B) You are blaming your son for posting the smut? Really? Your son?

Yeah. I saw that too, and... yeah. Because aside from the ethical squick of trying to squirm out of it and the total, utter squick of OMG FAMILY FETISH PORN SITE?!?, does he really think that anyone's going to believe that any reasonably intelligent college kid is going to say, hmm, where shall I stash my porn -- Oh, I know! I'll put it on my dad's page!

eta strikeout, if it was the son's site and not the father's. Not bahleeting, as the "yeah" part is still there even if I look crazy...

A) Why didn't he just ask to be taken off the case for a conflict of interest? Or is that one of those kinda awkward moments you just try to avoid?

B) You are blaming your son for posting the smut? Really? Your son?

He's Alex Kozinski. He is one of the most respected judges on the bench, if also one of the most idiosyncratic. Having dirty pictures on a private website is not an obvious conflict in an obscenity trial (any more than being a noted expert in 1st Amendment law). Also, his son is an adult, who admitted to owning the site.

And they weren't "on the site," they were in a sub-directory, along with personal letters, etc. The reporter found them by snooping around.

It would be like someone doing an article about one of us and discovering fanfic because our firewall sucked.

Also, his son is an adult, who admitted to owning the site.

I hadn't heard the bit where the son owned the site - everything I'd read implied that it was Judge Kozinski's site. But I still can't imagine any age, college or otherwise, when keeping your porn on a site your parents post to is other than a total wank-killer.

This is a judge who campaigned to be named the hottest Article III judge and published an opinion that incorporates 200+ film titles -- he has a sense of humor. What if it was fic? Would one be outraged? This is not a scandal.

ETA, from the NYT: [link]

udge Kozinski said his son, Yale, maintained the site, which had the domain name of kozinski.com. Yale Kozinski, a film editor, confirmed that, as do Internet registry records for the site.

“This server is my private Web server,” Yale Kozinski said. “It’s owned by me. The domain is registered to me. The people who have access to put files up there are friends and family.” Among other things, he said, the site contained family photos and a collection of the judge’s articles.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Judge Kozinski had conceded posting some of the offensive materials. In interviews on Wednesday, neither Judge Kozinski nor his son could say who posted what, and Judge Kozinski said he might have uploaded some materials by mistake.

The site was never meant to be public, Yale Kozinski said. “The fact that it was publicly accessible actually is my fault, too,” he said. “I made a mistake in configuring it.”

And they weren't "on the site," they were in a sub-directory, along with personal letters, etc. The reporter found them by snooping around.

That I hadn't read. I thought they were on the site itself, which I assumed was personal and being shared as a "hee hee" kind of thing, not a turn-on. I didn't realize they were in a subdirectory (that's what I get for skimming as I eat breakfast. Having read in full, yeah sounds like the reporter did a bit of snooping, he would have been better off storing his porn on a hard drive somewhere.

I hadn't heard the bit where the son owned the site - everything I'd read implied that it was Judge Kozinski's site.

The LAT certainly implies it's his own website, but I haven't searched for other articles.

Would one be outraged? This is not a scandal.

I am neither outraged or scandalized, but I am amused. I think it's like the one judge in the LAT article says, one knows that judges are people, but we'd prefer to not bump into their personal lives.

I remember being horrified the first time I saw someone attending mass in shorts. Yes, it was summer in an unair-conditioned church on a late Saturday afternoon (and therefore a tad less formal feeling-

It could be because I've always belonged to small, funky, hippie-esque parishes (*when* I've belonged to a parish, that is), but Saturday Mass, if it's in the 90s and the building is un-airconditioned, all bets are off and people wear shorts. Generally something like Bermuda/walking shorts (vs. Daisy Dukes), but still.

In fact, I remember that once the priest said something like, "*I* have to wear these robes; you don't, so please dress for the weather!"

Sundays were still more dressy, though. (But we're just talking long skirts, t-shirt w/o a corporate logo, sandals, no nylons or anything.)

And if my parish church were a big beautiful cathedral, well, that would be different as well, although it really shouldn't.

Emmett's ready to play.

I'm off to the champeenship game.

Wish us luck! Wish us Doubles!

Wish us good pitching and no errors!

Go Cubbies!

In losing by way of the ignominious hit batsman, the Braves tied the major league record for consecutive one-run losses in away games. Sigh.

Before you leave for the airport, look at yourself in the mirror, and think: Could I meet and IMPRESS someone who would change my life while wearing this?

I don't think I own any clothes that would impress someone who would change my life. The best I usually hope for is clean.