Pat e-mails about Luke's wotisitgood4. Sunday morning, while I was still helping The Third Estate Sunday Review with one of their articles, I was checking the mail during a break and Luke had e-mailed about Wilgoren.
The point he raised was one I was happy to share with members because regardless of what you decide, it's an issue worth thinking about. I managed to get an e-mail reply to him asking if this was intended for the site or a private e-mail and he said to use whatever. (He said it in better terms than that.) I was on a break from The Third Estate so I quickly posted it.
I hadn't read the entry Luke mentioned and Pat was wondering if I was avoiding it.
The link there's so anyone could read it (if they had time -- I didn't -- or if they went to links -- I do).
"I broke into utility room to Judge Lefkow’s house at 4:30am, to spend all day there, and in the evening to get Judge Lefkow. But Mr. Lefkow discovered me in the utility room about 9:00am. I had no choice but to shoot him. …I saw an older woman. I had to shoot her too."
i havent seen anyone actually question this logic. she was at home on the night in question. he successfully breaks into her house when she is asleep and he could have killed her then, but for some reason he decides to wait till she came home at some unknown hour the next day? surely the risks would have been much greater in the evening - the husband was probably going to be around, and the daughters and all that. what was he thinking?
That's only one of the questions Luke has and the entry's worth reading.
To note the Wilgoren section (and we'll toss in the concluding paragraph):
and while im at it, thecommonills points to jodi wilgoren at the nyt and defends her reporting on the case. apparently some illers had argued that she was too reluctant to point the finger at the Hales. i havent been following this case at all really, and dont know jodi from soap, and i commend any journo for not jumping to conclusions. however, im kinda surprised that jodi (and the nyt) actually quoted a white-hate website - and if that isnt enough, they actually linked to it! it seemed totally gratuitous. its not everyday that the nyt links to a site in an article... whiterevolution.com - maybe she is an apologist?
jodi also mentioned WhiteRevolution in an earlier nyt article - the article ends with this seemingly inexplicable quote "I don't feel bad that Judge Lefkow's family was murdered today. In fact, when I heard the story, I laughed." which doesnt seem to even have a point.
more questions than anything... i havent got a clue what is going on, but it all seems quite suspicious. if it is a setup, then it isnt preposterous to suggest that mrlefkow was actually the target - for some as yet unknown reason. perhaps the bigger question is why nobody has pointed out the incongruities - specifically the fact that Ross was in the house, with the judges, when they were asleep, and yet he planned to wait till the evening to murder her, when it would have necessarily been much messier, and much more risky. his words again: "Judge Lefkow was my No. 1 to kill because she finished me off and deprived me to live my life through outrageous abuse of judicial power." and yet he was apparently concerned about waking her up? i dont geddit.
When Luke e-mailed, I did check the print edition and the web address was in the print edition of the first story he mentions. I haven't had time to check the online edition of either story and the print copies are long gone to recycling.
We're not self-referential here but he's addressing something and certainly other view points are welcome.
Now we're going to get self-referential. I had four e-mails including one from Shirley who has no problem being identified.
The entry Dallas did reviewing the NCR CDs was linked today at BuzzFlash. As Shirley knows, I use "we" to avoid saying "I" over and over.
Shirley: So since this is something that a member wrote, I hope the rules can be bent this once because I know I'm proud of Dallas and I imagine other members would be too if they knew about it.
I agree. I don't know that we'll do this again. When I said "we" before, I just meant me. But Dallas wrote a great review and it ended up on BuzzFlash which does deserve noting.
Again, I'm not sure that we'll bend again. I'm not even sure we bent the rules this time. I've said before that my avoiding being self-referential probably comes from many years of reading the Times (which avoids being self-referential in most cases). (Yes, good or bad, the paper of record has influenced me. That should probably be "for good and for bad.") However, when someone writing for the Times wins an award, the paper does note that.
I can't think of a greater reward then having your writing recognized so I agree that we should note this and congratulate Dallas because it's really an honor to be linked to by BuzzFlash.
Again, I don't know that we've bent the rules on this. It's never come up before (that I'm aware of) and if you disagree with my decision (blame me, not Shirley or the other three who e-mailed)
feel free to weigh in at email@example.com. (You can also weigh in if you agree with it.) I'm going to have to think about this one some more and input is welcome.
However, we (meaning me) will continue to apply the rule with regards to links to anything I've written. Or links to any entry that I've done anything more than add notes to. So the question on the floor is whether or not it should apply to entries written completely by a member (other than me, since I'm just a member here as well). (Gina says my parenthetical asides can often be funny but just as often frustrating.) (I'd agree with her on both points.)
I also want to add that we've had members do entries all by themselves before. (And Rob & Kara did a joint one together once.) Honors, like life, aren't fair. Dallas deserved to be honored but that doesn't mean that others have done things worthy of honor. For instance, just because a book is nominated for a prize doesn't mean that a book that didn't get nominated wasn't worthy.
And on books, to make this a clearinghouse entry, Jan e-mails that in this Sunday's New York Times, in the Book Review, Tori Amos & Ann Powers' Tori Amos Piece by Piece was back on the top fifteen hardcover nonfiction list at number eleven. Jan said that made her happy and she wanted to share it since Kat had mentioned it in her review and I'd noted the book elsewhere.
(I think on an entry on Lawrence Summers, of all things.) I did enjoy the book (as did Jan) but even if it didn't make it back into the top fifteen, I'd still enjoy it.
Which is my way of saying, we're all very proud of Dallas but we're proud of all the entries members compose.
And let me make this a total clearinghouse since I'm still going through the e-mails (I had a late start this evening) and will be after this posts.
Jay asks what I found offensive about the pajama reference.
He's referring to the note at the bottom of a post:
Other than the comment about the pajamas -- I don't own a pair -- nothing in the remarks of the print journalist offended me personally.
First, I see that spelled "site" as "cite." We'll all live. (No, Jay didn't bring that up.) Second of all, Jay's question.
"Pajamas." Do you were pajamas? (We can do this as a poll if anyone wants.) I don't. I've never slept in them, I certainly don't go around wearing them. The idea of "pajamas" (these hideous bloggers in the pajamas commenting on these things), to me, demonstrated how sadly out of touch the journalist was. He's threatened by the advance (my opinion) in techonology.
That's obvious. But how out of date is he that he has to toss out "pajamas."
He's trying to be insulting. Granted. Got it. He could have said underwear (which would have covered a variety of items for males and females). He could have said sweats. He used "pajamas." He's living in a world that's changed and he doesn't even grasp it. Now maybe when he was a young man, people wore pajamas to bed. The Cleavers on Leave It to Beaver, perhaps? But time's have changed. Yes, some people still wear pajamas but the majority of adult Americans do not. (I can't speak for the international scene.) And the majority of teenagers do not. Outside of toddlers and infants (perhaps that was his point -- if so "sleepware" might have been more appropriate), I can't think of any group of individuals I know who wear pajamas in large numbers.
Again, perhaps in his day, many people did. But times have changed. And they've allowed for blogs and other advances. They've also changed in other ways, such as fewer people wearing pajamas. But he can't note or deal with change.
And to segment this even further, I know only one woman who wears pajamas. The ones who aren't sleeping in the nude or wearing sweats or oversize t-shirts (usually with boxers) are wearing a nightgown or lingere. So on that note (and ask around and I think you'll see this is true), his remarks can be seen to have a subtext of excluding women. (Although I don't think that was the point -- I could be wrong. I think he just doesn't get that times have changed.)
I hope that answers Jay's question.
I've been asked by Kara, Rod, Rob, John and Zach if I intend to comment on Moveon or provide any links. Hopefully that will come tomorrow. But I'm going through e-mails (there are over 725 unread e-mails still to go) and I'm beginning to realize that reproductive rights will have to wait yet another day. (Which I'm not real happy with myself about.) Yes, that is something worth commenting on. (And anyone can jump in and grab it by writing something to share with the community.) (On Moveon or on reproductive rights.) I'll put Moveon on the post it right under reproductive rights. I don't know when I'll get to it. (I can't believe I've failed so badly -- lost posts or not -- in getting an entry posted on reproductive rights.) (But I never cease to find self-failure.)
Bonnie e-mails about this morning's entry on the Times asking why it's "all stories cited by members and not a lot of comments from you." If it's a choice between me and someone else, I'd prefer to listen to someone else. So if members are weighing in, I'll always go with that.
Bonnie also wonders if the post was that way because it was "easier" for me to do?
If by easy, you mean going through a number of e-mails (for everyone who wants to be quoted or summarized -- Bonnie & Jay both gave permission for the latter -- there are seven to eight that don't wish to be) first thing in the morning, no, it's not "easier." And depending on the font someone's using in their e-mail, it can be a lot of work (commas, quotation marks and double dashes can turn into something other than what they are in e-mails if not caught).
But I speak way too much here (like right now) and I'd rather go with members other than my own voice. Also add in that if I'm doing all the selecting of stories, we're only getting one person's view on what's important. If we're highlighting that morning's Times and we're just going by what I choose to highlight, we're just getting one opinion.
Greg writes: Last week, for 2 days you highlighted papers other than the Times. If I see something in another paper, can I highlight it?
Yes and no. We're not highlighting the Washington Times (and I still can't believe the New York Times did on Monday), for instance. But if it's another paper and you can get it in by mid-day (when I'm working on the Democracy Now! post which is almost always done mid-day and then sent only to not post more often than not) absolutely. If you get it in after, unless it's USA Today or another paper that keeps stories for free for more than seven days, no.
Now you can write about it and it's no problem getting it up on the blog. But if you're e-mailing in links to be highlighted and that's it, no. There are days when someone will e-mail something they saw three or four days prior. Which means that if it goes up, it's only good for a few days.
We have some members who can only check this site at their libraries and their libraries aren't open seven days a week. We have other members who can only check this site at work so that's two days they'll miss (more if they're sick or on vacation).
So, for instance, e-mailing about a story that's four days old from the Los Angeles Times that you want linked isn't possible. Unless it's USA Today (or another paper that keeps archived stories free), if you can't e-mail about it by mid-day, it's not going to be linked to.
You're welcome to write a summary or highlight a passage and comment. And if you do that, we can highlight it at anytime regardless of when the story appeared.