home

Blogging Reminder and Update

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm getting a lot of emails wondering if TalkLeft is changing to political coverage from crime and injustice and civil liberties blogging.

The answer is No. TChris and I cover these issues and I am not blogging for a week or so as I explained here and here. TChris is blogging as usual and he and Big Tent Democrat, who blogs about politics, have graciously been keeping the site moving in my temporary absence.

I'll be back in a few days. There's no need to send me nasty e-mails about how you are removing TL from your feed reader because there's no crime news here. There is, you just have to scroll down, and I will be back when I'm caught up in the real world.

This is an open thread on blog related issues.

< Breaking: Zogby A Crock | Holder Tapped For AG >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blogging Reminder and Update | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Trust me (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    You do not want me blogging abpout crime issues.

    Though I DO write about civil liberties issues.

    But let's face it - those e-mails want to know when I will be removed from this blog.

    And as I have stated to you, I am here at your sufferance.

    I write what I wrote about and I do wonder why it is so difficult to just skip my posts.

    I suspect the very existence of my posts is the REAL issue.

    I suspect that the REAL issue, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    among those that have been contributing here at TL for some time now, is that the level of discourse on the crime related posts - the very reason TL exists and has won so many awards over the years - has dropped precipitously since you've become a headliner.

    That discourse has dropped both in volume as well as quality.

    That is why I have suggested J set up a message board, or whatever it's called, solely for you, just like she set one up solely for the Duke Lacrosse scandal.

    Also, for the record, I was not one of those who sent J nasty emails about you.

    Mine was quite polite.

    Parent

    Here's the issue (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    You write "I suspect that the REAL issue, among those that have been contributing here at TL for some time now, is that the level of discourse on the crime related posts - the very reason TL exists and has won so many awards over the years - has dropped precipitously since you've become a headliner."

    Think about what you just wrote. If the "discourse" has "dropped precipitously" on the crime related posts since I joined the blog, it seems to me that that says something that you may not have intended.

    I do not write about crime. Obviously you know this. Your theory is that no one reads the crime posts because I post here.

    I think that is precisely true. And I wonder what you make of that? Why would my writing posts on politics preclude anyone from commenting on crime related posts?

    I have a theory myself - the folks who once "discoursed" on crime (I think we both have an idea who we are talking about here) have such a distaste for me and my posts that they will not comment in the crime posts.

    Personally, I find that attitude rather childish but it is certainly a concern for Jeralyn (itr is her blog after all.)

    I have made my offer a number of times, publically and privately - the moment J wants me to leave - I will with great thanks to her for providing me the privilege of blogging here for 2+ years, walk away  quite happy.

    I do not know what more I can say or do about this.

    For the record, I do think some folks come to Talk Left to read Jeralyn, TChris and I on politics. It seems a bit unfair to say to that readership that they readership is not appreciated.

    Parent

    No, in fact I don't have an idea (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    who you are talking about here.
    I have a theory myself - the folks who once "discoursed" on crime (I think we both have an idea who we are talking about here) have such a distaste for me and my posts that they will not comment in the crime posts.
    Who are those people you are talking about? Please be specific.

    MY theory is a little less paranoid and a lot less personal than yours.

    My theory is that for many long-time posters who's main interest is/was in TL's stated purpose, ie. the politics of crime, it has become too much effort to dig through all of the political posts to get to the few crime posts, and that the quality of discourse on those remaining crime posts has decreased in quality and quantity, such these long-time posters and also new posters who might come here because have an interest in the politics of crime, drift away.

    While some may not think the marked decreased in the signal-to-noise ratio (specific crime posts to ubiquitous internet political posts) and level of discourse on the crime threads is an appropriate or sufficient reason for posters who's interest is in crime to drift away, that opinion of that reason does not stop the reality that that drift away happens.

    I really don't understand why you would not be open to your own message board like the Duke Lacrosse board J set up back in the day.

    It'd be your own kingdom, you'd make the rules, you'd never have to "censure" your headlines or remarks.

    Seems like it'd be a win-win to me.

    Parent

    History and SUO Absolve Me (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    You write "It has become too much effort to dig through all of the political posts to get to the few crime posts, and that the quality of discourse on those remaining crime posts has decreased in quality and quantity, such these long-time posters and also new posters who might come here because have an interest in the politics of crime, drift away."

    In essence, you argue that such readers are too lazy or too stupid to search Jeralyn or TChris' stories.

    Or you COULD be indicting Jeralyn and TChris for writing too much about politics and not enough about crime.

    No wait, it is about me:

    "I really don't understand why you would not be open to your own message board like the Duke Lacrosse board J set up back in the day. It'd be your own kingdom, you'd make the rules, you'd never have to "censure" your headlines or remarks. Seems like it'd be a win-win to me."

    Now why would I take that personally? Can I ask you a question? Are you a lawyer?

    Parent

    I've said my piece. (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    Too much signal to noise is too much signal to noise, no matter what you feel it says about other people.

    If it makes you feel better, maybe J can set up a bulletin board (or whatever she did for the Duke case) for the politics of crime and you can do your thing here.

    Makes no difference to me, nor anyone else interesting in the politics of crime I'd imagine.

    No, I am not a lawyer.

    Parent

    You have said your piece many times (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    I do not participate in the crime posts but honestly, I have seen you post more about this "issue" than anything of actual substance.

    Habeas? Not interesting to you. Warrantless wiretapping? Not interesting to you. Constitutional theory? Not interesting to you.

    I mention these 3 issues in particular because I have written extensively on all of these. And you never participated in those discussions.

    On some level, this is on Jeralyn and I wish she would close this subject once and for all.


    Parent

    THe crime posts are there (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    I am one of the few people who comment on them. I don't find them difficult to find at all.

    Parent
    Really now . . . . (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:19:56 PM EST
    how hard is it to scroll down the page and look at the topic headings? I don't read all the legal entries, nor all the political ones. I read what I'm interested in or I think might interest me. It's really not that difficult, and I didn't even go to law school  ;)

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:32:12 PM EST
    It's kind of crazy. Someone who shall remain nameless has another motive, methinks.

    Parent
    methinks you are missing the forest (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:20:54 PM EST
    for the conspiracy-theory trees.

    Sometimes, even on the internet, people really are honest in their positions - even when it benefits your opposing position to believe they're not.

    Odd (not) that it's all relative noobies who question my honesty.

    Ah well, like a wise man once said, convictions are a greater foe to truth than lies. Your convictions are your problem, not mine.

    Parent

    My CT is that (none / 0) (#108)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:13:22 AM EST
    you don't like BTD. It's written right there on your sleve.

    Are you ready to fit me for a tin foil hat?


    Parent

    My other CT theory is that you don't like (none / 0) (#109)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:16:34 AM EST
    the anti prop 8 stuff and the general liberal tint of the political posts.

    Again....it's not much of a stretch, but if you want to call me crazy, go ahead.

    Or you could spend that time customizing your webpage as scribe suggested.

    Your call.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    I write here because I like to write here.

    I am not at all comfortable with the idea that I should stop writing here because some folks find it difficult to find crime posts.

    I liked the idea that they just did not like me better. That was well, more rational.

    Parent

    Horse Pucky (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    Things change, that is all there is to it. I do not think that TL has suffered a loss in readership since you arrived, quite the contrary.

    The elections changed things quite a bit, and now TL is swinging back to some version of its prior self, vitamin enriched, imo.

    kdog has it right, people love to complain, especially about change.

    Parent

    Readership has gone up (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    Due to the political writing of all 3 of us. The numbers are there.

    But folks like SUO do not like that I write here because it makes it too hard to find the crime posts or something.

    To be honest, I do not understand why he denies what he wants.

    Parent

    Nostalgia (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    Or something along those lines, would be my guess.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    I can beat everyone for nostalgia - I want the old Daily Kos back - circa Winter/Spring 2003/2004.

    Not gunna happen.

    But the old Talk Left can sort of come back. If I left.

    However, Jeralyn and TChris write very well about politics. I do not imagine for a second they are going to stop no matter where I blog.

    Parent

    Good Thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    I think it is better, as much as I liked the cozy old days. And TL will swing back, now that the elections are over, irrespective of your presence, imo.

    Parent
    I certainly get nostalgic... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    for the old days sometimes.

    Peaches, Big Tex, Glanton, Cliff, Sailor, Che's Lounge and all the other former great commenters I've forgotten.  At one point we had quite the eclectic crew of regulars...ever read through 2/3/4 year old threads squeaky?  It can be a trip...

    Parent

    That's who I thought SUO (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    was talking about.

    I feel pretty much responsible for them leaving.

    Unlike SUO, I think their reaction to me was why.

    Unlike SUO, I did not think they had especially incredible comments.

    But I am pretty sure they thought the same of me.

    But I really dislike this whole "there are no crime posts" line. Cuz, I think it is total BS.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    no idea why people come and go, but to be fair, I think Cliff departed before BTD arrived. Cliff gave me my first comment.  He always seemed like a good guy, the kind of reasonable conservative with whom I could pleasantly converse despite my disagreement with nearly all of his positions. I think he was in NC -- wonder how he feels about living in a blue state.

    Parent
    I concur... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    Cliff was long gone before BTD, didn't mean to imply BTD caused Cliff (or anybody) to leave...people come and go for whatever reason, as you said TChris.  

    Cliff was a cool conservative...I got a kick out of him.

    Parent

    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    I had no specific commenter(s) in mind.

    Just a general observation that quantity and quality on the politics of crime threads has diminished greatly.

    Also, for the record, I never said there were no crime posts, I said there are too many political posts for those who's interest is only in the crime posts, and crime posts is what TL's stated mission is.

    Parent

    Who was it... (none / 0) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    ...that Jimmy used to go back and forth with?  I forget her name, but I always chuckled at their back and forth...

    Parent
    Mollybloom maybe? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    She was one I forgot...and mfox, Decon...and how could I forgot Patrick?  Though he stills shows up once in a blue.

    Then again...Old Jim used to battle with everybody, so take your pick:)  Nice to see him around a little lately.

    Parent

    She Is Still Here (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    Gosh, I am trying to remember the name of the old guy, or I assumed he was an old guy. Very poetic and very libertine.. Wacky posts from him..

    Parent
    You're not talkin'... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    about my main man Fred Dawes are ya?  Haven't heard from him in years!

    He had more tin-foil on his head than I do...I loved that guy:)

    Parent

    Fred Dawes? (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:03:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    I always got a kick out of his comments.

    Parent
    How could you forget... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    crazy Fred?  This should refresh your memory.

    I don't his old comments carried over through the comment recovery thingy when the site was redesigned...I tried searching for them, no go.

    Parent

    Nice (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    Thanks for that, kdog. Classic fred dawes

    Parent
    And I had totally.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    forgotten about LWW until I found that...another TL Hall of Famer, though not nearly as cool as Fred:)

    Parent
    Remember the short-lived Dred Fawes? (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM EST


    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    He must have of registered when the site changed to DawesFred60

    LWW appears on immigration threads, so s/he must still be lurking. I think s/he has a website.

    Parent

    Good find squeaky.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    I will now be spending the rest of the afternoon in the archives:)


    Parent
    How could I forget MB!? (none / 0) (#82)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    I remember my first post here--Jimmy tried to bait me into a battle.  Luckily, I'd been lurking a long, long time, so I knew exactly what he was all about.  

    Good times, good times.

    Parent

    Aw (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    that was fun.. Nice to remember those folks. Would not be surprised if they are still lurking..

    Parent
    I forgot.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    Roger...another of my faves.

    Parent
    No, that's not what I said. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    I did not say TL has suffered a loss in readership (quite the contrary, I'm sure her numbers are through the roof since the the election became the blog's main focus) I said I think TL has suffered a loss in commenters and quality specifically on the politics of crime posts.

    I'm glad you dig the "new" TL and have voiced your opinion. I'm sure hearing our opinions is why J started this thread.

    Parent

    do you want Tchris and J (none / 0) (#50)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:30:00 PM EST
    to stop posting about politics?

    Parent
    Nope, (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    They always have and I presume always will. Although it seems to me their "political" posts, back before the election became paramount, were more often about political criminality.

    Parent
    Anyway (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:41:55 PM EST
    Glad to see that you are still around. And btw, your crankyness seem consistent with or without BTD.

    Parent
    "crankiness" (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST


    Parent
    that's because we have the (none / 0) (#95)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:04:19 PM EST
    Bush administration. It's easy to link them with crime.

    Parent
    One thing I've learned about... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    human nature jockeying a sales desk...human beings love to complain.  Love love love to complain.

    Parent
    Who is sending... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    our fine hostess nasty emails?

    Say the word J and I'll show 'em some justice:)  BTW...hope things are getting back to normal for ya.

    Not much criminal justice stuff in the news lately, I must say.  Though we're gearing up for a hate crimes prosecution by me, a group of teenagers accused of murdering an Ecquadorian immigrant.  Senselessly tragic.  Definitely looks racially motivated, but I don't like "hate crime" laws, the laws against murder will be sufficient in dealing with these sickos, if they are in fact guilty.  The motivations are irrelevant to me.  In case anyone is interested...link.

    What's the difference between (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime and murder?

    Parent
    Beats me... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    little help from the lawyers among us?

    If it was up to me, based on the info available, I'd charge 'em with good old fashioned murder.  

    And there would be no such thing as hate crime laws...too much like thought crime for my taste.  What difference does it make if your bigotry led you to violent crime or your dog told you to do it?  You did it, and should be charged for what you did, not for what you were thinking while you were doing it.

    Parent

    I know nothing about criminal law (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    That's why I never blog on it.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    what difference does it make if you meant to kill someone or you killed them by accident, if what you did was the same either way?

    What difference does it make if you carefully thought through the killing in advance, or if you suddenly did it in the heat of the moment?

    The law has recognized premeditated murder as worse for a long, long time.  Isn't that a case of punishing someone for what they were thinking, rather than for what they did?  The victim is dead either way.

    Parent

    In a sense... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    I see your point...but doesn't premeditation require more than just thought?  To prove premiditated murder you have to prove planning...like scoping out the crime scene beforehand, or setting up an alibi.  Correct?

    Hate crime laws seem to only require the accused be a bigot, and I don't think bigotry should be against the law.  

    I can see the necessity for a distinction between a planned murder and a heat of the moment murder in regards to punishment, to make the punishment fit the crime...still not sure I see the need for a distinction between a murder motivated by hate of a certain race/religion/sex or simple blind hate.

    Parent

    Premeditation (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    is strictly an issue of mental state, although it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that's true of the state-of-mind requirement in hate crimes as well.

    You may be thinking of the crime of conspiracy, which is sort of a "thought crime" in the sense that you can be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder even if you never actually end up killing anyone.  But conspiracy requires proof of an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy, like actual planning, which is why I suspected you might have the two mixed up.  If you and I sit around talking about committing a crime, but we never actually do anything to make it happen, we can't be punished just for talking.

    The way I look at it, if you get put in jail for a hate crime you haven't been punished for being a bigot; you've been punished for committing an actual act like murder.  Yes, there's a sentence enhancement because your motivation was bigotry, but it's not like you would ever go to jail just for that motivation alone.  And when you think about it, we often give people a stiffer punishment based upon their motivation or state of mind.

    Parent

    That's what I don't get.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    isn't the punishment for murder sufficient, why the need for new hate crime laws?

    Not to mention...isn't every murder a hate crime?  To murder, hate in the hart and the mind is a given.  manslaughter may be a different story...but hate is a prerequisite of murder.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    "hate crime" is just a label, so I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of it.  It reflects society's view that murder committed out of a hatred for a particular ethnic group is even worse than murder committed because of money or romantic entanglements or whatever.

    Now, you might say "how could it be any worse? the person is dead either way."  But this goes back to the point I made about premeditated murder carrying a heavier penalty.  Society is making a judgment that certain murderers are even more depraved and even less capable of rehabilitation.

    Another category where many jurisdictions impose greater punishment is gang-related killings.  I'd imagine at least part of the justification is that gang-related murders are more likely to lead to revenge killings and an escalating cycle of violence.  Now, I think that might be true of "hate crime" murders as well.  They're more likely to lead to revenge killings and thus we choose to punish them even more harshly.

    Parent

    Plus there is the chilling effect (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:05:45 PM EST
    on the community of which the victim is a member.

    Parent
    When it comes down to murder (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    I also see it as the same. I can see on "lesser" crimes how it could possibly play in. I'm not getting the manslaughter though. I always thought when you walked up to someone and stuck a knife in their chest and killed them it was good old fashioned murder.

    Parent
    I'd certainly call it murder...n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:45:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Without seeing the statute (none / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    itself, I can only make an informed guess.  Ordinarily, we think of manslaughter as causing the death of another through one's negligence or recklessness while lacking the intent to kill.  Murder requires malice aforethought, which is basically the intent to kill.

    Here, manslaughter as a hate crime probably means that they are charging it as if these guys killed without the intent to do so.  Maybe they can only prove that these guys just wanted to beat the victim up.  Seems odd, though since stabbing someone is pretty much intending someone's death.

    Parent

    What's this? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    Discussions of criminal law?

    I thought that was prohibited at Talk Left now.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    I usually hear manslaughter the way you described it, so a knife to the chest wasn't working for me.  It's not like this was a bar fight or something and they just grabbed it while fighting.

    Parent
    Depends on state statues (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    usually. Here's a link:  FINDLAW

    Parent
    Hate crime (none / 0) (#56)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    The difference is that a hate crime is meant to send a message to an entire group of people. That's what makes it a hate crime - it isn't about just the individual who suffers the crime directly. When the law doesn't take that aspect into account it's leaving the message unanswered.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    but like, if my skinhead friends and I decide to beat up a random black guy, it's punishable as a hate crime whether or not we had the intention of sending a message to black people in general.  The fact that our crime was motivated by animus towards a racial group is all that matters, so I think it's a little broader than what you said.

    Parent
    You and your skinhead friends? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    And there I pictured you and your beating-ups as more the three-piece suit type... ;)

    Without taking the larger social aspect into account that's just an assault though, isn't it? The point isn't the racism or punishing the thought, it's about addressing the social message of a hate crime, whether sending it or not was the intent of the perpetrators.

    Parent

    I should note (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    that I try as often as I can to post crime and injustice and civil liberties stories that I think will interest our readers, but I do so subject to my work schedule, which has been hectic of late.  Jeralyn is always missed when her life is busy, and we all hope for her prompt return to regular blogging, and for a return to normalcy in her life.

    TChris, I read every one of your crime (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Teresa on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    posts and I think I learn from each of them. I just want you to know that I love your political posts. You have a wicked sense of humor that I enjoy.

    Parent
    A great sense of humor... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:36:09 PM EST
    ...for a Cheesehead--and he is good about defending his arguements in the comments and does it without calling people stupid, etc.

    Parent
    Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    gets a big kiss.  (Please don't tell you husband.)  

    Parent
    I read them too (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:07:35 PM EST
    do I get a kiss?

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    it takes a compliment or two, reading them isn't enough.  You think I'm easy?

    Parent
    There seems to be (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Lil on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    a lot of teeth nashing on the netroots today. Everywhere I turn, it's one big complaint: CDS and Leiberman and McCain and Unity or not, etc... Come to think of it, Progressive Talk radio this morning was all Clinton bashing (mostly from callers, not hosts).  I found myself wondering if a lot of people really care about America, or conversly just looking for revenge against political foes. So here I am complaing too...As Rodney once asked, "Can't we all just get along?" I would add, if only for a day? I would have loved a better honeymoon period. Jeralyn, I'm just sick about your burglary, good thoughts your way.

    Re Lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Sweet Sue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    I wish someone could tell me why Lieberman remains as chair of the Homeland Security committee but Hillary Clinton-who worked her heart out for Obama-was publically rebuffed when she asked to chair a sub committee on health care reform?
    What is wrong with those people in Washington?

    She was rebuffed on health care (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    because Ted Kennedy turns out to be doing very well indeed, at least for now, and understandably wants to remain the point guy and in control of health care reform, which he's been a loud and up until recently entirely lonely voice in the Senate for however many hundreds of years he's been there now.

    Hillary appears to have miscalculated somewhere on that, and I only hope the issue was broached to Teddy with a good deal more subtlety than it seems on the surface.

    Parent

    Teddy's baby (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:32:56 PM EST
    And legacy in the senate has always been healthcare, and I imagine this is his last hurrah in that regard.

    I think he deserves it.  He has done more for health care than anyone else in the senate and has spent his entire career pushing for greater access.

    Whatever else you think about the guy, this is something he's earned fair and square - and will probably do an astounding job on.

    Parent

    People sure can be picky (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    when they're getting something for free.

    There's no need to send me nasty e-mails about how you are removing TL from your feed reader because there's no crime news here.
    Well, if a "feed reader" is (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    what I think it is, ie., you are interested in crime and its politics, and you sign up for TL's feed reader so that you and get emails or notification or something of TL's politics of crime headlines (perhaps a notification of each and every every headline?) then that would certainly explain why people would get annoyed of all the non-crime headlines and remove TL from their feed reader.

    Signal to noise...

    Parent

    I don't think that sentance (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CST on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    was about removing the feed reader as much as it was about the "nasty e-mails"

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#88)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:48:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Since you brought it up..... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Abbey on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:13 PM EST
    ....this does appear to be BTD's blog - and political.  He posts so frequently that other contributions are soon buried.  I often withhold comment because I know it will fall off the front page before many readers even see it.

    For example - was it appropriate for him to "scoop" the legal bloggers in regard to Jud Holder?  Was there any doubt that it would be covered more appropriately and expertly by you and Chris?

    Eric Holder! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Abbey on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    oops.

    Parent
    They will cover it (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    And your comment gives it away - SUO - this is the reader you are talking about.

    15 posts on the FP. Most of mine are before noon. I get out of the way MOST afternoons.

    J is out. Chris is busy.

    Sorry, you just do not like me. Not a problem but stop with the BS.

    Parent

    Chill out (none / 0) (#86)
    by Abbey on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    My comment was not personal.  It's a fact that you dominate this blog.

    Personally, I prefer politics over crime, but there are a lot of other places to get it.

    What originally attracted me to TL was that the few threads that were created each day were able to be read and commented upon by more of the community - not just people that live at their computers all day.

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST
    Are you really saying you do not know how to find Jeralyn and Chris' posts? this is the stuff I have no patience for.

    Parent
    There are a lot of things (3.66 / 3) (#98)
    by Abbey on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    .....you have no patience for.  That's another good reason you should get your own blog.

    Parent
    Thank you (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by bluegal on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:11:02 PM EST
    For that post. That is how I have felt.

    Parent
    Which is why (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    I would prefer you stay out of my threads.

    Works for everyone.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#116)
    by bluegal on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:28:47 PM EST
    Was I speaking to you?  Have I been back in your elementary school threads? No.

    You are very very petty. I'm in a one-sided argument with Josh Marshall! I don't like disagreement, banished!

    You have serious issues that you might want to deal with.

    Oh and this isn't your thread.

    Parent

    Do you understand the rating system here? (none / 0) (#117)
    by hairspray on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    A 1 is used for a serious breach of truth or ethics. You gave me a one for what?  If you have a disagreement with my thoughts on TPM Marshal that is not a one rating.  If you don't like what I said about Josh, then say what you think is wrong that I said. Be specific. But what I said was not a one category, but then I consider the source.

    Parent
    I have my own posts (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    Which you should avoid.

    I am asking nicely.

    This is an Open Thread of course, but consider it for your future commenting.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#103)
    by bluegal on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:00:05 PM EST
    but I thought you said that I "annoyed you." I don't recall that I was responding to anything that you said and I removed myself from your threads.

    If you want to act like Fidel Castro and ban me in an OPEN THREAD or ban me completely from the cite for expressing an opinion that has nothing to directly do with you, by all means.

    Parent

    If you look carefully (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:29:36 PM EST
    you will see I was responding to Abbey.

    Parent
    Touchy...Touchy.... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Abbey on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:53:51 AM EST
    I'll respond to your posts when I feel like it.  

    I'm just expressing my opinion on the topic opened here. In my opinion, your frenetic posting clutters the blog and makes it difficult to find other posts and comments.  It's counter-productive to communication and community.

    Parent

    No actually (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:27:30 AM EST
    You won't. You are banned from my threads now.

    Parent
    I think this is a Blog Related issue, sorta (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    Eric Holder tapped for AG.

    I know nothing about him aside from what Newsweek says.

    Terrific (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    Holder a Columbia Law grad and we know Columbia produces the finest most wonderfulest lawyers there coudl be . . .

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Seriously though (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    Holder has been good on a lot of issues.

    Criminal defense attorneys may not be so happy.

    I leave the roughing up to them.

    Parent

    Well, the AG was always going to be (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    a former prosecutor. I think that was pretty much guaranteed.

    Parent
    I also like (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by eric on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    his first name.

    Parent
    Erics of the world unite!!! (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:29:41 PM EST



    Parent
    Maybe worth thinking about.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by SomewhatChunky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    If Jeralyn has any interest, I think it is worth exploring the idea of splitting the board into a legal board and a politics / everything else section.  I think in-depth discussions improve with focus and one of the strengths of Talk-Left has always been the in-depth discussions found here.  It seems TalkLeft has developed large followings in both areas.  I know I am interested in both areas, but usually not at the same time.  It is a chore to have to pick your way through things unrelated to what you want to read on any web-site. Grouping things into two specific interest areas would make site visits easier and more focused.

    Personally, I spend most of my time on the web on financial sites.  But there are the sacred moments each day when I indulge my sports fanaticism on ESPN, Sports Illustrated and several team focused websites. It wouldn't be the same if I had to wade through sports stories in the Wall Street Journal and then dodge the credit crisis articles on ESPN while trying to catch up on last weekend's football.

    Picking Through? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:08:11 PM EST
    Maybe it would be easier to set your TL link to the abbreviated version.

    Or try RSS

    Or topics of interest

    Or Jeralyn, TChris, or BTD

    Personally I do find it takes any extra effort finding stuff than it ever has here at TL.

    Parent

    Well, the more effort you make people exert (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:38:49 PM EST
    the less they use your product.

    And the more effort you make people exert to find a specific product (ie., crime posts on TL) the fewer comments those posts get and likely the quality of comments drops as well as some/many of those with specific interest and quality commentary to offer drift away due to too much effort...

    There is a certain balance between making the product you can/will make and expect the customer to take, and making the product your customer wants.

    J's opinion on the right balance is pretty much the only one that matters.

    Why are you opposed to the idea splitting up the blog into pure politics v. the politics of crime?

    You're not uneasy with change, are you?

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:42:31 PM EST
    If you use something often it is worth customizing.

    And I do not like change, particularly with things I like and am used to. But I adjust, if it is worth it.

    Parent

    Thanks, it really is a matter of balance. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    imo, the "balance" as it exists now is losing what I generally come her for, but I'm also quite sure that point has been made by me way too many times on this thread already, so I'll stop now.

    G'night all.

    Parent

    I'm having difficulty understanding (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    why BTD is responsible for Tchris and Jeralyn choosing to blog on politics.  For example, we had almost continuous coverage of Sarah Palin's every word and move for months.  John Edwards's affair also got quite a bit of attention.  Not "the politics of crime."

    Parent
    Blogging Reminder and Update | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment