How to be a dick
If you don’t like someone else’s opinions, ask nosy, irrelevant questions and take cheap shots at him over his profession.
UPDATE: This doesn’t exactly hurt, either.
UPDATE x2: Uncle demonstrates his fondness for irony by taking a commenter to task for agreeing with a post making a substantially identical point to the one Uncle himself made about Bill Hobbs a mere three months ago (or not?). I guess gratuitous swipes at somebody’s profession are OK, after all - if that profession happens to be as a prosecutor.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:12 am
A blogger impeaching a fellow blogger’s opinion with extraneous background information, implications of bias, and only thinly related past statements? Say it ain’t so! My innocence is shattered . . .
August 24th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Please. Patterico has a prima facia bias on this. He is an agent of the state, and he can’t turn that on and off when he steps into a blog comment — especially when he is defending an alleged abuse of powers by an agent of the state.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Any relation to Fred there Phelps? Impuning Patterico and his profession is just wrong. End of Story.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
‘Any relation to Fred there Phelps?’
That may be the most retarded thing i’ve seen.
‘Impuning Patterico and his profession is just wrong. ‘
I disagree. One’s profession and means to a livelihood can impact their opinions. You likely won’t see many tax consultants and CPAs who support a flat tax or sales tax, for example.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Then apparently SayUncle you don’t see very much at all.
Basically what Phelps and you are saying is the Patterico is incapable of distinguishing an abuse of power, from a legitimate act. You’re not impuning just his profession, you’re impuning him, personally. And in a completely asshole way. You’re suggesting that where a corrupt prosecutor is involved he’s going to cover for him. BS. I’m crying Bullshit on you, Phelps, and Balko. Excuse me.
By the way, I’m a tax consultant, and I’d support a flat tax or a sales tax. It ain’t going to happen, but I support it.
I’m sure you’d find a lot of tax and accounting folks who support a flat tax in principle, but are smart enough to realize that its a libertarian pipe dream.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Joel:
I have impuned no one. I stated that one’s profession may impact their opinion.
And somehow by my criticism of your stupid comparison to Fred Phelps imbibed you with knowlege about how i feel about pattycakes personally? Give me a break.
I like patterico. i read his blog. he’s usually right on. And I think he’s a stand up guy. But to intimate that no one should ever have their profession considered when opining is stupid.
And, as an accounting professional myself, i concur you can find some. But the industry itself will attempt to quash any attempt at doing so. you looked at the $$ these guys give to politicos?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
SayUncle,
Fair enough, I don’t know that I disagree with you then.
I thought you were disagreeing with me that it was appropriate to question Patterico’s “bias” here. If it’s just that, in general, our professions may bias us, well, I don’t disagree.
My point with the Phelps comment was that his comment was more like something I’d expect to hear from Fred Phelps berating one issue or another…then an ordinary person. That “especially” Patterico is going to be exhibiting bias when an abuse of power is alleged. The evidence of this? That he’s a prosecutor. That’s quite weak.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Well, we sort of agree then. I think patterico’s being a prosecutor may impact his decision with respect to some legal issues, though on this one, maybe or maybe not. I think his distrust of Balko is the bigger influence here. But an example that i recall is the time that he and Xrlq were slamming jury nullification. Well, it shouldn’t be surprising that lawyers don’t like non-lawyers to decide on matters of law.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
But to intimate that no one should ever have their profession considered when opining is stupid.
In this context, it’s idiotic. You might as well suggest that a prison guard isn’t capable of objectivity in the same situation.
It’s intended as a smear and Balko really has to reach for it, even such as it is. But I suppose that being a Libertarian, you can’t really expect unbiased commentary on authority from him.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Well, it shouldn’t be surprising that lawyers don’t like non-lawyers to decide on matters of law.
So much for jury trials…
August 24th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Move along, move along. Xlrq has joined the ranks of blog morons who pick fights with higher-ups in the blog hierarchy in a lame attempt to boost his traffic.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Mappo-
Uh Huh….Because that is so like him.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
‘In this context, it’s idiotic.’
Radley spends considerable ink/pixels on criticizing prosecutions so it’s not completely without merit. But it was a bit over the top.
‘So much for jury trials…’
I suggest you read up on the particular dust up as, since we were discussing jury nullification, it that included, err, juries. Juries typically don’t decide/interpret matters of law but whether or not someone broke the law.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I just don’t see how Balko’s questions regarding Patterico are irrelivant or “nosy.” Patterico is a public employee who has at least implied that he agrees with the result here.
If you find the result of this case disturbing, as Balko does, and you recognize that this case was a result of a decision made on prosecutor discretion, it’s certainly worth asking: Would Pattrico have fought as hard as the prosecutors in this case did? Would he have tried to strip over $100,000 in cash from these folks?
The answer is a lot more important regarding Patterico than it would be regarding the average blogger because Pattrico potentially WILL be making these decisions in the future. Knowing what his answers to these questions are is extremely relevant to anyone who thinks this case is an example of such things as bad public policy or prosecutorial overreaching.
The fact that Patterico is a prosecutor adds a whole new layer to his opinion. I myself really want to know: If I happen to carry a bunch of cash around, and say some stupid things to the police (but am not actually charged with doing anything illegal), will Patterico try to take all my money away?
The answer is pretty important, especially if I live or travel near where he works. It’s hardly irrelivant or “nosy” to want to know this.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Maybe I’m missing something (and if I am, I am sure that XRLQ will point it out to me in his oh-so-delicate and subtle way), but I didn’t see where Balko took a cheap shot at prosecutors. Maybe a shot or two at Patterico specifically, but not the profession in itself.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Steve, you’re right, I goofed. The post now reads “take a cheap shot at him over his profession,” which is what I meant to say all along. Bashing prosecutors generally wouldn’t have been half as bad. Oh yeah, and speaking of oh-so-delicate and subtle ways, don’t miss the update to this post.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Take a look at the update. Xlrq gets served.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
It’s one thing for Balko to go after you. Heck, since you’re dim-witted, most of what he says is going to fly right by you (do we need to define ‘nemesis’ for you?). But when he drags me into this fight by calling me a nobody, that just ain’t right…
August 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
“It was part of my secret plan to advance my libertarian agenda via subtly misattributed court cases in online essays. ”
Ha.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Glad you’re so easily amused, Mapquest, but if that’s your idea of getting “served,” Balko’s “serve” in the blogosphere is about as threatening as mine is in tennis.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Phelps & Uncle: gimme a break. Patterico doesn’t argue asset forfeiture cases, he doesn’t get a cut of the loot, and there’s not a shred of evidence he’s biased on the issue because he’s a prosecutor. All there is the same lame “his job is my business ‘cuz I pay taxes and no one else in the world does” nonsense I’ve learned to expect from the Kossites. What Radley did to Patterico was precisely what Uncle rightly took Bill Hobbs to task for when he found an equally lame excuse to make Randy Neal’s employment situation an issue.
And Uncle, your “Well, it shouldn’t be surprising that lawyers don’t like non-lawyers to decide on matters of law” is almost as lame. Lawyers have no more of a vested interest in protecting the rule of law than the rest of society does. If runaway juries ever become the law of the land, we’ll adapt just fine. We argue the law before judges now, we can argue it before juries later. No skin off our noses, it’s just the rest of y’all who will be screwed when you seek legal advice from us and all we can tell you is “gee, maybe this is the law, but if the next jury comes from Neptune, maybe not!”
August 24th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Methinks Xrlq spends entirely too much time on the internet. Can you say blog uberloser?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Heh. Point taken but I wasn’t trying take you to task necessarily. just pointing out that someone’s profession can be a factor in their position on an issue. I didn’t opine on whether it was dickishness in this case but i did say ‘it was a bit over the top.’ So, don’t take it to mean that I didn’t think it wasn’t dickish. Because it is, when trying to score cheap political points.
I also never intimated that patterico benefited from any asset seizure.
Well, speaking of irony and bringing up posts from comments past, some lawyer said:
He also said:
And:
Isn’t that, err, you stating that non-lawyers ought not decide matters of law? and just the facts? The argument I made is not that lawyers have no more of a vested interest in protecting the rule of law than the rest of society does but that lawyers do have an interest in the rest of society not deciding on matters of law.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
No, it’s, err, me stating that jurors ought to decide only the facts, not the law. Not all jurors are non-lawyers, and not all judges or legislators are lawyers. Legal training helps in these areas, of course, but it’s not a requirement.
Six of one…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
You know, if it were not for the 99% of libertarianism that does not pass the giggle test people would be inclined to take their objections to such travesties as this forfeiture case more seriously. But no, it was not enough for them to simply point out that the Eighth Circuit turned the standard of evidence, the standard of proof and the standard of review on their respective heads. They had to make a point about the “immorality” of the drug wars, imply that the government had a vested interest in keeping the drug war and consequently the drug trade alive, and personally attack someone who suggested that the opinion might not reflect the entire record in the case. They are to be laughed at.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
‘No, it’s, err, me stating that jurors ought to decide only the facts, not the law.’
And who decides what the law means? Oh, that’d be judges, who are usually lawyers, yes? The legislature isn’t exactly known for interpreting the law.
‘Six of one…’
not even remotely.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Usually, sure, but only because legal training helps you perform the tasks of the job, not because it’s a requirement. If you as a non-lawyer think you can convince a majority of your constituents that you are qualified to be a judge, by all means, run for office or lobby your governor to appoint you as one. But if they don’t think you’re qualified to do a job like that, then you might want to consider that there is at least a remote possibility that they’re … um … RIGHT?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
“Mappo-
Uh Huh….Because that is so like him. ”
Like him? It’s his fucking m.o. See the Greenwald posts from before.
Notice how he practically slurps up the vomit of Patterico’s one eyed monster on a daily basis? Gee, I wonder why that would be?
The dude is a blog remora.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Mapsonus, if my habit of sometimes linking approvingly to blogs that get more traffic than mine, sometimes linking critically to blogs that get more traffic than mine, sometimes linking approvingly to blogs that get less traffic than mine, sometimes linking critically to blogs that get less traffic than mine, and other times still linking to blogs at all makes me a blog remora, then what, praytell, does your trolling on this blog make you? A little remora sucking on the bigger remora?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:44 am
More interesting is this comment from Mappo:
Methinks Xrlq spends entirely too much time on the internet. Can you say blog uberloser?
What are you if you spend your time commenting on the site of an uberloser?
August 29th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I’m late back to this, but I want to make my opinion clear. Patterico (a guy I agree with 75% of the time) is suspect on this issue not because he is a prosecutor, but because he is an agent of the state. Increasing the power of the state increases his personal power. Moat of his writing indicates that he does an admirable job of resisting this temptation, but there are times that it appears to color his view on a subject — like this one.
I am suspicious of all agents of the state. If you ask Patterico if that is justified, I’ll bet real-life dollars that he will agree that we should all be suspicious of agents of the state.