Just read a searing piece by Jill on the recall, and the issues that weren't discussed in the debate. It's stunning that the one place you can't read Jill is in the LA Times. No, they prefer to run the likes of Peter King, and others who take up a lot of newsprinted space, but say nothing. Can somebody please tell me why we have such a lame daily? There are so many good writers in town, most of whom end up writing for the New York Times or other national publications -- and are banned from the pages of the LAT. Are they really that big of a grudge-factory? Or is it that they are too "nice" to fire the sucky people who work there? Why can't I read Jill, Matt Welch, Cathy Seipp, among others...in the LA Times?

The front page of Jill's website touts her six years at the LA Times pretty boldly, which seems odd if she shares your opinion that the paper is so lame.

Jill *has written* for the LA Times, but after New Times closed, the LA Times did not snap her up, nor Susan Goldsmith, nor any other number of talented writers I really miss reading in LA (and I know others do, too). We have lame-o columnists in the LAT commenting on the recall; Jill's commentary can only be read in the NY Times and the New Republic and other out-of-town places that, I imagine, do not hold grade-school grudges against her (and others).

thanks