www.patterico.com
One of the biggest myths about blogs perpetuated by the turf-protecting MSM is that we don’t do original reporting. I’ve linked to scores of blogs over the past four years that have published enterprise journalism and done plenty of it here on this site as well.
Over at our friend Patterico’s, you can find reporting on the Judge Alex Kozinski case that you couldn’t find anywhere else. Now, the MSM is catching up.
Go here, follow the links, and bookmark the site. One of the best on the right side of the blogosphere–and Patterico does it all without the massive budget of the big media outlets now chasing his leads.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Blogosphere
Gateway Pundit
» John McCain's Mother and Daughter Abused By Leftist (Video)
Little Miss Attila
» Okay, Ladies.Riehl World View
» Whoa! Palin BEAT Obama In Ratings ScorePower Line
» 40 Million?!JustOneMinute
» Now The Surge Is Succeeding?Little Miss Attila
» Well, You Know: G.W. Bush Didn't Vet His VP, Either.Redstate
» The Palin And McCain SpeechesGateway Pundit
» America First-- John McCain Makes His CaseStop The ACLU
» Call Obama (Uh-bama) a WAAAAH!bulance!
Regarding Judge Kosinski, he was appointed by President Reagan, which proves that even the Gipper can come up with clinkers. Judge Kosinski is utterly self absorbed. When lawyers aregue before him, Kosinski dominates, doesn’t let anyone else talk and is generally a bully. He is an example of what happens when a person with high self regard becomes a high government official. Interesting that Kosinksi was a conservative generally but not on obscenity pornography issues. Now we know why. One thing that needs investigating. Kosinki, although an appellate judge on the 9th circuit was presiding as trial judge in a big obscenity case. How is it that he got this job? Did he reach out and seek the assignment? This needs investigation.
Patterico has been in my favorites for 3 years or so. I go there, and Beldar’s, whenever I want really good legal analysis of an issue.
guess i’ll have to check it out
Actually, I think when a blogger does an actual investigation it is considered stalking or something of the sort? I do not remember exactly what you were accused of on all the different occasions.
When a blogger does actual fact-checking, it is considered to be smearing and personal attacks if I am not mistaken.
The drain dream media of course, bothers with none of this as their professionalism apparently puts them above such minor details as facts or truth.
Hotair had a clip of the guy back in the day when he was on ‘The Dating Game’..
(yes, that is Squiggy as Bachelor #1. )
Bachelor # 2
This Federal judge is yet another reason we need term and cume[1] limits for all Constututional offices, executive, legislative and judicial!
[1] Cume limit; the maximum lifetime years one may serve as a Constitutional Officer of the USA; positions requiring advice and consent of the US Senate.
Thanks, Michelle. That’s very kind of you.
Just checked it out, and saw a pro-gay marriage post. No thanks. Sorry Patterico.
Your loss.
No disagreement on Patterico’s reporting, but he falls into the same smearing orientation as the MSM when he refers to “pornographic” images on Judge Kosinsky’s website; “pornography” has a specific legal meaning, and by definition is illegal, and unprotected by the first amendment (kiddie porn, for instance, fits into this category). What Judge Kosinsky had posted is “indecent” material (at worst) and it is not illegal to do so. The distinction between “indecency” on the web, and “obscenity” and “pornography” was clearly articulated in the Communications Decency Act supreme court case Reno v. ACLU; the CDA was struck down because “indecency” remains protected by the first amendment. This may seem like a quibbling point, but if bloggers really want to elevate their journalistic art, then they also need to avoid the misleading (or deliberately untruthful) sensationalist jargon of the MSM. Judge Kosinsky certainly appears to lack common sense, but he’s not a law breaker…at least not with his dirty pictures.
If you can’t beat ‘em,
joindiscredit ‘em.When that doesn’t work seek to shut them down. Now that’s tolerance!
What gets me is that most of the MSM doesn’t do original reporting anyway.
1. Ever hear of a wire service?
2. The favorite phrase of the MSM is “____ is reporting that…”
3. They use polls as news.
Give me a break!
Thanks for the link Michelle! Its great to have another reliable site to get my news from, which I have added to my favorites.
what is a cume? after a quick search, I didn’t find anything..
term limits tangent– for congress, i had in mind a 24 year limit for both houses.. split up how ever they want.. but not more than 24 years.. if a senator can only serve 4 years, then a special election needs to be called..
gotta get them rotated out
bigboy: Have you looked at all the photos?
There are photos of a child performing oral sex on a priest, and a child performing oral sex on himself—-and that’s just the tame stuff. The real hardcore stuff I don’t even want to go into.
This was in no way a private file. It was a bona fide website, in which family, “friends”, and the public were invited to peruse.
We are now treated to the wife and her blaming everyone else for hubby’s conduct.
It’s the LA Times’ fault. It’s Scott Glover’s fault. It’s Cyrus’ fault.
It’s always somebody else’s fault, but it couldn’t possibly be her own husband’s fault for acting like an idiot, and a pervert…while under the color of authority.
As far as this Pervert being a Reagan appointee…that doesn’t mean very much when you consider wishy-washy Sandra Day O’Connor, Donald Regan, Oliver North, and the multitudes of others that betrayed President Reagan’s generosity.
Anyway, the Judiciary, and in particular the 9th Circus has been tarnished for a long time. President Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Done.
Aunursa’s to-do list each morning
1. check email
2. FrontPageMag.com
3. LittleGreenFootballs.com
4. MichelleMalkin.com
5. HotAir.com
6. Patterico.com
Glam, the child performing oral sex on a priest is a costume. It is not a real child. Tasteless, yes? Obscene or illegal, of course not.
As for the stained glass window of a child performing oral sex on a priest…THAT’S A REAL STAINED GLASS WINDOW!! It’s supposed to be a child in prayer and it just looks so dirty. That’s a legitimately funny photo.
The only one that bothers me is the naked women as cows. Portraying women as animals…especially in a sexual sense, is very misogynistic.
Regardless, the judge hasn’t done anything wrong or illegal. Nothing here comes close to obscenity. Bad taste isn’t a crime. If it were we’d have locked up Mel Brooks after Blazing Saddles.
You forgot one, “It’s George Bush’s fault.”
There, fixed it.
Of course not, I mean a judge presiding over a case with a porn maker being charged while having his own porn on his website is like a crack addict being the judge over the case of a crack dealer.
Nothing wrong with that. /sarc
You mean besides hosting pornography on a public website, while presiding over court cases involving pornography and showing definite favoritism toward pornographers? It doesn’t bother you that this is a clear case of conflict of interest?
LOL! Great minds think a like!
Nothing on the judge’s website qualifies as pornography since nothing on the site was intended to cause sexual excitement.
It would be one thing if he owned pornography that was made or distributed by the defendant. But that wasn’t the case.
Your analogy saying that crack addicts shouldn’t preside over prosecutions of crack dealers is misguided. It’s more like saying a judge who drinks alcohol shouldn’t preside over a crack case. After all, they’re both drugs.
Just for being fair…i notice your objection to the cows, and not the priests’ display, which would likewise be offensive to a great many people.
So its ok to make fun of the clergy, but not the rest?
That’s not liberal mentality. No sir.
Only people with “your kind of mind” would ever say such an asinine statement. And my analogy is spot on, which is why this story is newsworthy to begin with.
AK, what exactly on the site was meant for sexual excitement?
Abstract, I’m not arguing that there aren’t things on there that people would find offensive. I take offense to the animalization of women. Others are going to be bothered by a costume that makes light of the Catholic pedophilia scandal. But a judge has the same right as any one else to have that stuff up on the Internet.
And I still insist the stain glass window is hilarious. Unintentional funny is often the best kind.
I’ll take the word of the owner over your lack of ability to recognize sexual content anyday Demon Puppet:
Inappropriate does not equal pornographic.
I was under the impression that the AP thought that linking to someone else’s article was a violation of copyright laws or something.
Geez…I thought I gave a pretty clear explanation earlier, and Rusty’s the only one that gets it. Calling Kosinsky a pornographer for posting offensive material is like calling someone a child molester for spanking their kid.
Maybe it’s just the difference between conservative libertarians and the rest of you showing up here…but you really can’t call what the judge put up pornography, and to keep insisting that he has posted pornography smacks of the typical lefty meme of “smear till it sticks.” Glad you get it Rusty…one more time to the rest of you…offensive, yes; bad judgment, yes; pornography…NO!
It really comes down to how pornography is defined. The dictionary definition in most versions defines it as sexual content with the intended effect of causing sexual excitement.
The judge himself already admits to posting “sexual content” so the only thing left to decide is if it was meant to cause sexual excitement or not. I merely argue that if people are going to get up in arms about prosti-tot clothes being over the line (which I agree with) for promoting an image that sexualizes children then it is hard to argue that images like what was found on the judge’s computer was not sexual in nature and intended to arouse.
I guess if I were to win my case with you and Rusty I would need to take some of the pictures in question and take a poll of as many US citizens as possible and ask if they saw this would it get them rev’ed up. We all know how much stock liberals put in polls after all.
Well, AKGRIZ…I certainly understand how this gets tough to interpret; in real life I’ve published a pile of stuff on internet law and the Communications Decency Act, along with a bunch of stuff on sexual harassment and electronic communication…anyway, the point being that I had written a line in a manuscript that referred to a “porn-laden web” and one of my attorney co-authors gave me the lecture on specific meaning (incidentally, we kept the line in, as we demonstrated that the Web really did have a ton of true porn).
My point in this is that regardless of how offensive we may find something, it takes quite a bit for it to become pornographic. And you’ve got to trust me on this, from what Patterico showed, nothing Kosinsky had crosses that line (personally, the “cow-girls” didn’t bother me but the priest stuff does). If I were in Kosinky’s shoes, I’d go after the deepest pockets that made claims of providing pornography…it’s defamation of the highest order. Interesting discussion.
Wow - this supposedly conservative site endorses a blogger who openly supports same-sex pseudo-marriage.