Image 01 Image 03



Not able to get to posting this afternoon, so tell me what’s on your minds.

(Maybe, what do you think about bloggers from other blogs trolling the comment section here?  Just a hypo, no one particular in mind.)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



“what do you think about bloggers from other blogs trolling the comment section here”

They’re not what you’d call a teachable moment you know …….

what do you think about bloggers from other blogs trolling the comment section here?

If by ‘trolling’ you mean flogging their own blogs and posting a link?

I’ve always thought that was poor form, and not only do I not click on their link, I make a mental note to never visit his or her blog.

    jimg in reply to jimg. | September 21, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Edit – my original comment was directed in general to bloggers who attempt to ‘poach’ traffic on comment threads.

    Now that I’ve had a chance to wade through the thread Prof. Jacobson was referring to (Daily Caller and Jim Treacher)?

    Well, if somebody wants to publicly make as ass of him/herself … as is the case in that thread? More power to ’em. Saves me the trouble of reading any of his or her material in the future.

      Professor Jacobson knows that bloggers who post here are neither trolling nor promoting their own sites. This was definitely about Treacher, but I have to admit that I don’t think Treacher’s a lobotomized lunatic, and I don’t think it’s trolling to respond to comments about oneself. I’m crazy that way.

      JimTreacher in reply to jimg. | September 24, 2011 at 11:34 am

      Or maybe I was expressing my honest point of view. Nahhhhh, that couldn’t be it, could it?

This troll will not flog his own blog, but we will flog our hat store at!

Jimg – you’re not invited. 🙂

Keep up the great work, professor!


Would appreciate your views on the subversion of the 14th Amendment by the latest so called jobs plan of BO.

What’s currently on my mind is how Chris Christie has become my new Paul Ryan. I am now delusional in the hope that Christie will announce he’s running for president in the next few weeks. He’s our last best hope in my opinion. I don’t trust Romney or Perry to both beat Obama and fight as hard as possible to completely repeal Obamacare.

    How is Christie regarding the danger we face from radical jihadist muslims?

    Unlikely that Christie will run for President at this time. He’s happy as a clam trying to fix New Jersey.

    That being said, I don’t think he would turn down the VP slot if it was offered to him. Even sitting on the bench for 8 years of a (hopefully) Perry Presidency, Christie would still be one of the younger Presidents in modern history (much like Gov. Palin).

    Milwaukee in reply to mikehinton. | September 21, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Christie is “relatively conservative” for the New Jersey. He is not all that conservative. His 2nd amendment stand seems shaky. There are other things which convince me that while he is as conservative as he can be, he isn’t what I want in a President.

    windbag in reply to mikehinton. | September 21, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    There was a lot of buzz re: Perry’s new ad, but he lost me with the “last hope for mankind” line. Romney has never been a consideration. Gary Johnson looks better and better (except immigration). How about Cain-Rubio in either order? It’s going to be a long season.

      Herman Cain would be great as a President, but I don’t think he’s got enough horsepower to get to the finish line of the Primaries. It kind of depends on how much of his own fortune he’s willing to part with to stay in the primaries, but his fundraising has got to be suffering with Perry’s 10-gallon hat in the ring.

      That being said, depending on how well he does going forward, I think Cain would make a decent VP, if not an immediately politically popular choice. Right now, he’s just the quirky businessman running for President.

    Cowboy Curtis in reply to mikehinton. | September 21, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    I guess I’m just still at a loss as to what special thing Christie would bring to the table. I know he’s mouthy with the press, and I love the highlight clips, but that alone isn’t going to get you to Pennsylvania Avenue. He’s more or less a sharp-elbowed, sorta blue collar Rockafeller republican that’s bad on guns and bad on aggressive islam. Is pissing off the second amendment crowd and social cons a winning formula for a republican presidential candidate?

      Hi Cowboy Curtis – as you said, Christie brings the blue collar Rockafeller republican attitude to the job, but he also isn’t afraid of the press. Christie has been willing to call the press out directly to their faces on their duplicity or pandering, and because of the lack of filters on things like YouTube and Blogs such as these, we get unedited footage of Christie going toe-to-toe with the press and with liberals.

      The no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners attitude is something that the Conservative minority wants badly in a candidate. We got a “go-along-to-get-along” guy in GW Bush, and all we got out of it was a lousy couple of years of control where nothing actually got fixed, and eventually a lot of stuff got broken by the Democrat Party. We now want a straight shooter who isn’t afraid to not back down, and call it like he sees it, regardless of whose sacred cows get slaughtered in the process.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Chuck Skinner. | September 21, 2011 at 9:04 pm

        But has it got to this point ?

        “I’m your Rockefeller

        You’re my cinderaella

        Ooooh ooh oo

        I Luvvvv you ”

        Btw the west of New Jersey is a very nice place & a pleasant surprise.

    aguyfromjersey in reply to mikehinton. | September 22, 2011 at 7:17 am

    I’m sorry, but Mr. Christie being a true conservative is like being the world tallest midget. Here he is great, and we are glad we have him, but he is a Rockefeller Republican, a little conservative, but little more liberal. He does have a way with words

Your criticism of Ed Rollins with respect to Michele Bachmann sure was on the spot. I don’t see how anyone would hire the guy after this.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Con Ed. | September 21, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Yup, Rollins has been all over TV dumping on Bachmann while of course, stating what a great candidate she is. Who could have seen that coming?

Currently what I’ve been thinking about is the implementation of the “Warren Buffet” tax currently being proposed on “Millionaires and Billionaires” (aka those making over $200K individually or $250K filing jointly).

My initial thought on it is that it would be very easy to draft in terms of tax legislation. Simply amend the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) to state that:

“IRC Section 1222 does not apply to any individual who would otherwise be included in the 39.6% bracket under IRC Section 1(a-e), all income derived from activities to which the definitions under Section 1222 apply shall be treated as ordinary income under Section IRC Section 1.”

Basically what this would do is eliminate the capital gains income structure for anyone who had a gross income over $200K and turn the investment income into ordinary income. POOF! Instant 39.6% (as amended) tax rate on all income. No having to screw around with the “carried interest” rules, or the investment rules or anything else for those making under 200K.

It’s simple, neat and clean, and actually scares me politically because it would be the perfect populist income wedge weapon. The administration would be able to claim that “it’s leaving capital gains tax breaks for the ‘little guy’ investor to plan for retirement, while making sure that those ‘millionaires and billionaires’ pay their ‘fair share’ to fund the government.” They’ll argue “Hey, why does someone making that much money really need those ‘capital gains’ tax rates?”

Of course, in the process, they’ll absolutely decimate the investment model and the current executive compensation models, as well as cripple the Municipal bond market, which is already screaming about the possibility of their “federal tax exempt” status being lost and how that will drain money away from Muni-Bonds to higher paying corporate bonds.

Anyway, that’s what has been on my mind today.

Prior question by me should have said 11th Amendment not 14th.

Sorry for stupidity

Jim Treacher is a troll from another web site. He tries to make the subject matter about him instead of the posted subjected matter.

A month a go, 21st of August, the headline here was “Libya, the end.” Well, do they have Fat Ladies in Islam? Do they sing? This farce of an intervention is, if anything, making things messier. Qaddafi isn’t gone, useful stuff like infrastructure is getting blown up, weapons are disappearing, and we have no idea what the next thing will be. What an incredible mess. While the Leftist-socialist-progressive-democrats can holler all they want about our incursion into Iraq, they don’ say peep about Libya. Why hasn’t Congress stopped our mad, war-mongering President?

Are they going to shut down the government again?

“A bill that would fund the U.S. government past September 30 unexpectedly failed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday as dozens of Republicans broke with party leaders to push for deeper spending cuts.

The measure failed by a vote of 195 to 230.”

Same story, opposite spin from Pollutico

“A stopgap spending bill to keep the government funded past Sept. 30 was upended in the House late Wednesday when Democrats pulled back their support in protest of cuts made to offset disaster aid in the package.”

I reported the “Hitler discovers ATTACKWATCH is a joke” to AttackWatch. I didn’t even get a thank you. I just got an invitation to help re-elect the President. If You People don’t shape up, I’ll report you to. (You know who you are!) We know who you are and where you live. (Disclaimer: That was meant to be satirical humor. I’m not even sure I know who I am and I need help getting home everyday. Really. O.k., somethings just aren’t funny.)

Story I heard was than when taxes went up on salaries over $1,000,000, executives moved into stock-options. I don’t think that worked so well for us. Let’s zap those guys again.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Milwaukee. | September 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Yup, and they will make sure the options are not exercisable until the day after Obama leaves office. This is a point I’ve made time and again, revenues are uncertain because people change their behavior. The only sure way to solve a budget problem is spending, because it is the only thing you control.

Does anyone know if Treacher trolled other sites? Odd, childish, and overly-sensitive reaction. I thought writers/bloggers had rhino skin. Treacher was no where near as bad as Charles Johnson, but he can see the entrance ramp after today’s little snit.

    JimTreacher in reply to windbag. | September 24, 2011 at 11:37 am

    It’s childish to respond to people who are calling you names, without calling them names. I’m not allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours without it being childish. How mature of you.

I feel an in depth discussion of the lovely and talented Andrea Tanteros, with lots of pics, is long overdue. Please correct this egregious oversight, Professor.

    SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | September 21, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    She is lovely, but needs a new makeup person… or it could be the lighting. Nah, makeup, someone with her skin tone should not wear pearly fuchsia blush.

SoCA Conservative Mom | September 21, 2011 at 7:59 pm

You ask what is on our minds… well…

I’m testing a new recipe for iced coffee, this is day two and I don’t think I’ll be getting much sleep again tonight. Switch to decaf for the next round of testing?

Other than that, is now a good time for me to start my home based micro business?

    If you have a product that you think will sell well, now is as good a time as any to try to start it, or at least lay the ground-work for it. All the fun things like getting your DBA or incorporation paperwork, deciding how you want to market, who your customer base is and writing your business plan.

    While coffee is considered a luxury good, it has a strangely inelastic demand curve. Pay attention to the price of your beans, though. Coffee is off of its peak, but it’s still up something like 20% from last year’s costs.

      SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Chuck Skinner. | September 21, 2011 at 10:32 pm

      Thanks for the reply. The iced coffee has nothing to do with the business. I just like to cook, or in this case brew.

      I’ve got the DBA, done the market research, have a business plan, have a product line… it’s more about fear.

Me, I’m trying to find a cheap good brandy. (I know that’s probably an oxymoron but so am I)

Any recommendations?

I’ve tried e&j vsop but that SUCKKKKKSSSS.
I bought some remy martin and that’s not bad.

Any wineheads out there?

“what’s the difference between and winehead and a winO?”

“About a gallon”.

Johnny carson and ed mcmahon.

    Generally, “good” and “cheap” are mutually exclusive when it comes to cognac. I agree E&J sucks. Personally, I favor Remy Martin VSOP (but it’s not cheap, at least on my income.)

    I do not like Martel much, nor am I a big fan of Courvoisier. Treader Joe’s carries (or carried) a cognac called Claude Chatelier VS; half the price of Remy Martin VSOP and I found it drinkable, but not great. Good in coffee though.

‘Does anyone know if Treacher trolled other sites?’

Actually, I had no idea, but Treacher was all up in arms in the comments at Sissy Willis’ blog, when she blogged on Tucker Carlson, etc.

And folks, sometimes I drop my links in Williams comments as a trackback, since I’m on blogger, and they’re not automatic. I’m not spamming over here.

Dear Perfessor,

Please, PLEASE, refrain from using the “Read More…” button except when absolutely necessary. There are times when blog content is long, or contains a lot of graphics, or has some NSFW subject matter which you believe the reader should be aware of before proceeding. Great! Use the button (and explain why in the last sentence before the fold). But please, only then.

Forcing a reader into a page refresh five to twenty times a site visit, especially when the MORE section is no more than the completion of the article’s final sentence is just rude and annoying.

I understand that you and/or your blogteam may be able to gauge article interest with it. Well, count me as having lost interest sometime in the future if the buttons stay. I have given up on the Breitbart’s BIGs, and I’ll give up on your blog too. Which is a shame, because you (and Andrew’s group) really are a great author and blogger.

Thank you for your indulgence in this comment. It is offered as helpful advice. You really are contributing fine stuff.


    William A. Jacobson in reply to nolamensch. | September 21, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    The home page was set up so that the most recent 5 posts run 400 words before the Read More button kicks in automatically. I felt that was an appropriate number of words so that most posts did not get cut off, but no one post totally dominated the vertical space “above the fold.” When posts run longer on the home page, people complain that they are too long. The next 10 posts appear below the fold in abbreviated form so that readers can get a quick overview of any older posts (usually from the prior day or two) which might be of interest. So, with one visit to the home page, readers can see several days of posts and pick and choose what they want to view. Unlike some blogs, there are no multiple pages to a post once you click the Read More. I hate it when there’s an article and they spread it out over 4 or 5 pages.

    So far I haven’t received many complaints, but I’m always interested in reader feedback.

      Personally, I’m a fan of the “more” button. I much prefer not to have scroll through long posts to see what else is on offer.

      Gordon Winslow in reply to William A. Jacobson. | September 22, 2011 at 12:28 am

      Although I don’t comment here regularly, I do read nearly every day. I hate the “Read More” button. The posts here are rarely long enough to warrant it.

      aguyfromjersey in reply to William A. Jacobson. | September 22, 2011 at 7:39 am

      Dear Professor
      While the MORE button doesn’t bother me, I kind of miss clicking on a link to another site and getting a new page instead moving to a new site. I know the work around, but I have always liked that feature on your site.
      Is it because it help your numbers when I return (sarcasm)

        William A. Jacobson in reply to aguyfromjersey. | September 22, 2011 at 8:10 am

        The old blogspot site took people to a new window, but I didn’t bother to look into doing that here because all of the large blogs I follow (Instapundit, HotAir, etc.) work the way it does now here, not opening in a new window.

          First of all, thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. A couple of final points.

          I LIKE the MORE button when it is employed in what appears to be a rational and intentional manner. Every one of’s posts use the MORE button, but it’s OK because each post above the fold is a concise digest of much deeper things inside.

          When a post is broken up mid-sentence with an ellipsis, it means one of two things. One, a non-thinking algo is breaking up the post, and I have no idea whether proceeding below the fold is worth my time. Two, a human is breaking up the post with little content below the fold just to gauge blog traffic. I am quite convinced that this is what Breitbart’s BIGs are doing.

          The former is annoying, the latter stupidly aggravating, and both indicate, to me, a willful disregard to the reader.

          Again, a thoughtful break that makes sense to the reader is BETTER than no break. But an algo (or worse) break REALLY disrupts the enjoyment flow of a blog.

          Just my thoughts. Keep up the great work. Really.


Why, whatever is the matter, my Dearest George!

(a stout and sturdy, white-haired woman of manicured appearance sails over to the tall, gaunt figure slumped in a defeated posture at the table ….. she sits beside him, taking his aged hand in hers, …… he turns to look into his wife’s eyes, his own carrying a bleak expression …)

Barb … I fear it’s going to be 1980 for us, all over again …… that woman is about to do to our wonderful Grand Old Party what Reagan did to me … I mean, us …..

(Barbra’s eyes take on a steely look ….. )

Yes, she will no doubt try, George ….. but we have many bright and smart, young GOP operatives who have pledged to stop her …. she will regret speaking of me as hoity toity!

(Barbra’s powdered face twitches slightly, as her nostrils flare in indignation …. *__*)

But Barb ….. why aren’t Karl’s tactics WORKING? ….. I know he is doing his best …. but …. those impudent Conservatives are even calling him Tokyo Rove! …. how dare they Barb! ….. the great Architect, Karl Rove … being diminished by those on our OWN side ….. I can’t beLIEVE it ….. (his voice fades away …. despairingly …. )

There, there, My Dearest ……. (she pats his shoulder lightly in a comforting manner) …. we’ll have to persuade young George and Jeb to be more helpful, to make more public statements ….. they still carry much gravitas in GOP circles …… leave it to me my Dear ….. maybe I can yet coax Jeb to run now, rather than wait until 2016 ….. the survival of the GOP could be at stake!

(she releases his hand, and then leaves the room, motioning imperiously to the liveried minion waiting outside, to follow her …… )

Bring the Limousine, Jeeves, quickly now …..

(she sails down the hall ahead of him, as briskly as her ample frame will allow …. her heels clicking in rhythmic fashion …. )


Madison – By the end of Thursday, the major state employee unions covering tens of thousands of workers will have effectively lost their official status.

Top leaders for those unions say they won’t seek to meet the high hurdle for keeping that current status as laid out in Gov. Scott Walker’s union bargaining law. With a deadline set for the close of business Thursday, so far only four smaller state unions have said they are seeking to keep their status by winning a difficult recertification vote.

Regarding trolls (not necessarily the same as trolling), I’ve been wondering for some time:

To what extent are trolls a left-wing thing? Or taking a slightly different tack: do trolls primarily afflict sites that are conservative to conservative-leaning (independant of the troll’s ideology)?

Do conservatives regularly visit DU or Daily KOS and post comments about how Bush did a great job in Irag, or AGW is a complete crock (w/ lots of links), or how wonderful capitalism is, or how Obama is a Miserable Failure?

I’ve never visited these sites (and don’t intend to) but I’m curious know if anyone has noted such behavior.

I gather there were other reasons for this thread.
Law, and medicine have been on the
other side of my universe most of my life –
I discovered the Cornell Law School based “Legal Information Institute” as a resource at about the same time I ‘discovered “Legal Insurrection” – during the lead-in to the 2008 election.

I noted that there was a 2011 8-to-1 SC decision that was written by Justice Thomas and had Justice Alito as the lone dissent.

Appreciating not wanting to ‘talk shop’ on LI, non law topics I’d like to see more on include “Austrian School” Economics vs “Chicago School” vs “Keynsian School” Economics.

The Wilson Administration compared to the Harding-Coolidge Administrations in light of the speed and magnitude of the recovery of the U.S. from the 1920 Depression.

There may have been other reasons for the thread, but I’m looking at the 2012 Election reflecting on the 100 year old 1912 Election and the success of the 1920 Election.

Thanks, Prof

Passive-aggressive whining about people who dare to disagree with you. Well done, William.

    TheLastBrainLeft in reply to JimTreacher. | September 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Jim, you need to ditch the DC before you lose everything. You’re funny and witty, but you can’t survive defending Carlson, especially on this. DC is DOA, time to jump ship before you drown.


    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    More to the point: can you explain exactly what you are trying to accomplish with this comment? Are things really so debased where you come from that this constitutes a serious rebuttal?

    Or is someone using this name to make the real Jim Treacher look bad?

The First Rule of Holes, JimTreacher is to stop digging.

Do you realize that your comment is self-referential as well?

Treacher, you’ve written likely thousands of words attempting to defend your boss on DC=Gawker-gate, but it’s typically in 10 – 20 word segments. You’re not able to write a few consecutive paragraphs forming a well-reasoned argument because:

1) Reasoned argument isn’t the way you roll. You prefer Twitter-like short assertions. (“A quote is not an endorsement!”)

2) Even if you could argue, you couldn’t, because your position is dumb, and you would know that if you weren’t conflicted.

Jim Treacher was trolling at my blog last week, taking pot shots at Dan Riehl.

[…] now, it’s official: Trolling Jim Treacher has become quite […]