At that LA bloggy thingy last Saturday, I met many interesting people and saw many blogging buddies, but there is one person I met that I haven’t written about yet: David Kipen, book editor for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Kipen struck me immediately as a man of devilish charm and understated intelligence, meaning he struck me as humble, but possibly only because he let me dominate the conversation. I tend to get overly excited when I meet book people who share my passion for words about California. I opened up immediately when Kipen told me that he what he reviews mostly are books about California.

This evening I’ve spent a little time reading some of Kipen’s work. He’s a damn fine writer, and I’m adding him to my permalinks so I can keep tabs on what he has to say.

The man can flat out write. Consider these first three graphs from his review of Marc Reisner’s final book:

What if the pioneers had settled America from west to east — from California toward the Atlantic — instead of the other way around? Just for starters, we’d probably see way more statistics calculating the economic destructiveness of nature’s most underestimated act of God: winter.

Most Californians have had a bellyful of hearing how unnatural it is to live here, coming as it usually does from people who spend half the year putting on six layers of clothing just to fetch the morning paper. But a sobering new book has just arrived that should scare every living Californian silly — and it was written by one of our own.

“A Dangerous Place” is the last public testament of the late Marc Reisner, whose landmark book “Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water” should continue to shape debate about the West’s future for as long as people are fool enough to live here. Reisner died of cancer 2 1/2 years ago, but he left behind “A Dangerous Place,” a cruelly truncated stump of a book that nevertheless helps explain the seismic haymaker slowly gathering strength enough to floor us all.

Reisner’s Cadillac Desert is one of the best books ever written about California, and I didn’t even know he was dead. David has me thinking I need to go out and pick up his new book.

Kipen’s California tends to skew northward, but what should we expect from a reviewer writing for a Bay Area paper? One thing about him, at least he’s honest. He isn’t afraid point out what’s shabby about a particular book … in fact, one refreshing aspect of Kipen’s reviews is that he actually writes about the book, instead of trying to impress the reader with his erudition, which is what you find in most LAT reviews.

If you love California, go read Kipen — you’ll find some new treasures.

As much as I liked the Joe Strummer tribute on the Grammys, this minute-by-minute fisking of the awards show makes a couple of good points:

And, right into the Strummer tribute. You know what would be cool? This band at Irving Plaza. They’re f’n awesome, but meaningless tokenism nonetheless. Like the Clash were an important part of Grammy history. Like Joe (or his surviving band mates, come to think of it) would want anything to do with this scene. And since we’re in N.Y.C., where’s the fucking Ramones tribute?

Yeah, it would have been nice if the Grammys had been a little more appreciative of quality music while JS was alive.

Susanna Cornett has some pertinent comments on an E&P article about “embedded” journalists — those reporters assigned to cover the war in Iraq.

In a new initiative, reporters will, for the first time since Vietnam, be allowed to travel with the troops, cover the battle fronts, get the real story.

I think it’s a good thing. And I think Suzanna is also right — any hyper-paranoia about censorship is misplace. I’ve been a military man and I’ve been a reporter. I think I see this issue from both sides. Access is great. It’s more than great. It’s wonderful. But there are some things about military operations that reporters should not report.

Russ Harper is nice to me, so I must post just one more time about the LA blogger thing … go read his post.

Also, thanks to my buddies Ken and Emmanuelle (and Matt, indirectly) for the links … you guys drive great traffic.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — As an estimated 9 billion people around the world watched via streaming video on the Internet Saturday, San Diego Padres rookie center fielder Darren Baker capped off one of the most improbable first-year seasons in baseball history with three home runs, two stolen bases, 7 RBI and two spectacular defensive plays in the Padres season-ending rout of the Portland Dodgers.

Baker, son of former Cubs Hall-of-Fame manger Dusty Baker, in just one season, has become the most dominate player in baseball, and has already staked a claim as the man most likely to challenge his hero’s career records.

“Darren is quite a ballplayer,” Barry Bond’s said in a post-game chat with AP, which was viewed by four-billion baseball fans. “He’s just a natural. You could see his passion for the game when he was just three or four. You knew then he would be something special.”

In a season that saw the Padres win 100 or more games for the 15th-straight year, Baker added to their fearsome lineup by hitting 70 home runs, driving in 150 runs, stealing 60 bases and staking a claim on what will certainly be the first in a long stream of golden glove awards.

“I’m happy to help the Padres win,” said Baker. “This team has dominated baseball for the last 20 years, and I’m just happy to get a chance to contribute.”

One of the most popular posts I’ve ever done is this one about Connie Chung.

Now I learn from Romenesko that “insiders” at CNN are unhappy with Chung, but hey, they’re not going to oust her or anything. I can’t help but wonder if some of those “insiders” aren’t picking up on the general negative internet vibes spinning around out there about Chung. I mean, I didn’t realize the depth of dislike for the CNN incarnation of Chung until I picked up on Dave Barry’s little jab at her.

If CNN really had its ear to the ground, they’d chuck Chung now.

Hey, all you beautiful peoples hopping over from Tim Blair … thanks for stopping by. Tim was so kind with his praise, I hope this site lives up to your expectations. I don’t necessarily think I’ve been doing my best work lately, so I want to invite you back. I think I can do better. And drop me a line with the contact link on the right, or leave a comment … would love to get your feedback.

If you missed my post on the LA blogging gathering and after-party, it’s here. Now, Joshua Ferguson has added to the history, including (hey — it’s the first picture of me on somebody else’s web log) of me and Layne, here.

To me, tonight’s Grammy’s show was about the best I’ve ever seen.  The must was largely decent and I didn’t see any embarrassing awards (at least within the confines of who was nominated).

But the capper of the night was Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl and Stevie Van Zandt (backed by No Doubt’s rhythm section) playing the Clash’s “London Calling” in tribute to Joe Strummer.  It was the kind of powerful performance that deserves to live in legend. It was pitch perfect and worthy of one of the most important men in the history of rock and roll.  For most of my life, I couldn’t have imagined a moment like that on the Grammys. Real soul, real heart has so seldom been a part of the Grammys.

Sitting in a Thai restaurant (Palms) in Hollywood last night, I came to a realization: Just like everybody should have at least one friend who owns a truck, everybody should know at least one Matt Welch — that is a person who knows a particular locale so well that you’re never going to get bad advice from him.

Once again, Mr. Welch found the perfect dining establishment for my wife and I. Great food and charming entertainment — Thai’s singing kareoke cowboy songs, though we didn’t get to see the Thai Elvis perform. Maybe next time.

Dinner, for just me and my wife, came after the L.A. Bloggers panel arranged and hosted by Cathy Seipp at the American Film Institute. The official gathering, attended by about 200 people, maybe less, was followed by a smaller after-party at Heather Havrilesky’s apartment in Los Feliz.

The blogger panel, which we arrived at 30 minutes late because of an accident on the 101, was smart, insightful and wide ranging. I started to take notes, but found my once-skilled note taking abilities have declined precipitously and the discussion was just too darn interesting not to give it my full attention. Matt Welch and Ken Layne were their usual profoundly witty selves; Eugene Volokh was, as expected, discerning and keenly judicious; Emmanuelle Richard kept reminding us not to think of blogging as purely a political activity (which it is not); Mickey Kaus was appropriately cynical; RiShawn Biddle showed a perspicacious understanding of the media; Havrilesky helped keep the whole blogging thing in perspective by reminding us how little it pays; and Luke Ford once again showed us what a charmingly off-beat fellow he is.

There was much talk about the political orientation of the blogosphere, which many people think seems to tilt right. Eugene was quick to point out that there has been no scientific study of the politics of the blogosphere and such conclusions are based on purely a subjective tiny sampling of the blog universe. Emmanualle added that there is a whole world of blogs out there that have nothing to do with politics, and are also highly entertaining.

My personal take is that the blogosphere does tilt very libertarian, but that doesn’t necessarily mean conservative. The entire internet for as long as I’ve been on it (1995) has been strongly libertarian. The first adopters were highly independent people, which influences their politics. And the same personality types that were drawn to the net before many of their peers were also drawn to blogging sooner. You can be a lefty libertarian, which is why I say that most blogs (of both the left and the right) tilt libertarian. Generally, speaking. Though I do agree with Kaus that it would be possible, and somebody should do it, to actually scientifically study the socio-political nature of blogs.

For more on the panel, read Luke.

After the panel there was food and wine in the foyer, where I met Stewart and Russ. I also met Michael (who, at the time, I didn’t realize is from my home town of San Diego). Michael, who sat in the audience with his laptop taking notes, has a good detailed post on the event. Joh3n also took notes on his laptop, but says details will follow later.

Both Joh3n and Michael were meeting Tony Pierce in person for the first time, as was I. And as Michael observes, Pierce is a totally kind, humble and interesting man. (My pictures of this meeting did not turn out, as did none of my post-AFI pictures, because I forgot to turn my flash on). Tony and I got to talk more at the Heather party, were we got deeply into a fascinating discussion of Christianity, LSD and the nature of Satan.

The after-party was the usual suspects mostly — the people I knew were Layne, Welch, Emmanuelle, Charlie Hornberger and his wife Bonnie, Heather, Pierce, RiShawn, Kaus (whom I didn’t get to talk to), Cathy, Axel … and I’m sure I’m leaving somebody out, and a bunch of people I didn’t know. There was much talk of BBQ, Mescal, North Carolina (three women in the crowd, including my wife and Heather are from NC), religion (including some interesting offshoot of Judaism that includes a belief in reincarnation), L.A. media gossip, TIVO, various TV shows and movies, Julie London vs. Peggy Lee, and the size of Heather’s apartment.

Oh, and the police came by at about 2 a.m. The outside portion of the party was arguing the relative merits of some movie or other a bit too loudly.

Billie and I left at 3 a.m., and there were still a dozen people left having a grand time. None of them have updated their blogs yet today, so as far as I know, they’re all still there.

UPDATE: Rand Simberg has a must-read post on the panel.

UPDATE: Steve Smith has some good observations about last night’s event, as does the aforementioned Stewart, whom I should add was just so damn likeable that I’m tempted to start calling him Stew. But then I’ve never met a welshman I disliked.

Evictions are down in Ventura County, but that isn’t necessarily good news.

Tom Kisken is one of the Ventura County Star’s best writers and reporters. When he told me he was working on a story where he would interview a group of county residents about the war — non-experts, nobody prominent, but still people where paying attention enough to be informed — I thought it was a great story idea.

The story was published in the Star today and it is a good, balanced piece. I think it’s useful to read what people in your community have to say, but unlike the usual “man in the street” type of story, people who actually have some clue about the issues.

What do a bunch of evil bloggers intent of dominating the world think is the best Rock Album of 2002. The top secret answer can be uncovered here.

The West Warwick fire has club owners popping up all over saying that when Great White played their clubs, GW didn’t get permission for its pyrotechnic display.

My question is to those owners, including the owners of the club in RI, how could you not know?  Why don’t you have personnel monitoring a bands’ stage set up? It’s not trivial matter to put even a small pyrotechnics display on stage. It’s not something a band can do in secret, if you’re paying attention.

Club owners have a responsibility to ensure the safety of its patrons — the means monitoring performers, monitoring the backstage area, keeping halls clear, emergency exits clear and working, sprinkler systems working and constant preparedness.  Is that really so hard?

Even though we know the West Warwick fire wasn’t a terrorist attack, nightclubs have often been terrorist targets. In this day and age, club owners need to be especially vigilant.

Tired of war news, night club fires, missing women, collapsing roofs and botched surgeries? Here’s a heart warming story, especially if you’re a sports fan.

Julie Neidlinger thinks I have a good site … thanks … here’s her’s, which is good, too.

No blogging tonight. I’m beat.  I got up early, drove to Long Beach, attended an all-day Cold Fusion seminar, drove home. In LA traffic. Yuk.

A another post on war poetry. A good one. You should read it. It’s from Aaron Haspel.

Joseph Duemer has actually posted something I can largely agree with, and it’s about poetry and politics, even.

Politics and war are valid topics of poetry. If poets of the past were somehow prevented from covering such topics, we wouldn’t have Homer to read today. Of course, there’s probably been more bad poetry penned in the an effort to advance some political cause than any other subject, but that doesn’t mean that a true poet can’t touch the sublime nature of the human condition through mere words on paper. War, after all, is not that far removed from love. The depth of human emotion it engenders is as profound, soul stirring and revealing as any other subject a poet might touch.

I tried to find Laura Bush’s exact words about the subject, and can’t. But if she said politics has no place in American literature, she’s wrong. She’s obviously never read Twain, or Hemingway or Irving. In poetry, as has been noted, Whitman and Dickinson both touched on the political, especially so Whitman. Whitman was a man of profound political passion. So much so that he wrote one of the most famous poems about any president, a Republican president, ever written (though I’m not sure it really qualifies as an example of  great American literature).

Where I disagree with Duemer — and I can’t do a whole post agreeing with him, can I — is in this phrase: ” … their alienation is my alienation.”

I invite Mr. Duemer to counter me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Their alienation (I’m speaking primarily of Whitman and Dickinson, as I’m too unfamiliar with Hughes to comment) was not an alienation against political America as they knew it. Whitman would love America today as much as he loved it 150 years ago — because we remain a vibrant land full of possibilities that gives each individual soul room to expand and celebrate itself — Whitman’s alienation had more to do with his own struggles with his homosexuality, and his general sense of not fitting in with proper society. For Dickinson, she just wasn’t comfortable around people. She had no quarrel with her government, nor with the social structure of her day. What I read of Mr. Duemer to date is an alienation against the government, against our values, and with our ambitions. Those are concepts, I would argue, that Mr. Whitman and Ms. Dickerson would find strange and hard to fathom. I’m not trying to speak for the dead, merely offer a counter viewpoint.

Memo to news-station directors — want me to change the channel real fast to one of your competitors? Start talking about Laci Peterson.