Ann seems to be genuinely impressed with her observation that Hillary would "come back" and take the nomination if Obama was forced to withdraw or was badly damaged by new scandals, having made this point several times in the first few minutes -- to the exclusion of all else. Why does Ann think this is so counter-intuitive? I mean, doesn't everyone just assume Hillary would take the nomination if she still had a chance? Does Ann not get that barring something unforeseen, Hillary has no chance? The point, and maybe Ann has missed this, is that until and unless something happens to Obama, Hillary has no path to the nomination. Hillary can long for the nomination all she wants, but unless something outside her control happens, she's not going to get it. If Ann thinks it's so counter-intuitive that Hillary longs for the nomination, I wonder what she thinks of Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Wouldn't they, too, accept the nomination if some damaging disclosure about McCain were to surface? Of course.

Quoting eric: The site was not "on the web" in the sense of a site open and inviting anyone to come in, this was a private file server, hacked by a litigant with a vendetta.

In what way was the private file server "hacked"? I thought it was wide open to the whole world.

My computer contains content accessible by http if you know my IP address and can guess its hidden directory structure. It isn't hard to hack, but if someone snagged my IP address and started guessing directory names in order to access that content, I'd still consider that hacking. My understanding is that the Kozinski family server was similarly situated.

I'd also add that calling the cow-girl picture "porn" does more to obscure than to illuminate. The picture is lewd sexual humor, not something that titillates. It's not in terribly great taste, but it's not something I'd be embarrassed to view in front of my buddies, whereas porn would be embarrassing.

Quoting jimM47: My computer contains content accessible by http if you know my IP address and can guess its hidden directory structure. It isn't hard to hack, but if someone snagged my IP address and started guessing directory names in order to access that content, I'd still consider that hacking. My understanding is that the Kozinski family server was similarly situated.

So, are you saying that the person who found this content on the judge's computer accessed it using an IP address, and found directory names by guessing at them? I wasn't aware of that. Where was that reported? Also: What do you mean when you say the directory structure was "hidden"? Question: Do you know if directory browsing was enabled on his web site?

The files were in a folder that had a robots.txt file to indicate its contents were not to be indexed, so it could only be found by a highly motivated person, looking for something to smear Kozinski with. You don't find personal server folders of that sort in standard google searches. Kozinski slammed Sanai here in 2005. Of course, once Sanai found the folder, and posted the link, it's in the public domain, but to say it was 'on the web' ignores the calculated, malicious actions of Sanai in what should be none of anyone's business. A few pics of consenting adults in raunchy situations, and he has to defend himself against the slander that he's somehow debasing women or something.

just for the record: only the first quote you attribute to me is mine

Quoting eric: The files were in a folder that had a robots.txt file to indicate its contents were not to be indexed, so it could only be found by a highly motivated person, looking for something to smear Kozinski with.

As you know, robots.txt is a file used to control access by bots, such as those used by search engines to index site content. They are not intended or effective at blocking access by humans. Do you know if directory browsing was enabled on his site? If it was, you could easily find the content by mistake, through sheer happenstance, without being "highly motivated" or "looking for something to smear Kozinski with." The discussion between Ann and Sklar on this issue was quite uninteresting because neither one of them knew that the judge thought the files were private and inaccessible. For Sklar, the key to her judgement seemed to revolve around the fact that the judge willfully posted the content on his web site. In fact, from what I understand, he thought he was storing them on a file share and had no idea they were accessible via the web.

Quoting eric: Sklar clearly has an issue with women 'on their hands and knees'.

I don't believe there is anything in the diavlog to support this contention.

Quoting eric: I think feminists betray their total lack of humor and common sense by assuming that when a woman takes a provocative pose (eg, one associated with a sexual act or position), this is assumed degrading to women.

Again, I think you are attributing to Sklar positions she never articulated. Did she every say anything even remotely approaching this? I missed it, if she did.

Quoting jimM47: just for the record: only the first quote you attribute to me is mine

My apologies. I've fixed it. Thank you for letting me know.

Quoting TwinSwords: As you know, robots.txt is a file used to control access by bots, such as those used by search engines to index site content. They are not intended or effective at blocking access by humans.

Furthermore, the mere existence of a robots.txt file doesn't prove anything. The contents of the robots.txt file are what's important; do we actually know what was contained in Kozinski's robots.txt? Robots.txt can be used to hide some folders while leaving others visible for indexing. If Kozinski's robots.txt was empty, or if it didn't specify his "stuff" folder, then his "porn collection" wasn't even hidden from search engines. I'd bet a nickle that Kozinski didn't even know he had a robots.txt or how to use it.

Quoting TwinSwords: So, are you saying that the person who found this content on the judge's computer accessed it using an IP address, and found directory names by guessing at them? I wasn't aware of that. Where was that reported?

Also: What do you mean when you say the directory structure was "hidden"?

Question: Do you know if directory browsing was enabled on his web site?

Quoth the VolokhConspiracy here:

the Kozinski family has a network server with various files on it. The controversial files on that server aren't linked to from the Web, and aren't indexed on search engines. They are generally meant only for family members and a few other people who get specific pointers to them.

As I understand it the person who discovered the files started with a file hosted on the Kozinski server that was linked to publicly, and then discovered the other files by rooting around in the server. Not quite the same as finding the server's IP address, but its still not the same as starting from a public site. I keep reading that the server was somehow "misconfigured" so my guess is that the answer to your next

Quoting TwinSwords: I'd bet a nickle that Kozinski didn't even know he had a robots.txt or how to use it.

The server was apparently run by a family member other than Judge Kozinski, so it seems almost certain that the Judge didn't even know he had a robots.txt file.

Quoting jimM47: Quoth the VolokhConspiracy here:

As I understand it the person who discovered the files started with a file hosted on the Kozinski server that was linked to publicly, and then discovered the other files by rooting around in the server. Not quite the same as finding the server's IP address, but its still not the same as starting from a public site.

I keep reading that the server was somehow "misconfigured" so my guess is that the answer to your next questions is that directory browsing was enabled — though at least on my copy of apache it is more appropriate to say that directory browsing was not disabled, since, as I just discovered while writing this post, the default is the enabled state. That configuration isn't wise, but I hardly think it counts as an invitation to view the orphaned files housed on the machine.

Okay, thanks for the information. It's my opinion that if directory browsing was enabled, one could easily find the content without being "highly motivated," and I don't think it would be accurate to describe browsing a directory as hacking. A lot of people know you can sometimes access a

First, is my matter/antimatter reaction to Ann A. She grates on my like no other blogginhead. Couldn't make it past the 1/2 hour mark because of this. (Is there someone of substance whispering in Bob's ear, insisting that A/A remain on the b/heads list in the face of all the opinions slagging her?) Second is the ever-more-frequent audio balance problem. One channel is often at a much higher gain than the other and on my system, I'm unable to balance the channels with my onboard controls. Please address this issue. End of minor rant.

[quote=TwinSwords;80559]...
This whole thing is definitely a tempest in a teapot,
...
QUOTE] Apt description ...here things are detailed by the judge's wife. Of course if it were not a conservative judge the media would only be wondering why there was only one donkey in the video while applauding the judge for his humor and diversity.

I hope Rachel knows these are Democrats she is speaking to...

I think Ann's point is that Hillary can take the nomination on the first ballot, in a very straightforward way, by a change in the consensus of the super delegates. Romney can't say that. Of course it will take an unforseen event, but it doesn't require an earth-shattering event.

A few comments: Rachel Sklar was better here than the last time I saw her, more defintive, holding to her own positions and a match for Ann Althouse who gave me the impression that she was not taking this diavlog seriously, and was fooling aound some. Overall it pretty thin gruel. Why spend 8 and ¼ minutes discussing the non point that Hillary is more than anything waiting in the wings, internally licking her lips at the prospect of the presidency and hasn’t to herself conceded defeat. This is nonsense without evidence and for me was an example of Althouse playing with Sklar a little. I think Sklar got mired in the partner as experience point. Hillary’s campaign claim was that she was a few steps short of being co-president for 8 years. Sklar got that booted up with her experience residing in being Bill’s partner for 8 years, his wife for those 8 years, by which logic Laura Bush has experience. Althouse argued against “dynastic succession” and that spouses succeeding each other virtually offends against the 8 year term limit. Here too, touting the Alaskan Governor and her fisherman husband over “power couples”, was for me

Quoting Simon Willard: I think Ann's point is that Hillary can take the nomination on the first ballot, in a very straightforward way, by a change in the consensus of the super delegates. Romney can't say that. Of course it will take an unforseen event, but it doesn't require an earth-shattering event.

You're right, Hillary could get the nomination under some conceivable scenario, and that's exactly why it's such a pedestrian observation, and so remarkable that Ann seems to think she's the first person to think of it. It's just obvious to everyone. But it's also irrelevant; Hillary can either consciously "lie in wait," or sincerely abandon all intention of securing the nomination. But either way, the same things will happen: Either Obama gets the nomination as planned, or something unexpected happens and Hillary gets the nomination. Hillary doesn't have to "lie in wait" in order for that to happen. She's automatically and obviously the next in line for the nomination if ANYTHING happens to Obama.

Quoting Whatfur: Apt description ...here things are detailed by the judge's wife.

Excellent letter from the judge's wife. Thanks for posting that. The fact that these files were hosted on a family personal computer makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

Quoting Whatfur: Of course if it were not a conservative judge the media would only be wondering why there was only one donkey in the video while applauding the judge for his humor and diversity.

^ The conservative victim mindset. Why do I have the feeling that if it was a liberal judge in the same circumstances, you'd be bashing him all over the place?

Sklar is definitely the cutest vlogger in history, besting even Garance and Megan.

Quoting basman: Rachel Sklar was better here than the last time I saw her, more defintive, holding to her own positions and a match for Ann Althouse who gave me the impression that she was not taking this diavlog seriously, and was fooling aound some.

I'm only speculating, but I would explain Ann's dispassionate performance, typical of her last several appearances, as an indication that she has learned to better control her emotions, since her string of embarrassing public meltdowns (e.g., Garance, Goldberg, the libertarian convention in Chicago, etc.) She seems to have gotten much better at controlling her flashes of anger. Personally, I have enjoyed her recent diavlogs with Jeralyn Merritt and Stephen Kaus. For reasons I'm not clear about, I didn't enjoy this one as much. Sklar was great, and I agree totally with your characterization of her (in bold above), but the conversation just wasn't that interesting.

Quoting basman: Why spend 8 and ¼ minutes discussing the non point that Hillary is more than anything waiting in the wings, internally licking her lips at the prospect of the presidency and hasn’t to herself conceded defeat. This is nonsense without evidence and for me was an example of Althouse playing with Sklar

Is althouse nuts? Whats with that "Hillary hasn't gone away...(wink, wink, gleem in her eye)" And rachel, get over hillary...she voted for the war! and a definite supporter of it years after it began! and she sat on the board of walmart for 6 years up until 1992! She is pro-nafta, pro-wto! She ran an awful campaign! She sabatoged the party, and she campaigned recklessly! Good riddance!

I used to feel sorry for Rachel Sklar when she was so ridiculed and criticized in the comments on her diavlogs with Corn (though I did think he totally crushed her); but this time, I must admit, she was so ridiculously self-righteous and annoying, that I felt sorry for Ann. To add insult to injury, not only did Sklar have nothing remotely intelligent to say ("I saw the Manchurian candidate which is a different kind of candidate"), she was also rude, ridiculously sarcastic, and obviously delusional about her own analytic capabilities. Frankly, I don't see any reason to bring her back again.

Wow.
Hey BhTV, thanks for introducing me to "Progressivism's" novice nun.
Something about her makes wonder if Pepper Schwartz wasn't on to something.
But maybe it's just me misreading Canadian politeness. Though, it can't be excessive Canadian politeness which explains why she has no pronounced concern about 'this season's' RatherGate in a diavlog where she is fretting about a possible upcoming "Swiftboating." What damage did that event bring to either transparency or accountability? Where RatherGate's damage is incontrovertible. Yeah, I'm convinced the political impact from these two events are more important to Rachel than any "integrity of the process" or of the integrity of the actors involved. So I'm sticking with the Novice Nun of "Progressivism" knowing full well that Rachel is not Christian and should not be mistaken in any way for the rampantly hetero Sister Bertrille (and I'm no Alejandro Rey).
I know. This post has gotten a little odd.
Why? Why, do I insist upon Novice Nun allusion?
Well, during this diavlog I was observing and absorbing Rachel Sklar.
My attention wandered a bit and I thought, "What if Pepper Schwartz was just totally wrong?"
My imagination came up with something very like this.
Let's see you

Always a pleasure to see Ann Althouse in a diavlog.
Rachel Sklar mentions the Van Halen song Right Now when she spoke about spreeder.com. That was nice.

Quoting TwinSwords: Excellent letter from the judge's wife. Thanks for posting that. The fact that these files were hosted on a family personal computer makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

^ The conservative victim mindset.

Why do I have the feeling that if it was a liberal judge in the same circumstances, you'd be bashing him all over the place?

...cough, cough followed by the liberal "victim mindset"
Believe it or not...I read the story last week without the vetting, saw which court and actually figured it WAS a liberal judge...tsk tsked it in my mind and moved on.

Quoting Whatfur: ...Believe it or not...I read the story last week without the vetting, saw which court and actually figured it WAS a liberal judge...tsk tsked it in my mind and moved on.

...wanted to add (and similar to what seemed to be Eric Alterman's entire personae)...that things like this should not be news unless it is a conservative caught up in it...not because of the acts themselves but because of the overriding hypocrisy that must be involved if its a conservative involved. Now, of course, this portends the idea of a different standard but as is it is a higher one...we can live with that.

Twin Swords: Thanks for your interesting comments on my post. Let's wait get a better diavlog in which to find an issue more deserving of some back and forth.

Quoting Whatfur: ...wanted to add (and similar to what seemed to be Eric Alterman's entire personae)...that things like this should not be news unless it is a conservative caught up in it...not because of the acts themselves but because of the overriding hypocrisy that must be involved if its a conservative involved.

Did you lose your thesaurus, and your sentence rules book? And your penchant for trying to appear intelligent? Try writing conversationally, but still make sense.
Proof reading out loud might be helpful.
Helpful hint: Partisan hackery is more about being on the offense.

Quoting Whatfur: Now, of course, this portends the idea of a different standard but as is it is a higher one...we can live with that.

Elitist!

Quoting Whatfur: ...cough, cough followed by the liberal "victim mindset"

When it comes to the victim mindset, no one beats the wingnuts. From an earlier post in the same thread:

Quoting Whatfur: Of course if it were not a conservative judge the media would only be wondering why there was only one donkey in the video while applauding the judge for his humor and diversity.

And later:

Quoting Whatfur: ...wanted to add ...that things like this should not be news unless it is a conservative caught up in it...not because of the acts themselves but because of the overriding hypocrisy that must be involved if its a conservative involved.

Quoting bjkeefe: When it comes to the victim mindset, no one beats the wingnuts. :

Sorry fur, but that quote is worth a pile on.
I can't wait till we get "attacks by little boys wearing little girl dresses" status again....

Quoting Sgt Schultz: Wow.
Hey BhTV, thanks for introducing me to "Progressivism's" novice nun.
Something about her makes wonder if Pepper Schwartz wasn't on to something.
But maybe it's just me misreading Canadian politeness.

Though, it can't be excessive Canadian politeness which explains why she has no pronounced concern about 'this season's' RatherGate in a diavlog where she is fretting about a possible upcoming "Swiftboating." What damage did that event bring to either transparency or accountability? Where RatherGate's damage is incontrovertible.

Yeah, I'm convinced the political impact from these two events are more important to Rachel than any "integrity of the process" or of the integrity of the actors involved.

So I'm sticking with the Novice Nun of "Progressivism" knowing full well that Rachel is not Christian and should not be mistaken in any way for the rampantly hetero Sister Bertrille (and I'm no Alejandro Rey).
I know. This post has gotten a little odd.
Why? Why, do I insist upon Novice Nun allusion?
Well, during this diavlog I was observing and absorbing Rachel Sklar.
My attention wandered a bit and I thought, "What if Pepper Schwartz was just totally wrong?"
My imagination came up with something very like this.
Let's see you

Quoting TwinSwords: I thought we had a whole thread for this kind of post. Oh, yeah, we do.

Nice. Hard to believe that alcohol alone could have caused that much confusion, though.

Quoting handle: Sorry fur, but that quote is worth a pile on.
I can't wait till we get "attacks by little boys wearing little girl dresses" status again....

I guess I don't need to bring it up now, do I. Thanks handle. Oh and as far as writing a complete sentence I have always let you off the hook with your disjointed writing and rants under the assumption that your mother drank excessive amounts of alcohol and/or smoked crack during your prenatal development. You actually do quite well considering. Brendan, you are being a bit redundant, while once again serving as my best example. Maybe you are not bright enough either to realize that to expound on the victimhood while ignoring the premise of my statements is exactly the predictable, liberal, behavior I was trying to exemplify. Way to go!!! Thank you both. Graz?

Quoting Whatfur:
Graz?

Luv you too.

Quoting Whatfur: I guess I don't need to bring it up now, do I. Thanks handle. Oh and as far as writing a complete sentence I have always let you off the hook with your disjointed writing and rants under the assumption that your mother drank excessive amounts of alcohol and/or smoked crack during your prenatal development. You actually do quite well considering.

No, THANK YOU fur! You SHOULD let me "off the hook", as I am not the one trying to wear an intellectual mask while simply parroting propaganda from the radical military industrial viewpoint. I sentance no t care if good, or not k?
YOOOR MAMA!!! TOOO ... nad your prenatals!!!!

Quoting Whatfur: Brendan, you are being a bit redundant, while once again serving as my best example. Maybe you are not bright enough either to realize that to expound on the victimhood while ignoring the premise of my statements is exactly the behavior I am trying to exemplify. Way to go!!! Thank you both.

Graz?

Sorry fur, that one is just complete bullshit. Just like your "premise" that a "liberal" judge wouldn't be held accountable.
The problem here is that a left wing wacko would probably have pics of girls dressed as cows, where as a "conservative" wingnut would just

I tend to agree with Ann that McCain is unlikely to appoint extreme judges to the Supreme Court. He once commented that he thought that Alito was too conservative although he has since taken that back in order to be acceptable to the right. Since all politicians, including Obama, walk a fine line when it comes to saying what side they are on (remember BO and free trade or Ms. Powers comments about getting out of Iraq) you really have to read between the lines rather than just go by what they say. The Democrats always dangle that Supreme Court Sword of Damocles in order to keep the troops in line and are especially doing so this year when there is danger of defection. Whichever way I end up voting, it won't be based on that argument, especially with McCain in the mix.

McCain's first term SC nominations would have to be radical in order to appease the right-wingers whose support he'd want to support him in 2012. If he appointed a David Souter, they would probably not only cease to support him but impeach him as well. Of course, a Dem. Senate will make a radical more difficult but not impossible. If McCain sends up 2-3 squeaky clean judges like Roberts, and they get shot down, there will be lots of pressure for the Senate to confirm one and not leave a vacancy on the Court. A second term McCain (God forbid!) might bring a more moderate appointment, but by then we'll only be hearing about it through the loudspeakers at the concentration camp between waterboarding sessions.

Stephen Sondheim is God.

OK, Ann is not the fount of all wisdom. So what does "lying in wait" mean? It means not releasing delegates. If she releases them, it makes these scenarios much more difficult.

Rachel Sklar is a serious person who lives in the real world. Ann Althouse isn't, and doesn't.

Totally agree. Rachel is spot on with her responses, but I am surprised she didn't get bored with some of the repetitive, cyclical conversation!