keep up the good work.

    BarSinister (5280fc)

  15. Don’t change a thing.

    gp (72be5d)

  16. My parrot told me that the LAT wasn’t fit to poop on. I like things the way they are and the guest posters (Dunphy especially) really sweeten the pot.

    Old Coot (fc2376)

  17. I visit this site and HotAir pretty often, looking for points of view on the current news. It’s especially value added here when Patterico or some of the commenters can provide legal background missing in the news – or story context that most of us have forgotten (like those nice little reminders of what Obama said in 2007 that some people with long memories always seem to be able to dig up).

    Unfortunately, a few personalities have become hot buttons over the years, always devolving into ad hominems. I’ve been guilty of it myself, but it kills a thread when that happens. I’m personally committing to think twice before clicking ‘send.’

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  18. I lurk, I have yet to actually engage. I found your site while being agitated about Roman Polanski (he’s a pig in case anyone had doubts by now) and looking for real insight into the legal issues surrounding his extradition. I am a big fan of your legal analysis on issues. I like your objectivity and you are honest about your personal position on things. I also enjoy some of the comments, those without too much self inflated ego at least. I am never told what to think and I appreciate that.

    Mary G. (8edc18)

  19. Writing based on local knowledge, not filtered through any but the writers’ lens, and reasonably detailed analysis backed with facts draws me to people and sites such as this one.

    Such is not available in a trusted form from professional media.

    Discussion of same in ways that illuminate both the topic and the reaction to both the topic and the analysis is valuable for those topics that strike a note with this reader.

    I’ve a list of seven or so sites, that change as my interests or the sites change. I don’t have time, or perhaps desire for more, when added to my scans of the professional news purveyors.

    In the case of Patterico’s, the take down and annual summary of LA Times provides detail, exact quotes, flame wars with those responsible and reactions both in defense and of outrage. Further, the occasional take on legal issues of the day bring specifics and analysis not found in professional summaries. Whatever interests you, when you choose to write about it, bring the same qualities.

    John Lynch (7fb472)

  20. I like the direction you normally go there Pat… but if I would pick a new one, it would be more to the ‘world’ politics and less of the national ones. Every other blog out there discusses the theme of the day (left or right) and hardly anyone deals with the disaster that is the rest of the world 🙂

    Also, could you make a case for not allowing people to descend into calling women names that they wouldn’t call their mom, thanks heh

    Lord Nazh (ad60d6)

  21. I would not change a thing, your site is fantastic and always a great read!!!

    TomK (384020)

  22. As a frequent reader, but rare participant, I see this question as answerable in two ways:

    (1) this blog should be whatever the author(s) want it to be. Traffic may go up or down, based upon changes, but it has accumulated to date on the interests so far expressed by the authors. Somewhat parenthetically, I should add that it seems a bad rule in general to try to decide what a blog “should be” ahead of time (including “ahead of” the time one posts each individual post), if for no other reason than that it means that the author(s) may wind up (a) censoring out things that interest him/her/them to stick to the format, and (b) caring less about “on topic” subjects than they would about a non-topic, but still interesting to them, subject, to which the loss is both to the author, who is, to a certian degree, phoning in the on-topic stuff, and the reader(s), who are getting less interesting on-topic material, and no off-topic-but-interesting material.

    (2) As a lawyer (and prosecutor), I have come to read this post as part of my morning routine for cogent and interesting (and, yes, politically similar) legal points, but also for posts, both political and non-political, that seem to matter to the author(s). Patterico, in particular, strikes me as having a “libertarian, but not anti-authoritarian” perspective, while Jack Dunphy helps me to see the police perspective on things that, while I work with police on a daily basis, I can miss in my daily worklife. Of course, other authors of this blog bring perspectives that I like to read as well, but right now, I’m so scatterbrained, none of their names are floating to the top of my…that thingy in your head, that does the thinking? Oh, yeah, mind.

    BTW, IMOO, none of (2) above should be read as “I’m a prosecutor, too, and so this should be a DA blog.” FWIW. YMMV. OMGWTFBBQ.

    Redhawke (2fc8ec)

  23. I love Patterico being Patterico.
    I also really appreciate Karl, and miss DRJ.

    MayBee (1127e0)

  24. Karl is the fourth beegee

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  25. I read your thoughts daily, but never comment.
    I like your site, and want it to be continued as is; it’s diverse.
    We all know, Obama sucks, progressives suck, we all know, that the msm, and their friends in DC are all corrupt, treasenous etc…

    Please, just keep your site diverse, touching on a number of subjects, but always stating the truth.
    I like that about site the most.

    Thanks for your great work, and have a nice day!

    Inge (436f36)

  26. It’s been quite a while since iI commented, but I still come to the site regularly and enjoy it greatly, so thank you for your efforts. As for what it should be, I think back to when I first started reading it: expert insight into legal issues (with political implications) and of course the way you simply embarrass the LA Times. I wish you would transfer to the Bay Area so that you would take on the Chronicle!

    In terms of viewpoints, I like the diversity of the commenters (wish I had more time to contribute, especially on economic matters since that’s what I do), but it has gotten a bit over the top in recent months (and will probably stay that way up to the midterm elections).

    Anyway, thank you again for soliciting feedback. Let me know the next time you’re in SF, a drink on me!

    Cankle (4a1a0d)

  27. This site should be a total reflection of whatever is on your mind at any given moment. One would,of course, enjoy a certain amount of consistency – something we aren’t getting from The Boy King – but I quibble.

    Your blog is precisely the salutary slap in the face I need each day when I start my work in this hellhole of a law office 2 blocks from The White House!

    Gayle Miller (e5a6d9)

  28. It would be cool if you made this site all about excoriating liars, douchebags, humbugs and frauds.

    Oh, wait . . .

    Dan Collins (a503bc)

  29. Since I can no longer tolerate the MSM (or as Ace nicely puts it, the MFM) I mostly access the news by reading roughly a dozen blogs across the left-right spectrum, and this is one of them. I like the clarity and integrity of thought, by which Patterico contributes to a principled assault on the dishonest and malicious “narratives” which make up so much of our public discourse in these times. When you consider the heap of sheer nonsense that is allowed to pass as more or less “official” public opinion in these days, you have to say to yourself, Lord help us. Or at least, let minds like Patterico help us.

    What should the blog be? Well there’s two parts, the posts and the comments. The posts should be whatever Patterico sees fit; and if he continues in his present vein, I’ll keep reading — not that that should matter to him as a writer.

    What should the comments threads be?

    Conversation, instead of (or at least more than) argument.
    Conversation is superior to debate: debate is a technical, specialized area of discourse that has specific applications, whereas conversation is (as Donald Barthelme put it) “what is proper to man.”

    In good conversation you are necessarily more interested in the views of others than you are in puffing up yourself; if you’re so very concerned with your own ego, get a blog and become a legend. In good conversation you do of course speak your own mind frankly — but that is out of respect for the fact that your interlocutors are also interested in what others think, and those others includes you.

    d. in c. (3961bd)

  30. Karl is the fourth beegee

    His posts must always be sung in falsetto.

    MayBee (1127e0)

  31. I like it mostly like it is. I got rather bored with a lot of the blogger wars against Jeff Goldblum or whoever (who knew he had that much time between Law n Order episodes?). But it was easy enough to skip past those, so even then no foul.

    Even as a bit of a noob though, it does seem like DRJ’s absence has left a bit of a hole. Maybe you need a couple more guest-bloggers you trust to keep content flowing when you need a break?

    Seems like some of the commenters have gotten kind of entrenched – I think my first post here I got jumped on for “concern trolling” or something like that … just shrugged it off and assumed there was a lot of past history with drivebys and fake IDs. But I see from your recent chat detente approach you already are trying do do a little landscaping in that sense already, which is also to your credit.

    I’d not have volunteered any real ‘need’ for a change had you not asked.

    rtrski (b47753)

  32. In many ways this blog has become the successor to Cathy Seipp’s “Cathy’s World” blog for me due to the topics covered and the community of commenters. Yes, some commenters have become entrenched, so much so that they have accused me of trolling several times this past year (a laughable accusation) and have even accused me of being other posters, but I think this can only be corrected by more interaction from the top — and you seem to be taking care of that.

    Christian (2852e9)

  33. Personally, I’m down for any blog that will let me rant and rave.

    That’s what I call tolerant.

    Dave Surls (26b888)

  34. Just tell us what’s on your mind. The fact that I generally agree with you speaks well of the sobriety of your thinking. (Living in the age of Obama has made me more than a little narcissistic.)

    mhr (efa965)

  35. Respectful dissent should be allowed. Trolling and DNC operatives/bots dropping talking points should NOT be allowed. Just my humble opinion.

    East Coast Chris (ded5f2)

  36. I’ll jump in. I don’t comment very often, as I don’t hold views that are compatible with the bulk of commenters here, and don’t often feel like participating in a food fight over some flash in the pan political issue.

    What I appreciate about the site is reading intelligent takes on politics and news from someone with whom I generally disagree. (My politics are pretty much completely at odds with Patterico’s much of the time – I’m more or less a left-libertarian, big-city type.) I especially like Patterico’s commentary when it isn’t just partisan point scoring and snark – more than once it has given me something to think about that I thought was a settled question for me, and I do greatly value being challenged in that way. DRJ’s pointers are frequently appreciated, too. (Frankly, I have less time for Dunphy – I usually skim to get the gist, but I usually find it to be a rehash of talking point arguments that I trip over everywhere else on the commentary web.)

    I could see a world in which more actual debate happened here, but that sort of transition is tricky. More than one blog I’ve participated in heavily has tried to make that change, and more often than not it ended up ruining the feeling of community for the regulars without finding the right balance for bringing in a more diverse readership. I think what generally happens is that the comfortable feeling of at least having a guess as to who is going to pipe up when and how is lost, so the camaraderie was weakened at the same time a lot of folks with different sensibilities were coming in, leaving everyone a bit defensive, less invested and wary. So I’d recommend at least being careful of that, if you do try to change the format.

    One of the more interesting site transitions to look at, if you’re interested in a successful change, is how Balloon Juice changed when John got fed up with the Republicans. What’s interesting is that (whether or not he meant to) he took the site from single-voice, high on the heterogeneity of commenters, to multi-voice, much more politically homogenous commenters, more the reverse of what you’re considering. I think what made that work was that the newer folks with posting privileges were “promoted” from within the community, and that he is very, very active in the comment sections much of the time. (Not saying you aren’t.) I think another aspect is personality – he blows up quickly, simmers down quickly, usually admits when he’s wrong, and generally does things in a really highly engaged way. A side effect of those traits is that he’s had more than his share of blog wars, which keeps his site visible, providing a decent balance of fresh blood in among the regulars.

    Anyway, no conclusions, just a mostly-lurker thinking out loud a bit.

    jamie (ec9178)

  37. I guess I’m a lurker. I read the site daily but never weigh in with comments.

    The topics here are timely, relevant and important. I appreciate the legal insight and perspective.

    However you choose to change the blog, I’m sure it will continue to inform and be one of my daily reads.


    Terry (6d2bd2)

  38. While many things about this blog are praiseworthy, this is one of my faves:

    Writing based on local knowledge, not filtered through any but the writers’ lens, and reasonably detailed analysis backed with facts draws me to people and sites such as this one.

    Such is not available in a trusted form from professional media.

    This is especially true in your takedowns of articles based on faulty understanding of the law. Even when reporters are trying to be fair, they often mischaracterize points of law. This is part of the perennial newspaper quest to dumb things down, to please people who don’t read newspapers.

    You have to blame not only the reporters, but the editors and publishers for encouraging this dumbing-down. Blogs like yours that smarten up the news are one antidote.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  39. Patterico – I started reading this site in 2003 when I was reading sites that were talking about the recall; I was in the odd position of being a pro-recall liberal.

    I stayed because I liked the (a) substantive legal discussion (of which there has been far less), and (b) the fact that most of the commenters were thoughtful people who would engage in discussion and were open to listening to a liberal point of view, even when they disagreed.

    I think there’s a good sense of *community* about the site, and I think that’s really valuable – because it’s that sense of community, in the end, that keeps the comment section from degenerating into flame/troll wars. Whatever you did to generate and keep that (and it’s not clear to me, even after eighteen years of online discussion, why that community develops in some places and not others) was effort well spent, and the benefit of it should not be coming up.

    aphrael (782321)

  40. I first started reading this blog when Patterico was exposing the sock puppetry of Greenwald. That’s the sort of thing I like the most — the in-depth posts that Patterico does, wish there were more of them. I understand a busy DA may often not have the time to do pieces like that, but they’re always appreciated.

    The other thing I’d like to see is, please get DRJ to change her mind about not posting or commenting. DRJ’s intelligence and civility were always a model to aspire to. Having her on a thread always improved the level of discourse, as she focused on issues and never engaged in ad hominem attacks, although there were probably some that deserved it.

    RL in Glendale (30a9fc)

  41. I’m a long time lurker. I stop here a few times a week, simply because you’re a clear thinker and I enjoy your take on things. I like your political commentary and how you take on the media, particularly your assaults on the L.A. Times.

    Andy (e05b28)

  42. And just to demonstrate the point about media bias/inaccuracy, here’s the wretched UK Guardian

    New Yorkers split over mosque planned near Ground Zero

    New York Times poll shows two-thirds want to see the proposed mosque built further from the site of the 9/11 attacks

    The controversy around the proposal to build a mosque close to Ground Zero has caused a deep rift within those most directly affected – New Yorkers – with a new poll showing that two-thirds want the planned centre moved further away from the site of the 9/11 attacks.

    The poll, conducted by the New York Times among 892 adults across the city, records that 67% want to see the Muslim community centre built in a less controversial location…

    So in Guardianland, a landslide 67 percent majority means those surveyed are “split” on the mosque location.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  43. I’d say that the site should continue to reflect you. I’ve read daily, for years, for your perspective on whatever topics you choose. I was hooked by the LATimes posts, most of all by the year-end wrapup, and stayed when I saw that the site attracts an exceptionally high-quality sort of guest-posters and commenters. Your respect and thoughtfulness and hard work for your readers–commenting in comments, responding in new posts, setting up The Jury Talks Back–is very appreciated.

    m (444a57)

  44. Since you asked. Former LA Times freelancer. Married gay guy. California native. Left of center politics though like thought experimenting with and being challenged by the right. Find that happens on occasion here.

    Visit once a week or so for last few years. Trying to figure out what all the fuss is about who I got married to – not finding any real answers here but you and your readers keep trying and I appreciate that. Having been in the trenches, I think your attacks on the LAT are sometimes coming from a hard perspective that could be tempered by a better understanding of the nature of the much maligned – and hardly monolith it is portrayed to be – MSM.

    I think a little less certainty about the truth and a bit more humility would serve your blog – and all of us in the American conversation – well. IMHO.

    Oh yeah – and happyfeet just cracks me up. Shouldn’t he have his own blog?

    jimmygil (f3f72c)

  45. I come for Legal insight.

    I would stay if there were more cowbell.

    Fangbeer (766571)

  46. As a lefty lurker, I come for the headlines just to see “how the other half” thinks.

    I stay if there is interesting, lively discussion. Not to snark, mind you, but to test/undestand where people who disagree with me stand on certain issues.

    Kman (d25c82)

  47. I’m glad to see how much love and respect DRJ is getting from both regular commenters and lurkers. DRJ’s posts and insights nearly always made me wish she were a flesh and blood next door neighbor of mine with whom to talk things over–not just an anonymous, highly intelligent, graceful, and civilized voice on the internet.

    Please consider coming back, DRJ!!

    elissa (5953ce)

  48. I think it should be what it is, with a little house cleaning.

    I came here from that-site-which-shall-not-be-named, and stayed for the fact that it is now what TSWSNBN used to be.

    I visit several times a day, and post on occasion.

    I enjoy the discussions as long as they are thoughtful. Trolls kill the thoughtfulness, and the thread rapidly deteriorates once they begin trolling.

    As one of those (gasp!) federal employees (DoD), I also have found a place here to discuss federal-versus-private sector issues with rational people. I check Big Government on occasion, and posted once in defense of *some* federal workers, and found myself excoriated for it.

    So–to recap–I like it the way it is, with a little cleanup.

    Virtual Insanity (1d2640)

  49. I come to your blog to get a different slant on the news than I get in my local paper, which gets most of their articles from the AP. I find that they are pretty slanted and don’t give me some of the depth that I am looking for.

    Dave Weber (eab83e)

  50. One thing I would like it to stop being is blog with single line double spaced posts.
    (yes. serious)

    Love the LA Times bashing.

    Philip (f79434)

  51. I come for the helpful tips on food preparation and new kitchen gadget reviews.

    Wait. This isn’t instapundit?

    I do that all the time. Your links are right next to each other in my favorites.

    papertiger (602265)

  52. I like the way its been. This site and Volokh have always had the best discussions.

    Actual (2c86c1)

  53. You bought the URL. You play it as you see it, Pat. If you want to make this a blog of Gregorian Chants, that’s your right, privelege, and responsibility.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  54. DRJ’s great. Probably my favorite blogger, even. Intelligence that speaks for itself, and the wherewithal not to get into petty crap that doesn’t matter.

    I think her reason to leave was very intelligent. No, I don’t know what it was, but it’s a reasonable assumption. So why challenge that reason? I would ask her, if I could, to start her own blog, and moderate everything but selected comments.

    But that’s not what I’d want this blog to be. Media criticism, law issues, personal reflections. I also want some kind of analysis of the Republican party that isn’t based on electoral consequences. I think there’s a lot more to politics than the next election.

    As far as commenting goes, I love it. I call a spade a spade, as best as I can, and try to show great respect for dissenting views from good faith folks, so long as they aren’t showing hatred. Some people appear to conflate all jackassery with dissent (particularly jackasses). If I’m right about that observation, that’s a serious mistake, and I’m curious how that mistake is resolved going forward. Though I’ll be nice to mobies, racists, and trolls for a while, out of respect… not for them, but for the blog I get a lot of enjoyment out of.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  55. Oh yeah – and happyfeet just cracks me up. Shouldn’t he have his own blog?
    Comment by jimmygil — 9/3/2010 @ 11:41 am

    “Sarah the Cooze; a blog about the stupid bint, grizzly mama, Alaskan hoochie” is still under construction.

    Icy Texan (01c5c3)

  56. Longtime lurker, first time commenter. I have really enjoyed when you’ve gone after the Polanski defenders, LA Times, and intellectually dishonest hacks like Dave Weigel. I have to confess that I used to think of your blog in the same vein as riehlworldview (maybe it’s the color scheme). Riehl has become a bit too much of a curmudgeon for my taste lately though. Keep up the great work!

    djiddy (e8bde1)

  57. Just an ordinary guy in the northeast who must check your blog first thing in the morning, then continue to recheck throughout the day. I like your insight on legal matters, although recently you have been strung out with responding to idiots. I like the guest posts, and I feel better informed when I leave you site. West Coast views are a bit different from East Coast, and I just enjoy the ride.

    Jake Phish in Delaware (5b48a8)

  58. As a long time lurker and occasional commenter, I love it. Especially enjoy the law info, Dog Trainer put-downs and the comments. It feels like I know every one of the regular commenters. And I miss DRJ’s sports updates. Please come back, DRJ.

    I’m only an occasional commenter because usually someone else has expressed my feelings but better than I could.

    So keep on keeping on, Patterico. You’re doing it right.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  59. Wonderful thread. I love these lurkers and wish they would become regular commenters, especially those with opposing views. At least in this thread they appear to be thoughtful and intelligent people who would likely be great participants.

    With that, I like the blog the way it is. I like that there are a variety of issues covered in the posts – it would be a tough wade through if it were strictly a technical law blog. It would narrow the readership and you would lose at least this reader so I really appreciate the balance of legalese and readily accessible and challenging subjects. The commenters are so insightful and really flesh out subjects with their own unique professional experiences in various fields and that’s what makes it such an appealing learning environment as well.

    My only wish re commenters is that more people would stop, think, and ask themselves *before* pushing the Send button,

    Do I really need to say this?

    Will it increase the depth of discussion or am I just really bored and need attention?

    Then push the Send button accordingly.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  60. Have a friendlier fight with Balko. You guys are both entertaining and occupy very different perspectives on criminal justice. Granted, you seem to aggravate the living heck out of each other, but you could really have some enlightening debates if you avoided insulting and making fun of each other.

    Also, bashing the newspaper is funny, but many of the articles are too long and involved – although it seems they have to be, so I would like to see you pick your battles more carefully.

    I do enjoy the criminal just angle as others have said.

    DeadGuy (becaa9)

  61. I initially came here from Cathy Seipp’s site, and you have a semblance of her non – homogeneous commentariat. Count me also among those missing DRJ, although I’m sure she left for a very worthwhile reason.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  62. How can I still be only the fourth BeeGee?

    Karl (f07e38)

  63. I enjoy your take of the manners & morals of our world. Keep on keeping on (but avoid urinating matches).

    kensei (f2b2b3)

  64. I like when the site gives me new insight into what’s really happening in the law and in the news, the strategies and the motivations, a.o.t. what’s merely reported.

    I also quite appreciate the commenters here who provide additional points of view and even answer a layman’s question on occasion (I do wish they wouldn’t feed the trolls, tho).

    ras (b7f440)

  65. you can blame it on the nights on broadway

    and I bet you have links

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  66. I like the Cali detail. Legal stuff is good too. Karl is good. The Drummond guy was good. No posting before noon, not so much.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  67. feets!

    My pals in Claude Pate recorded a cover of “Nights.”

    Karl (f07e38)

  68. that’s an awesome song almost anthemic really

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  69. I visit several times a day for the haiku.

    Also, for the cogent, sober, entertaining, passionate and insightful posts by many intelligent and capable authors.

    But mostly for the haiku.

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  70. I don’t often comment on Karl’s posts, but they are exhaustive and excellent. Those are the ones I read more than once. Patterico isn’t always posting long exhaustive posts, but when he does, they are great too.

    It’s unrealistic to say the blog should be more like that. It’s got to be days of work for some of these posts. That’s why I like the brief snappy posts that leave a lot of room for ‘conversation’, as d in c would put it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. I like it the way it is… whatever that is.

    Comment by Kat

    I’ll second that sentiment.

    Subotai (a935a0)

  72. It’s not about what I want. It’s about what you want that I want to know. I read this blog because it’s different from many other blogs in various aspects. I can’t pinpoint all the specifics, but two of them are respect and fairness. And that’s why I read it and sometimes comment. Equal treatment. What a concept.

    rudytbone (291994)

  73. More pie.

    Plus there is a hole in the blog and the intertubes without DRJ. I wish her well.

    The blog should be free in the future if you can afford it. I hate subscription blogs.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  74. – “Sarah the Cooze; a blog about the stupid bint, grizzly mama, Alaskan hoochie” is still under construction.

    Comment by Icy Texan — 9/3/2010 @ 12:40 pm

    Thanks Texan. I forgot to mention how I like that this blog increases my vocabulary.

    jimmygil (f3f72c)

  75. Patterico,

    I have been a regular reader/lurker for a couple years. Your posts today struck a chord with me because I had a good discussion last night with a friend on what to do about California.

    While I am probably center-right* and liberal democrats in the California Legislature can drive me crazy with their nanny-statism, I am disgusted with both State parties.

    At what point do enough people say “We are Californians first?”.

    Do we want to cut every social program before a GOP Legislator will vote to increase taxes, any tax? If even Texas(!)can tax oil companies, why can’t we? Maybe I’m wrong, but why can’t we begin to look for real long-term solutions?

    Why can’t we realize that environmental over-regulation is driving jobs and the middle class out of the State? Yes, I want clean air, clean water, open space. The air quality in the San Gabriel Valley, where I have lived most of my life, has greatly improved in the last 30 years. (Who remembers not dressing for P.E. class due to a Stage 2 Smog Alert?)

    But when you care so much about the environment that you really don’t care what the effect of regulations are on human beings, you are guaranteeing the long-term decline of California.

    More importantly, could we begin the hard work of getting this State back on track by forming a group of non-legislators (former legislators welcome)who will do the hard work? An analogy would be to the Base Closing effort at the federal level.

    I am not naive or non-partisan, but we have some serious problems! This State has been run like a third-world country for more than a decade.

    When do we put aside the “gotcha!”-level of discourse and get to work?

    *my presidential votes:

    John Anderson (worked for him)
    Ronald Reagan
    Mike Dukakis (I never liked the first Bush)
    Bill Clinton
    Bob Dole
    George Bush (I never liked Gore)
    George Bush
    John McCain (Obama smart but zero management experience)

    MichaelS (94c667)

  76. More:

    Pointing out bad journalism.
    Analysis of novel legal issues.
    Jack Dunphy.



    David (c27e97)

  77. Lurker here. I appreciate your legal analysis, I keep my dictionary handy. And although I’m not from CA, I like the fact that you call out the LAT on stories.

    Corky (444d7d)

  78. Occasional commenter, daily reader. I don’t know what I’m going to get when I drop in, and I like that. Whether it’s explanations of the law, criticism of the OPM (Obama Propaganda Machine), or whatever, it’s a good education to check in regularly. As for the comments? Sometimes I read ’em, sometimes I don’t. I’d say that you should just keep on following what your instincts are to write about. You’ll never please all of us all of the time, but I for one will continue to come back.

    Oh, and find a new name for the Dog Trainer. It’s an insult to dogs.

    either orr (58d2a4)

  79. Yeah, it’s cool seeing all these new commenters weighing in.

    aphrael’s right re: this place having a sense of community. That’s a rare thing, I’d wager, outside of the familial tribes – something you deserve a lot of credit for, Pat, and something we all ought to strive to maintain.

    Frankly, I think all commenters should strive to make this one of the foremost online places for substantive and respectful political discussion. Patterico and DRJ and Karl and Jack Dunphy have all done their part, and we should do ours. Machinist and Dana and others have mentioned it already: to have a pool of intelligent commenters of various trades, perspectives, and ideologies addressing political issues is going to go a long way towards forming common ground – not mere “bipartisanship”, which is a stupid buzzword invented by politicians (and a euphemism for “logrolling”), but true common ground and shared understanding. As things continue to deteriorate in this country – which I believe they will – that common ground, shared understanding, community, and mutual respect will show itself to be of inestimable worth. This country’s only hope is that it’s people work together to rebuild it, to discuss the issues facing it and come to some acceptable consensus as to how to face those issues. We have as good an opportunity as anyone to practice that here.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  80. I don’t haunt the comments, so I’m not a member of the tribe. I merely read the new stuff daily, and for the last 5 years or more. I follow interesting links, time permitting.

    I come here for the California angle, the legal angle, the LAT angle, the personal stories, and the Voice of Experience from a police slash prosecutor perspective.

    A recent dissapointment was the scarcity of front page comment on the Bell CA citizen revolt.

    A recent success was the superb fisking of lies and misinformation being used to cover for Polanski.

    Hope that helps.

    Born Free (9b46a7)

  81. That sounds really good to me, Leviticus. It was funny when Patterico called “Levi” a little shit before I realized he wasn’t talking about you (I thought he was making a joke about civility to liberals like you, who are great to share common ground with).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  82. A thorough thrashing of the Los Angeles Times always brings a smile to my face. Unfortunately the cutbacks at the Times have resulted in a paper that’s barely sufficient to line the catbox. You may have completed your task of beating the whey out of the Times. But keep up the good work.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  83. Lurker here: if you want to make it this just for your friends, supporters and like-minded, that is certainly your privilege. Sure, there are almost enumerable examples of that on the right, and, my impression, almost no examples of it on the left — that is, the type that goes beyond tolerating or encouraging piling on dissenters. But so what: this would be a far more typical example of a right wing blog, and maybe a happier place, like an evangelical Christian sect blog. But I would cease coming here and take this blog off my bookmarks, because it would be deadly dull, completely close-minded and thoroughly intolerant — so pretty much run-of-the-mill. As it is now, lefty-lurking-occasional-comment types like me know full well we are going dog-piled, but still, quite often we move the pile towards reality at least a bit. If you want to be an all-white-guys-under-six-foot-tall-oblgatory-five-bounce-passes-before-the-uncontested-lay-up blog, neither I nor anyone else has the right to complain, and very likely will not; we simply will not come here.

    shooter (32dc25)

  84. Well, I trust the content and learn alot. Once in a great while I’ll comment, but usually I just read the articles and normally feel better that I know there are others out there that think like me. That is comforting in a “governmental” world that seems totally screwed up. Keep up all the good work and wish I could help out with the finances.

    bald01 (3771f4)

  85. shooter, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this should be an right wing echo chamber.

    I’m not familiar with your comments… and it’s not helpful for me to get into it with you, of course.

    Just consider how you’re coming across. You’re being pretty judgmental, generalizing, and even plain unfair. Not saying I can’t be civil to folks who act like that. Small potatoes. But if you’re trying to have a valuable discussion, couldn’t you be more positive?

    Here’s an example of my idea of a Positive Shooter.

    Patterico: I find echo chambers unpleasant, wouldn’t read one, and my preference is that there are lots of left wingers commenting here and lots of civil back and forth.

    And that’s also an example of my idea of a Positive Dustin. We’ve got common ground, then, right? Maybe we can be friends.

    anyway, if you have a great example of a left leaning blog that is a great place for a conservative to challenge the left on ideas without being banned, would you link it for me? You seem to know of a lot of them.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  86. That said, one of the things that brings me here is the possibility of a different perspective that might have merit. A great example, in my opinion at least, comes from the opinion today from the federal court appeals system that excuses the Governator and AG Brown from putting up at least a technical platform of appeal against the Prop 8 challenge decision from Judge Vaughn Walker. I know there are lefty blogs, some of them quite large, that are seeing this as some sort of victory (including the possibility the appeal will be treated as if abandoned on a standing issue), but I find it very troubling that it is being left to a bunch of whack jobs to advance an interesting and important constitutional question about the limits to the democratic process, and even more troubling that such limits may come about effectively by default. So when I see that sort of reaction, my instinct is to head here. I am sure I am not alone in this.

    shooter (32dc25)

  87. I’m not sure how to describe this blog other than to say it seems like a safe place to fall. However you see fit to proceed with it is alright by me.

    sybilll (cd7508)

  88. take heart Big Zero
    in your benign wisdom and
    chris matthews love

    ColonelHaiku (619fc9)

  89. if you want to be an all-white-guys-under-six-foot-tall-oblgatory-five-bounce-passes-before-the-uncontested-lay-up blog,

    Racism! Sexism! Heightism! Passism! Bouncism! White-men-can’t-jumpism!

    Subotai (a935a0)

  90. LA Times motto:
    “Letting enemy know what
    Uncle Sam up to”

    ColonelHaiku (619fc9)

  91. opinion today from the federal court appeals system that excuses the Governator and AG Brown from putting up at least a technical platform of appeal against the Prop 8 challenge decision from Judge Vaughn Walker

    That wasn’t a federal decision, it was a state decision issued by the 3d District Court of Appeals. has smoe description.

    There was no opinion issued. The petition (to force the AG to defend Prop. 8) was summarily denied with no explanation.

    See for the court’s official information.

    (I think that it’s the right decision: it’s extremely problematic for the state courts to be ordering the attorney general to take a particular position in court pleadings; as a seperation of powers issue, the outcome would be a nightmare if it went the other way).

    aphrael (d282ac)

  92. Now for some make my Labor Day Weekend perfect news!

    Jesse Jackson’s Cadillac Escalade stolen in Detroit, stripped…–The-irony-of-Jesse-Jackson-s-stripped-SUV

    ColonelHaiku (619fc9)

  93. Holy Guacamole with these lurkers (and lurkerettes, if that’s the right term).

    For the first time in the history of the universe, you have an idiot box that you can actually talk back to…and you won’t take advantage of it!

    I don’t get it.

    Dave Surls (dff748)

  94. heh.

    an 8 followed by a ) apparently got turned into an 8) smiley.

    aphrael (d282ac)

  95. “almost no examples of it on the left — that is, the type that goes beyond tolerating or encouraging piling on dissenters.”

    shooter – Thanks, I needed a laugh.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  96. Too funny, Col H. Next time he will drive a Prius. Don’t think they would have wanted those wheels.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  97. opinion today from the federal court appeals system that excuses the Governator and AG Brown from putting up at least a technical platform of appeal against the Prop 8 challenge decision from Judge Vaughn Walker

    That’s not a problem, as long as they don’t also refuse to allow the Prop 8 proponents to appeal.

    Subotai (a935a0)

  98. shooter:

    You’re the kind of commenter I try to find: an intelligent guy with a perspective from the other side. Folks like you do get dogpiled, and it bothers me.

    I ask the question about creating a community of like-minded people rhetorically, because I want people to recognize that an echo chamber is not what I want.

    I got spoiled with having people who monitored the comments. Now they are gone. I have to step up. My solution is not to restrict dialogue but to reinforce the notion that dissent is not trollery.

    Patterico (599a77)

  99. Patterico: “I didn’t mean to imply I’m not interested in hearing from the regular commenters.” Dave Weigel just said you’re lying about that on Twitter.

    Dan Collins (a503bc)

  100. as long as they don’t also refuse to allow the Prop 8 proponents to appeal.

    different people.

    Third Appellate Division of the CA Court of Appeals -> California judges, answerable to the California voters.

    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -> federal Judges, appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    aphrael (d282ac)

  101. shooter you’re a big stupidface you can’t have any of my tasty guacamole

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  102. hah just kidding you can have some

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  103. This is a good site, center to center right in orientations, covers a great of legal, political and other issues, tries to keep the Times honest, I wish our mad mogwai would be less of a jerk, butsuch is life, he seems to be like the obnoxious naval officer brother in Barcelona, EP is determined to be wrong in nearly every field of human knowledge, that’s some kind of ambition.

    I’m nobody in the big scheme of things, just a guy who’s probably read too much, feels too much about certain things and people. Because the country that I have taken as my own, seems to befollowing the path of the one my family left forty years ago

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  104. As a daily reader I like your well articulated thoughts, insight, perspectives, and the great variety of subjects as well as the legal thought, (DNA statistics for one, who knew it could be so interesting). Keep up the good work.

    If I am really really bored I will read the comments.

    The squabbles with other center right bloggers not so much. It is your place so have fun, I will continue reading every day.

    I also miss DRJ

    Vmaximus (81fb43)

  105. every day in every way I’m a better and better pikachu

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  106. The first commenter expressed my approximate feelings on the matter. I become distressed whenever the regular commenters begin to devolve (IMO) into childish combatants – I then flee for civilized environs. The last few days has been particularly difficult for me. The open threads are not to my liking. Thank you for asking.

    > Felipe

    Felipe Carvajal (628b93)

  107. My views are “right of Atilla the Hun,” and I despise leftists. I like the blog because of the hockey-fight quality of the comments; the gloves come off, the refs back up a bit and the players go. The refs pull the players back after someone’s on the ice.

    Mignon510 (0ff792)

  108. Patterico – I am curious. Exactly what about shooter’s caricature suggests that there was a modicum of good faith behind it?

    JD (8ded14)

  109. I read your blog (daily) because you’ve got an interesting viewpoint, think logically and write reasonably well. I’ve don’t bother with the comments (here or elsewhere) because they generally seem to be a waste of time. I certainly hope that this mid-life crisis, or whatever, that you’re having doesn’t inspire you to change this blog into some sort of discussion forum. If it does, I’ll not be sticking around.

    lostingotham (40e6d5)

  110. The challenge to Proposition 8, is definitional, some might say epistemic closure of a sort, why
    did it garner such extraordinary support amongotherwise liberal groups, because it goes to the meaning
    and purpose of institutions, they will not accept civil unions, domestic partnerships, that would accomplis
    hthe same goals, now why is that, it’s not about equity but supremacy of one pattern of behavior over

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  111. I think the blog should be what it is, a forum for a diverse community that tends heavily to a particular viewpoint on certain issues ( like the primary use for the L. A. Times ).

    Ken Hahn (70447c)

  112. ‘My views are “right of Atilla the Hun,”’

    That wimp?

    “and I despise leftists.”

    They’re o.k. fried with a little bit of butter. Boiled in oil is acceptable as well.

    Dave Surls (387634)

  113. My wife is constantly amazed at the fact that almost all of my friends are either far left or to the left of center – but here’s the difference; whenever we discuss politics, it never gets personal, there’s too much respect on both sides. OTOH, when the trolls come on here and start right off lobbing insults, then the onus is on them to behave cordially, not us.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  114. more cheesecake photos….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  115. I have hard edges. And I am not charitable.

    JD (8ded14)

  116. Sure, there are almost enumerable examples of that on the right, and, my impression, almost no examples of it on the left — that is, the type that goes beyond tolerating or encouraging piling on dissenters.

    I am, surely, misunderstanding you, shooter. You can’t really be saying that the left lacks echo chambers.

    Right? You’re not saying that, right?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  117. Patterico: “I didn’t mean to imply I’m not interested in hearing from the regular commenters.” Dave Weigel just said you’re lying about that on Twitter.

    He didn’t, Dan, so you must be making a joke that is going over my head. Explain?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  118. “Right? You’re not saying that, right?”

    Patterico – Those are the words he wrote.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  119. P – You must have rushed by them the first time.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  120. Continue your good work on legal issues, southern california and the dog trainer (LATimes).

    Only change I would recommend is not freaking out so much a la the RS McCain debacle. The less you resemble C Johnson the better.

    harkin (efb15c)

  121. Patterico, I have to say it. Here is my worry: One of your newly forgiven amnesty-ites sooner or later is going to post something egregious–something awful, something foul, something so beyond the pale that it needs to be nuked immediately before it gets spread across the internet as an “example” of Patterico’s blog followers. And nuked before it causes you personal, monetary, or legal peril. Suppose you are in court, or in a deposition, or commuting, or cooking dinner, or at a sporting event or movie, so you don’t see it for a while. What will happen? I think you have already said that there is no one actively monitoring the site and the comments. Do you have a contingency plan for dealing with this? A trusted deputy with a kill switch or at least a way to reach you? Obviously, you don’t need to share your plan with the world. But please assure us that there is such a contingency in place. Otherwise I suspect I will not be the only one who worries.

    elissa (5953ce)

  122. Just keep on what you’re doing. The shock of recognition in finding another human who saw the emptiness of the LAT is enough, but I never get tired of you taking them down on cross-ex.

    Still think you ought to write a book on the LAT/Pelicanno connection and that writer they tormented.

    Patricia (358f54)

  123. Don’t go changin’…

    I like this place the way it is. Keep doing what you’ve been doing since I started reading you…many years ago…

    DrummingAncient (17bffd)

  124. Lurker here.

    If possible, more local color: Your daily grind, courthouse characters, working conditions, favorite restaurants/beaches/places.

    Los Angeles (particularly the South Bay) will always be home for the first fifty-five years of my life and memories. It is still home for many of our children and grandchildren. But, Bride and I haven’t lived there since we escaped after retirement from the CJ system in ’93.

    I hang out here mostly for opinions that agree with mine, but enjoy comments–thoughtful or humorous–that do not. When the micturation begins in posts or comments I tend to snooze.

    Best wishes to you and to all the Pontificators.

    gnholb (4fbede)

  125. I would like to see at least one or two posts per week that are line ups of all the stories you found interesting but to which you didnt want to devote a post.

    rumcrook¾ (4a9bee)

  126. lurker here/ love ur blog/ wouldn’t change a thing

    pdbuttons (25ef24)

  127. pdbuttons !!!!!!!!

    Folks, until you hear his stories about flat headed web fingered crippled farm prison kids in a box, you have not lived.

    JD (8ded14)

  128. I lurk mostly, but occasionally post. Yours is one of several sites I visit throughout the day. Your ragging on the LAT is what got me started (yes, I dislike them instensely) and your legal opinions and ragging on the LAT has kept me here. Don’t change a thing.

    Andy (5ed3ce)

  129. I gotta say I got chuckle out of this story about Jetstream Jesse getting his Escalade stripped in Detroit while he was there to talk about “Green Jobs.”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  130. # 114

    more cheesecake photos….

    Comment by redc1c4 — 9/3/2010 @ 6:50 pm

    Dittyo that.

    We need a reg post called Patterico’s pinups , featuring the best of the mugshots from Los Angeles county.

    One a week would suit me.

    Paris Hilton could be the inaugural edition.

    papertiger (95f8ad)

  131. I think it should be all photos of cute, topless girls making out- wait, our site already does that 😉

    ms. docweasel (7a0d70)

  132. Lefty lurker that enjoys author’s commitment to their POV; am arch conservative on immigration though and live in the ultimate sanctuary city- LA. Have not read the comments a lot as it seemed an insider’s sparring conversation…will start to check it again…love editorial voice and story choices very much! Read it several times a week and is a: Favorite.

    dudeabides (bc873a)

  133. See, that dudeabides person seems like someone that would be a very welcome and positive addition.

    JD (8ded14)

  134. Absolutely. It has been wonderful hearing from the lurkers.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  135. I read your blog (daily) because you’ve got an interesting viewpoint, think logically and write reasonably well. I’ve don’t bother with the comments (here or elsewhere) because they generally seem to be a waste of time. I certainly hope that this mid-life crisis, or whatever, that you’re having doesn’t inspire you to change this blog into some sort of discussion forum. If it does, I’ll not be sticking around.

    Not sure it rises to the level of a mid-life crisis. Nice to hear that you read daily.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  136. I’m a lurker. I rarely comment. I’m always afraid if I comment I’ll get made fun of or worse…those of us who lurk aren’t always in the “know” and some of the regular commentators have a need to show other people up. Even for honest, simple mistakes.

    Make the discussion more about the topics and less about the other people commenting and I believe you’ll have a much better discussion AND more of us lurkers will feel comfortable joining in!

    Just my two cents.

    yourlilsis (6af962)

  137. As a former Californian I appreciate the commentary about situation out there.

    LaFong (0cdca8)

  138. Mr. buttons has improved the internet 217% since he started his commentings

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  139. To those who have expressed a desire not to see blogfights: I will obviously continue to criticize other bloggers’ positions, but I am tired of personal spats and am looking to end such nonsense. I would also prefer for disagreement on the blog to be spirited but not personal and nasty.

    I’ll keep trying.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  140. I would also prefer for disagreement on the blog to be spirited but not personal and nasty.

    I like this articulation a lot. And I’m not claiming this characterizes how I’ve disagreed every time. But I think this would be a great thing to repeat a few times.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  141. I am going to practice this phrase, and use it repeatedly.

    This is me not calling someone a lying douchenozzle.

    JD (8ded14)

  142. The reason I have been coming regularly for years is that I feel I can learn something, particularly about legal matters, which are my favorite posts. And ~usually~ not feel too intimidated to ask questions.

    Pretty much like everything, can always scroll past the piling on.

    jodetoad (7720fb)

  143. I like this blog, I’m quite sure I have been quick to be both personal and nasty and my apologies.

    Quite frankly, though, this blog is one of the best to vent without undue venom. I will endeavor to be more circumspect in my postings.

    Ag80 (2f74a7)

  144. I don’t want to feel like people need to walk on eggshells. Just attack the argument and not the person.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  145. I stumbled onto the site back when Teri Schiavo was in the news, wanted to understand the legal wranglings and didn’t trust the inadequate “sound bite” coverage elsewhere. Found this site to have respectful dialogue.

    I value intellectually honest disagreement, various points of view/expertise/experience evaluating topics that are raised.

    I don’t mind some good-natured jesting, nor forceful emotion when addressing an issue. I don’t like to see threads where it’s hard to find the good points because of “troll/anti-troll” taking up a significant portion. I’m sure I’ve been guilty at times of helping to perpetuate rather than diminish.

    I’m sure many of my comments don’t add much (though I hope a few do), but this is the only opportunity I have to interact with people of varying viewpoints who can be thoughtful and serious. This is the only site I generally take time to look at in the whole blogosphere, though I often look at what’s up at PowerLine, also.

    Generally like it. Would like to see DRJ when she can contribute again, as well as stashiu3 and “WLS” from a few years back, who may still be around under another name.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  146. Maybe one of our friends on the other side of the aisle can give us a list of codewords so I can express myself without being so hard-edged.

    JD (8ded14)

  147. JD: just don’t repeat anything feets says about women 🙂

    Lord Nazh (821ae1)

  148. What would I like this blog to do?

    Well, you’re out in California, while I’m in New England, and you’ve got a fascinating race for US Senator. So, whuddaya think? Susan Estrich has a column at the Examiner saying that Fiorina is not nice. BS or not? And what about Whitman? Does she seem articulate and intelligent?

    Hmm. I wouldn’t mind more embedded Youtube music videos, if you can pick good ones.

    Also, with newspapers and other MSM outlets shrinking and withering, I guess new media like this blog might usefully take up the slack by trying to let us know about idiotic stuff going on in DC that other news sources aren’t reporting (or are reporting insufficiently). For example, in addition to biassed LAT news articles, what news articles are they completely omitting?

    Plus I want a really good joke once in a while. People like me more when I can tell agod joke. 🙂

    Plus I want accurate stock tips. Plus….

    Andrew (91128f)

  149. yourlilsis (are you really?)

    I have made some posts that were clueless and have generally been reoriented and educated in a graceful manner, unless of course snide remarks were made that flew over my head.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  150. Longtime reader/sometime poster.

    I enjoy the conversation. At it’s best this site resembles a very interesting dinner party.

    gahrie (ed7a50)

  151. Legal & media analysis. For me, that’s your core brand. And sharp, concise prose! Bitch-slapping other bloggers is comparatively boring, though I must say I like what you just did to David Weigel. As long as it doesn’t go on for days & days, back and forth. The problem then is blog posts with long preface sections that read like Cliff Notes.

    And personally, I don’t read blogs to “hang out” and comment. (Heck: if you reply to this comment, I won’t be around!) If I had the time & were inclined to follow a particular thread, the comment feed is way too much of a fire hose. Would be much better if commenting software could be smarter & more Facebook-like about informing you via email of direct replies, using text-selection web standard or at least NLP cues.

    sierra (121696)

  152. This blog should continue to be a place where Dave Weigel has to eat shit and say it tasted good.

    Cultural reference-Lou Reed’s “Dirt” 3rd verse:

    Papa Rod (aceeb1)

  153. Sheesh – I was just googlin, and there’s like 3 million websites of Paris Hilton mugshots already.

    So plan b?

    papertiger (95f8ad)

  154. I use to read this blog more in the past. I liked your less political posts about your experiences as a DA and the like. I am not much interested in partisan cheerleading and there seems to be more of that. And I find your co-bloggers less interesting.

    James B. Shearer (80a1ec)

  155. I’m a multiple times daily reader and occasional commentor. I read most posts and comments. I like the site the way it is, though I miss DRJ’s posts and the “deport the criminal” posts.

    It’s sad when the comments degenerate into name calling.

    I liked the posts on proposition 8 and hope SSM is not inevitable.

    I learn much from the comments.

    I’ve found your posts on judicial candidates helpful. Who knows who these people are?

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  156. yourlilsis (are you really?)

    She is, really.

    She has a blog. She is home schooling my nephew.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  157. Sometime commenter, most time lurker. I like the blog and like Patterico’s take on legal issues and things in general even if I disagree. Karl’s posts are great and like others I miss DRJ. I thought she added alot. Maybe you can find someone from the Patterico commentariat that could replace DRJ–tough order but worth a try. Also try to make JD less of a racist. (:

    BT (74cbec)

  158. A number here suggest that somehow I took the position that the left does not have echo chambers. I did not say that. If you think I suggested it, that may be projection on your part. There are of course many such echo chambers, and it is a constant problem for anyone active on the blogosphere to determine whether one is reading something that is the product of individual thoughtful consideration or just a witless coordinated message. An example is the fixation on the left with whatever Sarah Palin said on any given day; you can argue she is not worthy of being paid attention to, and you can point to proof upon proof that large swaths of all political persuasions are dismissive of her, but doing that day and day for months into years defies credibility. But instead, the bigger the traffic, it seems, the more likely there will be a daily entry on what crazy stupid half-baked thing she said today.

    What I was referring to was not echoes, but the outright banning of dissent — as distinct from banning of the type of moron who might as well be listing dry-cleaning prices, or is simply repeating himself or chronically trying to hijack the thread.

    An example: there was an awful lot of byplay between the left wing blog emptywheel (now on firedoglake, but at the time on a small group blog) and the right wing blog Just A Minute, on examining and analyzing the thousands of leaked tidbits from the investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. Not just the principals, but many of those who posted comments regularly on one blog would travel over to the other, to check out alternative theories and even try to engage (and sometimes that cross-blogging even worked; several dozen specific instances come to mind).

    So I (again, I am sure not alone) tried this at other places, all over the blogosphere, and only ever got banned from right wing blogs (One example Ace of Spades HQ, which seems to honor the memory of H.L. Mencken largely in its breach). I am not by nature abusive (though I can lapse into sarcasm and parody), so to ban me for trolliaty is simply artifice. What I got banned for — more than once — was for challenging the party line: with facts.

    On the several left and center blogs I frequent, there is lots of dog-piling, but no banning for simple dissent or challenging on facts. If you can point to any that ban for those sorts of things, I would be happy to stand corrected.

    shooter (32dc25)

  159. So I (again, I am sure not alone) tried this at other places, all over the blogosphere, and only ever got banned from right wing blogs (One example Ace of Spades HQ, which seems to honor the memory of H.L. Mencken largely in its breach). I am not by nature abusive (though I can lapse into sarcasm and parody), so to ban me for trolliaty is simply artifice. What I got banned for — more than once — was for challenging the party line: with facts.

    Wow. You, a lefty, were more poorly received at righty blogs than lefty ones? That is damn compelling evidence that righties are more intolerant!!!

    I will have to see a link for proof that you were banned at Ace’s for simply presenting facts. I place the chances that you will provide such a link at somewhere between slim and none.

    Prove me wrong.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  160. Plan b – what happened to the original formula.
    Patterico used to be dedicated to being the Los Angeles Times unofficial corrections page.
    You used to call them on the lies that they wouldn’t admit even when they’re alone with the mirror.

    Somewhere along the line Pat canceled his subscription. That puts an awful crimp in the formula. I know it felt good at the time, just like banning the rude commenters felt good at the time.

    Now you’ve reviewed those former transgressions and declared a general amnesty.

    Something similar could be done with the LATimes.

    Don’t pretend that the on-line version is a substitute. There is a lot of variation between the hard copy and the wire, enough that a blog could be written about that variation alone.

    papertiger (afb9c7)

  161. Show me one lefty blog whose host has tried to protect righties from dog piling the way I have been urging people to give you the benefit of the doubt.


    Patterico (c218bd)

  162. routinely bans people for stating facts. He claims it’s for knowing misinformation — which means asserting anything he disagrees with.

    Media Matters banned me for challenging Eric Boehlert.

    That’s two off the top of my head.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  163. Charles Johnson bans people for dissent.

    That makes three lefty blogs.

    I have not commented on many others.

    I know Washington Monthly banned Mike K. He is no troll. That’s four.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  164. shooter:

    “What I got banned for — more than once — was for challenging the party line: with facts.”

    I got banned at for behaviour. In the end, I was banned (not by Ace, but finally by Maetenloch) at Ace of Spades HQ for something similar to why you were banned.

    Oh, and I was banned from my other favourite blog, Hot Air, for a run-in with Ed Morrissey during the last election cycle, which I felt was he deserved at the time. I haven’t changed my mind on that subject. Nonetheless, since that run-in I have increasingly liked the direction he has gone as his eyes have opened up a bit (nothing to do with me, I’m sure). It was wrong of me to be so vitriolic to such a decent man because he had not yet reached the same conclusions about Obama as I had.

    However, I still read all three blogs because they’re top-notch.

    Especially Ace’s, no slight to Patterico intended: Ace is just a brilliant satirist who can put his finger right on the critical point of an issue … and Allahpundit is the fairest and best political analyst I’ve ever seen. I don’t think Patterico would take issue with those conclusions.

    My point is while I concur that you may have been banned from AoSHQ for the reason you gave, since on certain topics at least their crowd and co-bloggers are not into substantive hard-hitting debate, it took a lot for me to be banned from any of the above three conservative blogs.

    Yet I was banned almost instantaneously from left-wing blogs like Little Green Footballs, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post despite not misbehaving (heck, I’d just got there). In each case, I was just challenging them factually and, “Blam!”

    Banned not after months and multiple warnings. Banned quickly, without warning, in each and every case.

    So to say that left-wing blogs are more tolerant than right-wing blogs is simply farcical according to my experience.

    And every political test I’ve ever done says I come out as center-right, so it’s not like I’m a Patrick Buchanan ultra-hard core conservative or something.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  165. Huffington post

    Real Climate

    Open Mind
    (the most misleading name in the blogisphere)

    Democratic Underground

    I can’t remember all of the littler blogs.

    The ones that really bug me are like Revkin at the NYTimes. He doesn’t mind getting taken apart by some of the big names in skepticville, but some little pipsqueak like me comes along and shows him up?
    That’s a banning.

    papertiger (afb9c7)

  166. Oh yeah, I was almost immediately banned at Huffington Post and Democratic Underground too. Thanks for reminding me.

    There is no way in hell that lefty-blogs are more tolerant than the mainstream conservative blogs.

    Except RedState. That place is a joke when it comes to banning. I was banned for agreeing with the author of a post, but in such a way that he misunderstood and thought I was defending Ron Paul (I wasn’t. I can’t stand Ron Paul).

    I followed the RedState request help for banning procedure, explaining that I actually agreed with them entirely and they’d just misinterpreted me, and it made no difference at all.

    So yeah, RedState is Stalinesque, but the vast majority of major lefty-sites are Stalinesque whereas most major conservative sites are much less so.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  167. Oh, and I’ve disagreed with Anthony Watts many a time at Wattsupwiththat, and criticized Lord Monckton, etc., as well as agreeing with either at times.

    No one has ever even hinted at banning and all my comments, even critical ones, pass through moderation with no problem.

    This, again, is normal for major conservative blogs and almost unheard of for lefty blogs, such as Real Climate.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  168. another noteworthy blog for that list,
    Jerry Brown had (has?) a blog from back when he was Mayor of Oakland.
    I dropped in on him almost the first day it was launched via a heads up from Little Green Footballs (I don’t think CJ has banned me yet).
    Had a week of productive repartee. Then I commented on his name recognition.
    I said something like, “everybody has a uncle or cousin ‘Jerry’ that is well thought of, so you’ve got that name thing going for you.”

    Banned and scrubbed from the archive. Jerry is real sensitive about his name apparently.

    papertiger (afb9c7)

  169. If you want to be an all-white-guys-under-six-foot-tall-oblgatory-five-bounce-passes-before-the-uncontested-lay-up blog

    — Uh-oh. I’m 6’1″. Does this mean that I’m off the team?

    Icy Texan (01c5c3)

  170. Icy, well apparently no girls are allowed either. Maybe we’ll have to start a new team? Or file an EEOC-type complaint?

    elissa (5953ce)

  171. I like the blog, and like my cable – if I don’t prefer to read the story I move on, if the comments annoy me, I move on. Sometimes I am not in the mood to read a long story on the shenanigans of some LA asshat. I’m East Coast, we have our own. If I’m in the mood for kittehs I go to I can has cheezbuger.

    I like the comments section, I like the stories, I like Karl and Jack Dunphy, I miss DRJ. I respect the law analysis. So, for me, if you were to cater to me, and I’m not asking for that, but…if you were… moar kittehs.

    Also, I miss the comments section commenter’s names linking to commenters own blogs. I really miss that.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  172. As a long-time lurker, I’d like this site to be exactly what it is.

    I administer a message board. Unless it’s porn or racist remarks, we don’t ban for ANYTHING (well, a troll here and there might get it). Dissent makes it interesting, regardless of the emotion or passion behind it. Besides, the more they rage…. the more entertaining it is.

    Scott B (c67d48)

  173. Lots of great comments above and am esp. delighted to see so many lurkers giving their views. Hope to see more of their comments in future.

    No suggestions on content; I like the site for both the posts and comment sections. Read many more threads than I post on, and learn as much from the comment sections as the posts IMO; a lot from both.

    Personal fights and trolls are boring, so am really crossing my fingers on this amnesty thing. I hope it works and the ones welcomed back don’t repeat the behavior that got them banned in the first place. (As at least two of them have noted already, banning’s not done here lightly so it wasn’t for no reason at all.)

    no one you know (6631bc)

  174. Addicted to the L.A.Times for its sports, sudoku, and crosswords, I need your blog to cleanse my palate of the tendentiously slanted froth of the news and opinion page–oh, and the business and calendar sections as well; I can’t help but think “sock puppet” when I see Michael Hiltzik’s earnest mug.

    The occasional self-referential blog wars glaze my eyes at times, but I sense you feel the tedium as well. Thanks for the good job.

    Golden Eagle (4e9369)

  175. So what can I possibly say about “shooter” that’s not over the line regarding his recent comments? I guess to say nothing.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  176. I am very interested in the legal analysis, miss DRJ an her measured, thoughtful positions, enjoy reading the guest blogger’s posts for each of their areas of expertise and interest. Like some of the others, I tend to skip over certain posts (blog wars, etc.) and read comments until the dissolve into nothing but name calling. (I can get that by simply stating my opinion to any of the lefty lawyers I work with.)

    There are certain posters who almost always are acerbic and vitriolic towards those who don’t agree with their point of view. Those, I skim past.

    Over all, this is the one blog that I look at daily, no matter what the work schedule is like.

    I am very fiscally conservative and more libertarian than right wing. I find that many of the posters with opposing viewpoints get piled onto very quickly. Unfortunately, I find few of those same posters who can argue their perspective with facts rather than emotions. I would like to see more left leaning posters who are knowledgeable and articulate. I would also like to win the lottery. 😎

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  177. I find Patterico one of the finest blogs published. It is conservative but not in an abrasve manner. Comments by and large are civil even when they disagree with the writer. So I don’t want to see a major change.

    I was concerned when you were thinking about adding new writers, that somehow your message would be diluted. But the new writers all seem to follow the theme. The consistency hasn’t been lost.

    Especially keep up your critique of the LA Times. You may think it isn’t registering, but it is. I worked in the newpaper business and valid criticism stings. The days of “we stand by our story” are no more. Falsehoods are falsehoods and the internet has been a cleansing influence even though we haven’t succeeded enough.

    Keep an eye on corrupt and profligate government. God knows LA and California are this country’s most target rich environment.

    Keep it California as much as possible.

    Tell us about Jerry Brown.

    And most importantly, Keep it conservtive.

    Corky Boyd (d787be)

  178. The Pontificators–great name for Patrick’s band, gnholb!

    As far as the critique of the LAT goes, P’s analysis is compelling because it’s based on fact not opinion, as so many other columns/blogs are. His training and experience and skill as a lawyer are evident. He teaches how to analyze while he entertains.

    As a former court worker, we would read an LAT “news” story about some case and say, laughing, “Were they even in the room?!” They deserve the scrutiny. Checks and balances.

    Patricia (358f54)

  179. Get a blogger like DRJ who was interested in foreign and military affairs. It just rounds things out nicely. He/she does not have to publish at DRJ’s once breakneck pace.

    Don’t let that blogger by yourself if it isn’t your passion because you seem to be focussed more on national politics; California politics; the L.A. area; your professional area of expertise, to wit, serious crime; and critiquing bias and corruption at the L.A.T. and the remainder of the media and/or Democratic Party.

    But I repeat myself.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  180. Daily reader, never commenter. Like the diversity and the posts by JD. The war with JG got tiresome to me, so I glazed over for that period.

    laura.u (dfc226)

  181. I miss DRJ too.

    And I agree with #179 about finding someone(s) who can cover foreign affairs and the military.
    That’ll give your site some breadth and give people more to discuss; holding their interest, giving you more site views.
    Then you could start pitching Amazon like Instapundit does.

    I think you should moderate some of the regulars when we start yelling “douchenozzle” etc. at people labeled as trolls… particularly when they are new.
    Let’s hear their voice and if the “trolls” multi post BS and thread jack, then ban them…

    Don’t allow bad behavior by your regulars, it is the worst thing about your site.
    Some days there are otherwise good people that need to be sent to their rooms without dinner.
    Be hospitable, and charitable to those with whom you disagree; refute them with facts, not name calling.

    Avoid my posts; they contain rambling nonsense and wild flights from reason.

    SteveG (6879f6)

  182. Steve, whenever someone starts calling someone else a “douchenozzle,” you can bet your life that they intially came on here to shout insults without any attempt at reasoned discourse. Nobody here jumps down the throat of any new commenter in that manner unless an unwarranted attack has already taken place.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  183. I have to agree with Dmac. The problem, as always, is that if you know a poster (via her or his posts over a long period time), it is easier to cut them some slack than someone new who arrives spitting expletives.

    No good solutions. But the “regulars” seldom attack someone who is polite throughout.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  184. You (this site) is at its best when exposing hypocrisy (as you do with LA Times) and absurdity (as you do with Democrat politics/policies).

    I don’t care for long irrelevant posts about petty squabbles you have with individuals.

    And I rarely read the comments because (and so) I don’t know the players. I come for the commentary.

    RagnarDanneskjold (91d36d)

  185. Lurkers, be aware that a lot of the epithet-tossing around here is in jest.

    Patricia (358f54)

  186. “I miss DRJ too.”

    SteveG, I wouldn’t go that far.

    DRJ had an eye for great international stories and a real knack for understanding military and foreign policy stuff (on domestic things, not so much, in my opinion).

    However, her writing itself was both too brief and straightforward. She went for quantity. For some bloggers, like Kate MacMillan at Small Dead Animals, brevity works because she has a talent for pithy observation and juxtaposition.

    For the foreign/international angle, I’d be more interested in reading someone who can produce more in-depth posts á la Jack Dunphy, Karl, or Patterico.

    But that said, DRJ was fantastic as a news aggregator. A lot of people read this site for Patterico’s insights, rants, and take-downs, but they will always — by necessity — be in limited supply. It’s the nature of what he does.

    DRJ kept people informed of what was going on in the broader world. So she was a plus and I see why Patterico and most everyone liked her. But I prefer my great writers more so than people who give short observations on lots of topics.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  187. As far as I’m concerned, girls are very much allowed.

    Icy Texan (7a1ea1)

  188. “As far as I’m concerned, girls are very much allowed.”

    Allowed? hell, encouraged would be a more apt term 🙂

    Lord Nazh (ad60d6)

  189. Icy Texan,

    We could do a topless girl of the month section like the Sun and other British and European newspapers do daily, don’t you think? Like Europe’s best-selling newspaper, the traditionally conservative Bild.

    I think it would work for this site. What do you think, Patterico?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  190. Christoph, I’m going to ask you not to discuss DRJ. I recognize that you are just expressing a preference regarding writing styles. Nevertheless.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  191. Patterico – Mary Kate and David F. Petrano, Esq. have not yet weighed in with their opinions on the blog. Maybe you can see your way clear to expanding coverage of service horses, scuba diving assassination teams, roast beef carving super tanker captains and all around nutbags.

    Just Sayin’.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  192. #186: well, Patterico, it’s not like you didn’t think that might happen. Some folks post to be nasty and unpleasant, and some do not. I hope that this works out for you.

    But I suspect that some people (not that I am pointing fingers, you understand) are interested in what kinds of “hot button” topics they can bring up to lead to blogfights.

    Hopefully folks will behave nicely toward one another, and in particular, take your suggestions to heart.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  193. I was agreeing with elissa that we should encourage more females to post comments here. But I’m down with the other thing, too.

    Still working on that Photoshop pic of Sarah Palin grinding a heel into happyfeet’s midsection as Andrew Sullivan peers up her skirt with a flashlight.

    Icy Texan (7a1ea1)

  194. Eric,

    I don’t think Christoph was trying to be nasty or unpleasant. I really don’t.

    His interactions with DRJ are still a bad memory for me. And while I’m perfectly happy to put up with Christoph’s blunt opinions about almost anything or anyone else, I am simply asking him not to talk about DRJ.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  195. Still working on that Photoshop pic of Sarah Palin grinding a heel into happyfeet’s midsection as Andrew Sullivan peers up her skirt with a flashlight.

    I don’t know about the happyfeet part, but the other bit sounds brilliant. Any Photoshoppers in the audience?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  196. Never let a good intention go unpunished, it would appear

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  197. Patterico, this blog should be whatever you want it to be.


    Because if you are not interested in it, it fails.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  198. Still working on that Photoshop pic of Sarah Palin grinding a heel into happyfeet’s midsection Obama’s ankle as he whines on the floor in pain and Andrew Sullivan peers up her skirt with a flashlight.

    FTFM, just for fun.

    I have no Photoshop skillz whatsoever, fortunately, since I’d waste even more time doing pics of things that weren’t even good ideas in the first place.

    But the Andrew Sullivan bit is GOLDEN and I wanna see it.

    no one you know (196ed7)

  199. NOYK, I suspect that Mr. Sullivan already has that image in his brain.

    But some folks have a good sense of humor. Do you remember:,165/

    My understanding is that Hitchens got a big kick out of it.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  200. Patterico, I think your approach to things—not presuming bad faith, as I find I do too often—is very healthy. The world would be a better place if more folks thought that way. Including me.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  201. Power Glutes vs. Power Pumps!!!

    Icy Texan (7a1ea1)

  202. Damages left in the wake of hurricane Earl.
    The WH has declared a state of patio furniture emergency for the entire Eastern seaboard.

    papertiger (5f5b92)

  203. Comment by Eric Blair — 9/4/2010 @ 1:45 pm

    Oh my gosh, hadn’t seen that; thx for linking. Best laugh all day – and almost as hilarious that he found it funny too.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  204. I’ve been lurking since last fall when Roman Polanski was arrested in Sweden. One of the articles I was reading somewhere somehow got me over to this blog.

    I now check in at least weekly just to see what is written.

    I enjoy the aspects of law being discussed by someone who is actually QUALIFIED to speak about the law. Both how it is applied, and how it was written, etc.

    So I would like to see this blog continue to take a look at things such as that, and help break things down so that a non-lawyer can be educated on the topic at hand, what ever it might be at that time.

    D. Hughes (e73926)

  205. I’m all for the status quo, but mainly just keep nailing the LA Times and its lefty bias.

    jftrane (86d115)

  206. Your strength to me is keeping the feet of the MSM to the fire when they play fast and loose with the facts. Others do this, certainly, but not in as an analytical, constructive way as you do. Perhaps doing with other national media as you do with the LA Times would increase your influence, and that would be a good thing.

    John Casteel (3762b9)

  207. This would be a much better blog if it was a place where people got together to talk about how awesome I am, and it would much improved if all the particpants periodically sent me small cash gifts, but judging by the perversity of the universe, I doubt if things will move in that direction.

    Dave Surls (f2a63b)

  208. DRJ has been relentlessly positive and kind.

    My experience with DRJ has left me considering her as a mentor and a neighbor.
    I hope she is watching football (maybe TCU?) and enjoying herself immensely.

    The idiots (and I may be one of them) that drove her away should be banned. Because sometimes simpletons need boundaries….

    SteveG (6879f6)

  209. Longtime daily reader (although I don’t read the comments). :p

    A place for like-minded people to hang out?

    A place for people with a diverse set of viewpoints to debate issues?

    Something else?

    As mentioned many times already, you do a great job with legal analysis and fact-checking the media. If you felt like adding a liberal perspective, you could ask a left-winger to guest-post along those lines, in keeping with your core themes. If you felt like a liberal perspective were getting dog-piled in the comments, you could try moving the particular viewpoint up to a post – a sort of “Hey, guys, this is an interesting, legitimate idea, so let’s discuss”.

    bridget (899c28)

  210. bridget!!!!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  211. You are from Los Angeles and you are an attorney. Being from northern California, I appreciate hearing your thoughts about things going on in the southland, particularly from a legal perspective. Also, your thoughts about California’s political morass, again from your legal perspective. That’s just my $.02 worth.

    Hangtown Bob (8f7fac)

  212. Thing is, bridget, many of us used to read the LAT and thus are reformed liberals, so we know that point of view. All too well.

    Patricia (358f54)

  213. JD
    On a thread ago you answered my question respectfully why you thought or were distrustful of Republicans
    Being serially lazy – I did not look up your exact words but I think you focused on a small sample of things such as Compassionate conservatism, No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Program.
    Returning to the base root of the assertions that Republicans are just Democrats – There is a difference in my opinion between results and intent.
    Democrats, as I showed post Nixon, used the peace dividend to start the escalation of entitlement spending at such a fast pace that it surpassed the former Vietnam war spending (Which was nearing WWII GDP commitment allocations) and reached new deficit frontiers doubling the entire national debt in 6 short years all through entitlement spending.
    Democrats, during the Reagan era, used the House to hold Republicans attempt to defeat the communist threat hostage to even more taxes and entitlement spending. One only has to google the changes made to social security that showed the SS rate increased to record levels which today is a 15% plus flat tax on income for most Americans all thanks to Reagan. RR sacrificing generations of Americans pursuit of happiness (income) to face down a threat – today the man who is revered perhaps incorrectly by most as a fiscal conservative was anything but, he refused to address the tri-fecta of conservative fiscal policies entitlements, spending, and illegal immigration.
    But it wasn’t the Republicans intent to allow these things to happen – it was the democrats – pure and simple. Could Reagan have stood up to the Democrats successfully shut down the government with the veto or the senate? No. The risks were too high, the communists didn’t have the handicap of a strong vocal dominate party who was hell bent on doing whatever the opposite that the Conservatives wanted or most importantly what the country needed. Reagan had a responsibility to the free world and ultimately us the citizens to defeat the communist manifesto.
    The Bush senior saw one great phenomena which has affected the political process and distorted almost everything today – the rise of the 24 hr news cycle. Sure, CNN started earlier but its heyday was undeniably started under the Bush senior administration. The significance of commentary to fill in the vast gaps in airtime and political grandstanding actually lead to an Anchor Bernard Shaw refusing to grant interviews to the Military and CIA on what he saw in Iraq, to the possible detriment of our Soldiers and citizens.
    After taking baby steps, the MSM followed CNN lead and started full blown editorializing and blatant outright campaigning for the democrats by manipulating the news cycle – which gave rise to an equalizing factor – Rush Limbaugh.
    At this point – do I have one? Yes
    Now Republicans, have to compete, not only with democrats, not only with Media distorting everything from Ketchup being a vegetable, to the false stories about the millions of homeless, but with a fake third party challenge Ross Perot. A disgruntled Texan – in a strange media image of an wildcat entrepreneur – but who made most of his fortune and success off of no bid government contracts, successfully divided conservatives with an amazingly unchallenged campaign full of errors and contradictions. This led to Bill Clinton being one of the only presidents to be elected with less than 45% and never in both races to come close to a majority.
    Then came yet another equalizer – Newt. Newt stopped the expanding entitlements with a sledgehammer, using Tom Delay as a club, literally shut down America and brought Bill to his knees and forced some serious entitlement spending cuts that have never been successfully restored. How could Newt do this and Reagan could not? The Nation was not under threats, nor at war.
    Going towards the Bush II years, simply put, Bush Junior wanted a return to the 28% tax rate, the elimination of taxes on savings, estates, dividends, and the privatization of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. This was his declared intent, then the attacks, wars and disasters came. Bush didn’t have Newt’s luxury, the defense of the country is the highest priority, unfortunately, the dems didn’t feel inclined. Bush asked for fiscal reform – he didn’t get it – in fact was openly mocked during a state of the Union Speech.
    The NCLB and Prescription Drug Plan were all steps into accountability and the privatization of entitlements. The intent of the NCLB was to make standards in the Trillion Dollar Education Spending in America, to have oversight and accountability – strange concepts for conservatives, and the PDP was the initial step towards the privatization of the trillion dollar federal medical subsidy. Dems held hostage everything due to the war, to fight terrorism, to protect the women and children, we had to give them what they wanted to get the meager funds to protect America.
    So, to say that Republicans are Democrats to me is something that only democrats say, this is the meme Democrats have been playing since Perot, peeling off a % here and a % there. They initially gave over media attention to the birth of the Tea Party as a Perot strategy to stem the tide of discontent – it was their only play – it failed when the Republicans successfully took over the Tea Party.

    EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7)

  214. “but who made most of his fortune and success off of no bid government contracts”

    EricPW – Are you sure about that? Perot did not enter the government market until the early 1980s and sold the company to GM in 1984.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  215. If all the articles and comments
    were required to be of prose,
    intelligence, and conscience,
    this blog would be a rose.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  216. Daley

    His first contract I believe was NORAD, and the Military logistics – then his largest contracts were with medicaide

    EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7)

  217. “then his largest contracts were with medicaide”

    Not Blue Cross/Blue Shield?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  218. All those words and you still don’t get it. Shocka

    JD (d05ea9)

  219. JD

    Enlighten me as to what I’m not getting?


    Blue Cross was through the government

    Hypocrite: Got Rich Off Exorbitant Government Contracts
    Perot got rich off government money — Medicare and Medicaid, to be exact, two of the programs contributing the most to the deficit he talks about so much.
    How much does his company (EDS) make off the government? Consider this; in 1980, EDS won a contract that paid over $390 million per year for administering Medicare — just in Texas! That’s not the cost of the actual health care — it’s purely administrative expense for doing the paperwork. Medicaid is separate, and EDS has similar contracts with states around the country — using software that they charged the federal government for developing, but kept the rights to.

    EDS barely turned a profit before it began government work. In 1964, its fourth year, the company made $4,100 on revenue of $400,000. In 1965, when it started government work, that rose to just $26,487 on revenues of $865,000. By 1968, EDS grossed $7.5 million, and made a profit of $2.4 MILLION – nearly 30% profit.

    Ever since, the company has faced critical audits, congressional investigations, and charges of poor quality work and exorbitant fees. But they built a dominant position in a new industry by investing heavily in political connections, notably with the Nixon Administration, and by personal contacts (Perot himself was a consultant for EDS’ first Medicare client, Texas Blue Cross.) They have maintained profits from government work with their near-monopoly power and, in part, with vicious, sleazy attacks on any potential competitors. (See Posner, chapter 4, “Welfare Billionaire”)

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  220. Blue Cross was/is not a government program or entity. Blue Cross and Blue Shield were non-profit corporations initially created by physicians to provide health insurance and HMO programs.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  221. EricPW:

    “Perot left the company [IBM] and, on June 27, 1962–his 32nd birthday–incorporated Electronic Data Systems in Dallas.”

    “Collins Radio in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, became EDS’s first customer”

    Medicaid started 7/30/65. There are currently 39 independent Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies and they continue to process the majority of Medicare claims. The system is 80 years old. The Medicare launch, also in 1965, would not have been possible absent the BSBC infrastructure.

    If you are going to provide the portion of Perot’s business coming from government contracts, you should also provide the portion coming from the private sector. You by no means have supported your original smear of Perot.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  222. EPWJ – you admitted in your prior comment that you were too lazy to go back and read my prior explanation. Therefore, I apologize for not feeling remotely charitable towards you when you proceed to mis-state my prior position, mischaracterize my prior comment, and all while constructing the comment you wish I had made, and arguing against that.

    JD (b88cc9)

  223. EricPW – Gerald Posner is also not much of a credible source. From his Wikipedia page:

    “Posner was the chief investigative reporter at the Daily Beast. Following the revelation that a number of Posner’s stories for the Beast contained portions plagiarized from articles in other publications, Posner resigned from the Beast.[21][24][25][26][27] According to Posner, the plagiarism was inadvertent and the result of the “compressed deadlines” of the Beast and confusing his assembled research with his own writing in the “master files” he assembled on each story.[28] Allegations of plagiarism also surfaced concerning his latest book, Miami Babylon (October 2009) [29][30]. Posner said the Miami Babylon plagiarism occurred because of a new system of “trailing endnotes”, because an individual he interviewed read one of the plagiarized sources and reiterated it during the interview, and because he mistook other people’s writing for his own after scanning source documents into a computer database [31][32]. The Miami New Times also found that Posner “seems to add, subtract, or misattribute quotes” and displayed a series of such “apparently altered or misattributed quotes”[30][33]. For all the examples shown, Posner cited a source article, where an examination of the source showed that the quote given in Posner’s writing was either substantially altered (e.g. words added), never said by the subject, misattributed, or used out of context.”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  224. Daley

    No smear

    He was small potatoes until this happened

    EDS began establishing Medicare and Medicaid claims processing systems in 1965. Three years later, Medicare and Medicaid accounts were generating 25 percent of total sales

    The GM Military contracts were much bigger as well

    Without those contracts EDS had no gravitas – EDS only became a successful private sector company after they threw Perot out in 1984 in fact most of the credit for EDS was mainly due to a guy Meyerson that Perot hired to save his company after he screwed up the data systems

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  225. JD

    Oh I think it was crystal clear what you had said about the Republicans being dem lite which is just another democrats msm meme started by Perot as well and advanced along for over a decade now.

    People do read this blog and some will remember what was said by who and in what context

    I just reminded you and everyone here that rino or not – there is a clear and present difference between Dems and Americans

    I also wasnt at all surprized at your reaction

    1st you said I didnt get it

    Then when asked why – now you are not feeling charitable and I misquoted you, misconstrued you – which is an avoidance of your assertion that I didnt get it

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  226. You said you were too lazy to go back and fucking read it, so why the fuck should anyone think you accurately described it or understood it?

    JD (568ac4)

  227. I am in the car, and cannot go back and forth quoting your mendouceity. When I get home, I will go into far more detail about your asspulls, distorions, mischaracterizations, etc … Suffice it to say that if you want to try to characterize my position, it might be helpful for you to effing read it, and not simply make up a position for me, and lie about what my position is. Apparently, you are comfortable doing so, which says a lot about you.

    To everyone else, I apologize. This verminmerits nothing but mockery and scorn. But I will show it to be a liar just like many others have.

    JD (568ac4)

  228. “People do read this blog and some will remember what was said by who and in what context”

    EricPW – Yes, people who are interested do remember and they will remember your pretzel logic, goal post moving, failure to admit when you are wrong, and virtual lack of credibility from the above.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  229. People do read this blog and some will remember what was said by who and in what context

    You wrote that with a straight face, EPWJ? Frankly, that took an extraordinary amount of gall on your part.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  230. Posner, has had an uneven record, good on Mengele, may be not so good on Perot, circumstance gave EDS
    an advantage,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  231. “The GM Military contracts were much bigger as well”

    EricPW – How much bigger? Back up your claims.

    Was the government the client for the medicare/medicaid claims processing systems or were private insurers such as the Blue Cross/Blue Shield system? Who paid for the work?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  232. daley

    I’m having connection difficulty

    EDS about 80% of its earnings were derived from developing MEdicare billing software for the government, the GM military logistics net and the
    business that developed from that

    Also that article was not written by Posner it looked like it was actually lifted from a cached page by EDS themselves entitled EDS our early history

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  233. Daley

    the gov paid EDS

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  234. JD

    Like I said people here can read what you said.

    cursing generally isn’t going to enhance anything

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  235. Also that article was not written by Posner

    If I had a nickel for every time I heard that!!!

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  236. EPWJ – If everyone else should read what I said, why didn’t you bother doing so, before making stuff up? Shall I quote you ?

    On a thread ago you answered my question respectfully why you thought or were distrustful of Republicans
    Being serially lazy – I did not look up your exact words but I think

    Had you stopped at “but I think” we would have only thought you a lazy liar.

    JD (8ded14)

  237. On a thread ago you answered my question respectfully why you thought or were distrustful of Republicans

    And my respect was met with asspulls and lies from you. I have learned my lesson.

    Being serially lazy – I did not look up your exact words

    Heaven forbid you argue against my actual position. That might be inconvenient. And it would require good faith and not being batsh#tkrazy.

    but I think you focused on a small sample of things such as Compassionate conservatism, No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Program.

    That is a portion of what I mentioned, but by no means a comprehensive listing, and absolutely did not compile a small sample, but a broad based, yet incomplete listing of the variety of issues where certain Republicans chose to go against conservative principles to try to win favor with the voters, the media, their colleagues, or all of the above. Amnesty. Gang of 14. Global warming. This “small sample” covers almost the entire gamut of legislative priorities.

    Returning to the base root of the assertions that Republicans are just Democrats –

    Why must you continue to lie about this. My assertion, an assertion made by lots and lots and lots of people, is that some Republicans think that being “Dem but cheaper” is an effective way to govern, a position which I take exception to, but you cannot seem to get your tiny little brain around.

    There is a difference in my opinion between results and intent.

    This explains your Team R cheerleading and support of Scozzafava.

    The rest of the wall o’text consists of EPWJ’s unique version of Presidential history from Nixon to the present, which has f@ckall to do with the topic, so I will not bother with that.

    So, to say that Republicans are Democrats to me is something that only democrats say,

    Were that my position, maybe it would matter. Since it is not, yet you continue to attribute said position to me, despite my having explained it, I can only assume that you either cannot read, or are a liar.

    JD (8ded14)

  238. Did I say I was driving? I know who my father is, therefore your b@stard insult is without merit. I feel great. I got to go to a Cardinals game with my grandmother, my father, my brothers, Better Half, and my little angels. 4 generations all together. Great day. Then, on the ride home, I see this asshattery from EPWJ and you, so I point out where you and he were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. I hope when you wake up tomorrow, you are sober, and take your meds. Your manic phases are really only fun for you.

    JD (8ded14)

  239. There used to be an idiotic comment from crissyhooten that I was responding to. I swear, I am not arguing with myself.

    JD (8ded14)

  240. LOL I’m totally sober right now. I rarely drink to excess.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  241. BTW by sober I mean that I haven’t drank anything. Actually, a beer sounds pretty good right now. Thanks, JD.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  242. I deleted Hooten’s insult-comment.

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  243. I am a b@stard sometimes, but I have not been to him. I have hard edges.

    JD (8ded14)

  244. Gosh, it really wasn’t meant as an insult. I’m pretty sure JD didn’t get his feelings hurt 🙂 I meant more that he was being a sort of grouchy curmudgeon today. B*stard isn’t really that bad of an insult these days, is it? I certainly could do better than that if the intention was to truly insult. I thought maybe it was on par with Mendouchery, asshattery, and “ass pull” (which oddly sounds like some sort of physical fitness exercise). I’ve been rather careful not to personally attack or name call. I give JD a little poke every once in a while, but no offense is truly meant. “crabby b*stard” just sounded so good together…

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  245. You could not insult me, crissyhooten, because I could not care less what a sophist like you thinks of me. You could never have that kind of power over me. Just because I point out how you operate does not mean I respect you, or like you, or care what you think. I just enjoy pointing out the dishonesty and hypocrisy that you and yours engage in, as a matter of practice.

    JD (8ded14)

  246. Goodnight, folks. I apologize for engaging EPWJ and crissyhooten. I do not suffer fools lightly, and my edges, they are hard.

    JD (8ded14)

  247. “Also that article was not written by Posner it looked like it was actually lifted from a cached page by EDS themselves entitled EDS our early history”

    EricPW – There is only one source cited at your link, Posner’s book.

    “EDS about 80% of its earnings were derived from developing MEdicare billing software for the government, the GM military logistics net and the
    business that developed from that”

    It might be helpful to attach dates to your assertions. What year is the 80%? Prior to its acquisition by GM, EDS had no contracts from the company. By the end of the 1980s, a majority of EDS revenues were coming from GM.

    “the gov paid EDS”

    For Blue Cross/Blue Shield contracts? No sh*t.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  248. ““ass pull” (which oddly sounds like some sort of physical fitness exercise)”

    Hooten – A*s pull is a technical accounting term I introduced to the blog which JD and others have enthusiastically adopted in the spirit of its definition.

    I’m a giver.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  249. Yeah, I know what it means. And JD, I heart you too.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  250. Daley

    I tried to attach the string so you can look at the source but it still doesnt show up – it must be an archived pay site

    I’m sorry I’ll get you the sources


    EricPWJohnson (d84fb0)

  251. s=oopstypo

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

    is my idea of what a blog should be. Intelligent debate on current and important issues.
    To improve this blog, I’d discourage the trash talking. It seems odd when your discussions on legal issues degenerate into name calling. Insight into legal issues is something your site does better than any other and is the main reason I visit.
    And your analysis of the incompetence and hypocrisy of the LA Times is informative.
    My main reason for scanning the internet and your blog is for an education. My hope is that with more information about the enemies tactics and resources, the more informed and effective the defense of our liberties and society becomes.

    pk (f66720)

  253. Stick with what has worked for you. The blog as it is seems to suit your personality and profession. Your commenters seem happy, as well. I don’t think they come here for a Volokh-type experience. They like venting spleen and they enjoy snapping towels at “trolls.” They’re happy, they’re entertained. Why change?

    angeleno (9f6548)

  254. Notice how EPWJ and crissyhooten and shooter just disappear when called out on their asshattery?

    JD (8ded14)

  255. JD – I don’t usually hold my breath waiting for EricPW to back up his assertions.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  256. One of your non-commenters here…

    I scan this blog 2 or 3 times a week, one of around ten or so blogs I try to keep up with. I appreciate PP most when it focuses on California issues and for its take-downs of the LA Times and other like-minded publications.

    PP isn’t the first blog I go to, and so I’ll find myself skipping over some of the national and international subjects, but even on those I can sometimes find some good original analysis here.

    I don’t usually have the patience for the longer analyses or the hyper-legal ones either. And what I *really* have no time for is the “inside baseball” feuds with other bloggers. Quite a turn-off, actually. Oh, and I almost never read the comments here. (no offense, people!

    Not that you need to change anything, really. I’ll still probably keep checking in.

    equitus (dd04da)

  257. Doctors say that sex is healthy in the mornings , we already know and we have sex all the time HD Porn Here

    james (1fab74)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3939 secs.