Thursday, September 30, 2004
You gotta love how Kerry praised the foreign policy of . . . Ronald Wilson Reagan, whom he said he would try to emulate. Kerry spent his first Senate term fighting against everything Reagan did. Somebody call him on it, please.
Final thoughts? A draw, but a lame one. Most Americans switched this off about 30 minutes in, so anything that came up after that just went to the pundits. I'm starting to think that both of these candidates are part of a marketing conspiracy to turn us all into glazed-over tapioca.
The Newcastle was good, at least.
Bush: C Plus
Kerry was a better speaker, smoother and more confident. He did a good job of attacking. But I think Bush's weaknesses are his strengths in times like this. His whole attitude is one of "How many times do I have to explain this to you?" He doesn't rack up many debate points, but he makes Kerry look more confused. Like he needs it explained to him. I don't think Bush did squat to convince any Democrats to switch alliances, but he solidified his base. The fact that he got beat rhetorically might help energize Republicans to come out and support their guy. I can't say much more in favor of Bush, sadly. In fact, I expect him to take a quite a large hit in the press, but he would have had to shine for that not to be the case. But I don't think Kerry did much to bring much support to his side, either. I don't think many people will respond to Kerry's mulit-lateral song. I, and not many others, don't to hear that we'll win in Iraq by bringing in the U.N., and Kerry outlined no real plan outside of that. Too bad.
Clarification: it's Tanqueray, not Sapphire.
Lift a beer with me. We'll still be stinkeroo before Steve finishes frosting his martini shaker (not meant as a euphemism, by the way).
And so, the limes are cut, the ice is stocked. Let's get ready to .....drink!
If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer . . . How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?Read it all, of course.
Unless Kerry melts into a puddle on the floor, the media spin will be that he did well and helped his campaign. This is for two reasons. One is, as Newsweek's Evan Thomas remarked, that the press "wants Kerry to win."The other reason, Glenn says, is that the media wants a horse race. But that's twaddle, the kind of thing Chris Matthews thinks is profound. Think CBS was desperate to believe anything about Busg in the Guard because they want a horse race?
Look, neither one of these guys will stray far enough from talking points to get into any trouble. This will be a game of millimeters. My prediction, similar to Glenn's, is this: Think back to the 2000 debates. Remember how painfully silly Gore looked and sounded? Recall, too, that the center-left media was quick to declare the debates ties, with perhaps a technical victory on debating points each time to Gore. Meanwhile, the entire country was chuckling over Gore's rouge, heavy breathing, and stage-stalking alpha male posturing. Slowly, the CW on the debates changed, settling on the "Bush won because of lowered expectations" line. Four years later, everyone knows that Gore flat out lost those debates because he acted like somebody you'd like to "to quote Bill Buckley) "sock in the mouth." At the time, though, the best the press could offer was that "nobody gained any ground."
My guess is that 2004 will be about the same, and that Karl Rove is doing all he can to make it so.
To put a good sharp point on this, remember all the give and take we had some months back about wasted votes and third parties? Well, f*ck it, baby. My mind is made up. I'm going all out for Bush. Why? Because of where I live. (Eric will understand.) I want to see the faces of the liberal schmucks in my town on November 3rd, as they wake to the prospect of FOUR MORE YEARS! I'll grant you this, they'll be four years of governance by a Republican president who might as well be a Democrat. In that way, either Bush or Kerry is four years of entitlement nonreform. But at least I can spend those four years in a near-permanent state of schadenfreude.
I was at a party last weekend and happened to overhear a couple of mouthy liberals goofing about anti-Bush slogans and bumper stickers. One of them (the same guy that asked if there were "any dead animals" in the eggplant parm) had the patchy beard, pullover windbreaker, teva/mandals combo look that just belongs on a man who thinks of himself as a feminist -- the kind of guy who thinks he's a metrosexual, but has never lived anywhere more metropolitan that Amherst. The look on his face made me wish for a Bush-Cheney '04 t-shirt. And that's when I realized it. I do want Bush to win, and for purely selfish, mean-spirited reasons. I want Bush to win to see the whole feminist/abortionist/metrosexual/racialist/crunchy-enviro wing of the Dems quite literally sob into their fair-trade coffee.
There, I've said it.
I'm sure my comrades have their own memories of "Scottso," but I have a favorite. Muni's voice to me will forever be linked to the day Stevie Ray Vaughn died in that helicopter crash. WNEW was doing an all day tribute and Muni was intro-ing the song Hard To Be off the yet to be released Family Style, done with brother Jimmie. Muni quoted the words from the beginning of the the song as a fitting description of Stevie Ray's life and music: Roll, and I'll just feel somethin'. It was a perfect radio moment, in a time when radio still had an emotional link to the audience, when a disc jockey did something other than push buttons and plug car dealers and vinyl siding.
I haven't been in the tri-state area in years, but in my mind Muni was the perfect DJ. Wolfman Jack for a different generation. RIP.
So, in other words, Kerry is sunk. Radley has a particularly telling way of pointing out the differences:
Think back to 2000. Gore mopped the floor with Bush on policy. He had a far better grasp of the issues, was far more articulate, and presented a far clearer vision (I thought that back in 2000 -- and I voted for Bush). Problem was, Gore was an asshole. As one analysis I read put it, Bush came off as the affable kid who never came to class prepared, but was likeable, and cut jokes at the back of the room. Gore came off as the kid who reminded the teacher that she forgot to collect the homework.
Voters still open to being swayed by the debates aren't as interested in policy as they are in personality. It's all about the "guy you'd rather have a beer with." That pans out once you go back over the last few elections: Bush over Gore. Clinton over Dole and Bush Sr. Reagan over Mondale and Carter.
And let's face it. Kerry's a schmuck. Or at least he comes off as one. If Gore was the kid who reminded the teacher to collect the homework, Kerry's the prep school trust-funder who drives a Beamer and ties a pastel Izod across his shoulders. If swing state demographics resembled Greenwich, Connecticut, he'd be golden.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
In no time at all, Big Larry hit the Crimson with the usual story:
[Tribe] said he recognized his "failure to attribute some of the material The Weekly Standard identified."Nice to know he's not going to hang it on some grad student, like some other scholars we could name. Still, does "I take full responsibility" cut it? Fer Chrissakes, Larry, your name is on the book. Who did you think we were going to nail for it? Doris Kearns Goodwin?
"I personally take full responsibility for that failure," Tribe said.
More to the point, another famous Larry (Summers, Harvard's president) said some strong words after the two other profs (Charles Ogletree and Alan Dershowitz) were publically accused of being Cambridge Cribbers:
Tribe’s mea culpa comes just three weeks after another prominent Harvard faculty member—Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree—publicly apologized for copying six paragraphs almost word-for-word from a Yale scholar in a recent book, All Deliberate Speed.My emphasis. Summers obviously doesn't know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. (Note, too, that he hasn't lost his golden tongue. You need a pickaxe and miner's helmet to get through that sentence.) If you've had two "situations," you might want to avoid saying that you would have acted upon a third charge. Well, here's the third, Larry. Do something.
Last fall, Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz also battled plagiarism charges. And in 2002, Harvard Overseer Doris Kearns Goodwin admitted that she had accidently copied passages from another scholar in her bestseller The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys.
University President Lawrence H. Summers told The Crimson in an interview last week—before the allegations against Tribe surfaced—that he did not see "a big trend" of plagiarism problems at the Law School as a result of the charges against Ogletree and Dershowitz, but indicated that a third case would change his mind.
"If you had a third one, then I would have said, okay, you get to say this is a special thing, a focused problem at the Law School," Summers said of the recent academic dishonesty cases.
He declined comment last night.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Seagal came out of nowhere and onto the scene in 1988 with "Above the Law". Now bear in mind the environment this movie is entering. 1988 shows both Stallone ("Cobra", "Lock Up" and "Rambo III") and Schwarzenegger ("Predator", "Running Man", "Red Heat") at their peak form. Both "actors" use big muscles and bigger explosions to tremendous advantage; essentially laying claim to a dualopoly on the action movie genre. Simply put, there are no two bigger names. Then comes this un-muscular Italian-looking guy in a ponytail.
The plot is unimportant, but "Above the Law" dealt with something Vietnam, something CIA, something Mafia, all in downtown Chicago. What was important were two things: 1) a new and exciting type of on-screen fighthing using what one might call "combat aikido" - an offensive approach to the most defensive martial art yet created; and 2) a new and different looking action hero - short on muscles, long on greasy hair and "whatuhyoulookinat" attitude. What was also important was me watching this movie on the couch with a certain girl late into the night, but we don't have time for those memories right now.
It may be hard to imagine today, but when Seagal came out, he was taken very seriously, and was very popular. He couldn't act, but he had a strange charisma, and an almost mystical aura about him. Plus there were rumors of CIA and black bag ops which only contributed to the mystery - the thought was "Hey, this guy has done real stuff, so there's something to his movies." Moreover, the guy was a legitimate aikido sensei (of what belt level was somewhat debated), who wasn't just using stunt doubles to throw round-house punches. This guy did it for real, like Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris. He trained in Japan with the top, top senseis of the day.
And for action movie buffs, this intriguing mixture was too good to ignore. He moved onto a series of essentially copy-cat movies, like "Hard to Kill" (marking his debut with Kelly LeBrock, his former employer [he was her bodyguard], then his wife - and unfortunately, not a long-lived marriage - I am convinced they were the Ginger Rogers-Fred Astaire of the late 80s) "Marked for Death" (here the little ponytail is really a focus), and "Out for Justice" (this one marks the peak of Seagal's bad cop/good cop inner conflict - does he remain true to his old ways, or find salvation in his future?). Each one did well, if not exactly spectacularly, giving the hardcore fans more of what they wanted (great fights using a mixture of open-hand and weapons), but still drawing a larger audience than expected.
And yes, at this point, Seagal was starting to drink from his own kool-aid. He was hot and he knew it. But he also knew that despite his popularity, he had to move away from gritty cop seeks revenge for family/buddy/self. He also knew that he needed a two-word title for his movie (see Stallone, Schwarzenegger, supra). Providence came in the form of a big Navy ship, Tommy Lee Jones, and Gary Busey. A signature performance, melding A-list actors (well, for action films), with a big budget, some cool explosions, and a compelling back story. Yes, it's "Under Siege", and that's for Part 2.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
My favorite Johnny story is about him meeting the very young members of an unknown group called the Clash in London. They told Johnny they felt they need time to polish their sound before they tried to take their act out publically. "Come see us tonight," Johnny supposedly replied. "We can't even play our f*cking instruments."
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
No, I'm more interested in what CBS will (or more likely will not) do in response to this. We've already seen Rather go on the defensive offensive, but query this: if Rather wasn't Rather, but oh say, Geraldo, or even just a low-level correspondent trying to make his name, isn't it abundantly clear that CBS would have already put the reporter on "administrative leave pending investigation" and start distancing itself from his/her near abdication of journalistic integrity? If your answer is "no", then you buy into the premise that the media is just over-the-top liberal, and will never see the other side to a story.
I am still not that jaded, and I don't see why CBS doesn't take this opportunity to jettison Rather and finally, at long last, install the next anchorperson (and no, Ms. Chung, we're still not taking your calls). Look, you have Brokaw stepping down after the election, so if there was ever a time to take a chance on ratings, now is the time. CBS is number 3 in any event, and in the competition of making reading a teleprompter look tough, Rather is ahead by several lengths. The downside of this move is minimal; the network can only go up from here.
Face facts, this guy's fastball has never been above the mid-eighties, but now, he's resorting to the jalapeno in the nostrils (scroll down to the quote near the end) to bring in the viewers. He's old, he's delrious, and now, he can't even put together a decent scoop. Let him ride out the election like Brokaw, and then cite to the usual "more time with family" or hell, "gone fishing" would even work. Then bring in some hottie.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Some helpful hints: When you're not ingesting, fill up as many gatorade bottles with "clean" urine as you can, so that when you start smoking, you have a stockpile to use. The samples are tested not only for content but for temperature, so keep your stockpile in the jacuzzi overnight, then move from bottle to pill container or condom, and tape to your car vents on your trip over to the testing facility. Last, and certainly most importantly, don't substitute your own urine for that of a pregnant woman's - apparently being pregnant in the NFL is worse than being high.
The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."Yep, you heard right. The new standard of journalistic ethics at CBS can be expressed thus: We'll run what we damn well please until someone has "definite proof" that it is erroneous.
This Just In: Dan Rather is a secret vegisexual who has been carrying on an orgiastic, decade-long affair with two turnips, an eggplant, and a wilted bunch of watercress suspected of pro-Saddam sympathies.
We'll run with that until we get "definite proof" to the contrary.
Friday, September 10, 2004
But I'm not hear to smear my opponents with negative innuendo, I'm hear to tear down the officiating with snide snarkyness. Why, oh why, can't the umpires get video replays? I mean, we let them overrule linesmen, who a) 99% of the time are much closer to the ball, and b) singly devoted to a portion of the court from which their eyes may never waver. Yet, we give ultimate veto power to guy in the chair who has to not only watch the entire court, but religiously keep score (except when the Wiliams girls play, and then the whole scoring thing is sort of optional). Time after time we see the nifty t.v. graphic which in a matter of seconds transforms a live shot into a digital reproduction, and even shows a nifty outline of where the ball landed so as to remove any doubt that it's the right call. I mean, it's a frigging computer, it cannot err (my comptuer tells me this is so)!
Anyway, it can't be that difficult or expensive (at least for the Slams) to give the guy or gal in the chair one of these screens and then all s/he has to do is pretend to look at the screen and nod condescendingly "Yes, it was in." This would certainly free up some brain power to do that difficult 4-point scoring routine.
Now, the plagiarism is attributed to "editing mistakes" when the author delegated too much responsibility to his (probably unpaid) assistants. Yet the author bravely takes a stand and states: "There is no one to blame but me," So, eight words taking the blame; over three paragraphs explaining how his assistants screwed up. So, in the Clinton mode of apology, what he reallly means is: "Come now old boy, I mean, it's the fu*king t.a.s who should be sacked. Ruin their future, I am a Harvard fricking professor, okay? Hey look, Stephen Ambrose!"
Thursday, September 09, 2004
By the way, you can go here and read some of Steyn's other obits to see what I mean about his style. Don't miss the farewell to Brando:
In his penultimate moment in the spotlight, [Brando] made the papers a year or two back when it emerged that he and Jack Nicholson had temporarily moved in together. “Get the buttah!” was no longer a roar of sexual liberation to a Parisian bedmate but a reminder to Jack as he headed out to the supermarket.
Telemundo is a wonderful window into so many things. It is exactly, precisely what American television would be if the same guys from the 50s were in control now. I particularly love the requisite eye candy (REC) on every show. Naturally the REC is always blonde. The babes on the soaps, the game shows, and the news are blonde, too. But, look at the cosmetics ads that they show during the soaps: All the women are medium-to-dark skinned with dark hair, the standard Hispanic (and Mediterranean, for that matter) genetic look. Conclusion: The men who watch Telemundo like women with the Norteamericano look; the women, meanwhile, want to see glamorous women who look like them.
Did you watch the Olympics? I did. I'll admit it. When I was a kid, I was an Olympics nerd. I had a scrapbook that I made of Olympic news clippings: The Miracle on Ice, Bill Johnson (Johnston?) stunning the Jean-Claude Killy wannabes at Sarajevo, even Scott Hamilton and Brian Boitano made it (though I was always more of a Kurt Browning kind of guy -- and secure enough in my masculinity to admit it). I missed the LA summer games in 1984 (the games come to our back yard and I end up in Japan for the whole time?) and after that I sort of stopped paying attention. I think it was probably the first "dream team" of men's NBA stars that finally killed the Olympics for me. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was, since this year I cheered for anyone who was beating the U.S. orangeball squad. I do so love it to see the ball-hogging, gangsta-posing, overpaid, cock-walking, $500-hairdo shithead princesses of the NBA get thrashed by (yes, indeed) Argen-f*cking-tina. Beautiful.
Bush: Ditched on Vietnam, but signed up to fly a pretty tough plane for the weekend warriors. Maybe went to some parties, did a little tootski, and missed a Saturday AM muster or two. Hell, he had transfered to the Guard in Alabama, man. I think even the NVA was probably level-headed enough to start somewhere other than 'Bama when (in the great pinko endgame) the tide of Communism swept the world. ("Communist tide, this heeyah the Crimson Tide. Y'all shake hayunds, an' less have a clean game, awright?")
Clinton: Ditched on Vietnam (and lied about it, repeatedly) but signed up, instead, for important Rhodes Scholar duty. Peeked up a lot of miniskirts, smoked some pot (and tried to hedge about that one too).
Now, yes, I know we went over Clinton's draft dodgery extensively in '92. But it was pretty much a dead issue in '96 (and, as has been observed, in '96 Clinton ran against a bona fide war hero). Fair's fair, everybody. You couldn't nail Bush on skipping Vietnam last time, I say he gets a pass this time. Come up with something else.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Friday, September 03, 2004
But Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry were both wearing theirs tonight (I'd spotted Kerry's before; I think he's got a box of them just in case the handler loses one). It just gives of a phony baloney air of superiority that I can't stand, so they've lost any chance of swinging me to their side.
What'll I do if George shows up on the campaign trail tomorrow sporting the yellow badge of courage? Effin' burn my voter registration card, and pour a stiff drink.
Which is why he actually has coverage of the speech and I don't. Sorry.
But I do have some thoughts. About thirty seconds after sitting down with chilled beverage in hand, I turned to the girlfriend and said, "Christ, this going to be a bad speech." Bush was going on about supporting the troops and I was thinking this was just the usual pap that you could expect from any speech and he hadn't upped the ante for the big night. Really, he sounded flat and disinterested, not because he was being disingenuous, but because it was tired language that he has to repeat so often it just becomes hard to get up for it.
Then he started to work up a little of passion. I swear, for a guy who they say can't string two words together without tripping over them, you can really tell when he cares about what he's saying. He's a totally different speaker, and a damn good one. Some will call this a home run (Susan Molinari just called it the speech of his life, which I think is a bit strong. The speech after 9/11 was untoppable) which I'm not sure about. As I said, I missed the first half and the text probably won't cut it. Anyway, we'll see how big a bump he gets.
Everybody, including Chris Matthews is raving about what a great convention the GOP had, and I can't help but thinking that they just had a kick ass time in New York. The convention seemed fairly average to me, though with a few surprises. I thought Arnold was very good, probably the best speech of the week (though I missed Rudy Giuliani, but I read it and it didn't seem that great. I swear I'm not trying to "get over" 9/11 but Arnold did a much better job of speaking in broad strokes about what it means to be a Republican and what a war on terrorism entails). I like the theme of a big tent Republican party, I guess because it better be pretty big if I'm gonna continue to fit under it, and Arnold was a brilliant spokesperson for that party.
Zell Miller was exciting, and a little scary. The Southern preacher role definitely gets your attention, but I'm not sure how much it does to convert right-leaning Democrats who think the Republican party is already overrun by evangelicals. They were probably just shocked that Zell had waited this long to bail out, and I guess I was too. A lot of things changed after the attacks three years ago, and I can understand if that's what made Zell lose touch with his party, but he didn't say that in his speech. He should have made it clear to people that the world is not as safe as we once presumed it was and that there had to be a reevaluation of priorities. Kerry's voting record is important, but what he thought ten or twenty years ago is not as important to me as what he's done and said in the last three. I think Miller could have made a better case if he'd stuck to that. And I think The Ratchet Jaw had him on the ropes in that MSNBC interview, until he let him start punching back. Miller had no answer for Matthews' questioning, even if Matthews never lets anyone answer anyway. He was just filling dead air this time.
So it was a good convention, if he gets a big bump and wins, but a bunch of gasbags preaching to the choir if he doesn't (wouldn't it be more exciting if the Republican convention were attended by nothing but MoveOn.org contributors and the Democratic convention had to address the Christian Coalition? Just a thought.). Either way, my glass is almost empty. Stephen feels my pain.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Did you see their actual exchange? Sure, Miller's a total oddfellow who has barely been a Democrat since his appointment to the Senate. Still, Miller's not the first dude to make some pretty wild claims this cycle. Put it this way: Try to imagine Matthews interviewing a Republican who is suddenly stunningly critical of George W. Bush. Think that fellow would have gotten the third degree? The correct answer is, Chris Matthews would be waking up today with a horrible rug burn on his knees.
I questioned [Miller] about some of his remarks. Knowing what I know about how they vote on Capitol Hill, I tried to get him to talk about how senators all the time, for legislative reasons, vote "No" as a legislative tactic because too much money is being spent, when they couldn't have backed the bill otherwise. This goes for conservatives voting against social programs just as it does for liberals voting against weapons systems.Ah, but have you ever heard Matthews blasting some fruity old socialist for trashing the GOP for voting against social spending by saying, "Oh, those were tactical votes!" Yeah, me neither.
David Brooks is no Paul Gigot. I like Brooks, and I probably agree with his social laissez-faire more than Gigot's rock-ribbed conservatism, and besides, both of them shine next to the ever lumpier, confused, and tongue tied Mark Sheilds (who last night mentioned the famous rebel/actor/nutfudge Dennis "Hooper"). By the next convention, Shields will be able to boast that he is "now 95% jowls." (I loved watching Sheilds seethe with hatred, jowls a-jiggle, when seated next to Karl Rove. You could see the look of disgust on Marky's face as he sniffed at everything Rove said.) Anyhoo, back to Brooks. He always looks a bit embarrassed, like his mother is backstage ready to cuff him for shaming the family. ("My son who could have been a doctor is arguing with this fat goy?")
Mike Beschloss is well informed, but is as strange as Dick's hat. Some of the things he chooses to say ("I just have to say, Gwen, that was a really great transition") must be jokes. But all said deadpan. Plus, the Vulcan ears are creepy. His co-panelist Richard Norton Smith is much easier to listen to, much more of a raconteur. Rounding out the panel, Meena Bose reminds me that I never had a professor I could really lust after, at least not in a French-farcy sort of way. (I was, briefly, infatuated with one in a whip-me-beat-me sort of way.) I think it is the great tragedy of my college years.
Elaine Chao -- who's pretty cute herself -- edged out Liddy Dole for the Sesame Street voice award. (Sing along now: "President Bushie-wushie wants to give us all more training grants! Yay! Job training is gooooood!")
Finally, I could use just a touch less of the commentators remarking on how "staged" the conventions are. Isn't that observation itself getting to be a little staged? Whattya want, smoke-filled rooms with unknown wranglers rolling logs to come up with a nominee? If you want surprises, you've come to the wrong barbecue.
An accursed name to rhyme, Enobarbus --
Discounting the Latinate arbus.
(Though a linguistic push
Can make arbus mean "Bush,"
Such coincidence shouldn't perturb us.)
Think you can do it without the slant rhyme? Be my f*cking guest, bitch.
I hope Interstate can survive the Atkins fad, and maybe one day "riboflavin, niacin, and iron" will be the diet of the day. After all, it's not the greatest bread in the world, but it still has a place for packing a lunch for kids to take with them, wherever they go.
What is more interesting, and as this article shows, is that even under the harshest interpretation of traditional Islamic law, what she did in no way shape or form merited death by hanging. Sex between unmarried people only gets 100 lashes. Sex by a married woman outside of her marriage requires stoning (which has rarely been carried out of late). But this girl gets hanged for her "sharp tongue" and "undressing in court".
Any more questions why they hate us so much?
Which you see...is really very funny. See, it's like a play on the whole word. Sort of like my tongue-in-cheek thing with the word "function" above. This is why we were scientifically selected as one of the most intelligent blogs of all time. Now, let me say further that....
MR. OVITZ HERE: I told Razor to get his cute little ass (easy Geffen, I'm not in your camp all of a sudden) back to the plumbing issues in my new suite and worry less over the technical problems of his worthless posting.
However as the comments section is no-go right now, allow me two quick replies to this Flyer fella (see how they all come out of the woodwork when the Ov-Dog is in the house?): (1) Lattes are for extras getting day-rate scale. Soy chai is for Players. Got it? (2) Use a godforsaken spell-check, man. This blog ain't for pikers anymore. Got that?
"The prosecution wants to try this case. I want to try this case," he said. "However, the victim has informed us after much of her own labored determination that she does not want to proceed. For this reason and this reason only I am dismissing the case."Yeah, and if my 105 pound girlfriend weren't holding me back, I'd come over there and kick your ass. They dropped this case because their victim was looking less and less credible every day. I don't feel sorry for Kobe, and it's cetainly possible that he really did rape her, but this, and the still to come civil suit, are looking like George W.'s hated frivolous law suits. I know the standards for liability in a civil trial are different from those in a criminal trial, but I don't understand how the accuser can expect to get much of a settlement.
Here's the apology Kobe was made to sign as part of the deal for the criminbal case being dropped.
Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said police have unveiled three tactics this week that have raised concerns: quick deployment of orange netting to encircle protesters, undercover scooter patrols and widely used bicycle officers.
Now, again, I'm all for passive restraint of unruly muck-rakers, but doesn't this tactic seem to smack of something, oh, I dunno, slightly primitive?
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
And since I'm the most associate of associate bloggers, I guess I should ask, "Mr. Ovitz, how do you take your latte?"
Dunno who this Enobarbus fellow is. Sounds a bit mid-western to me, what with all the child-rearing and domestic issues. Don't think he'll be at the Vanity Fair party (reminds me, get Harvey some Cubans quick - that'll get a returned phone call).
This place is a real dump, but don't worry readers, I'm about to bring some major fucking value to the table. Heard of "Google", well this is going to make that look like "Boondoggle" (good one Ov, still got it). I got two calls into Bear Stearns; gonna give them major up-front strike level IPO shit.
Well, this keyboard is for crap (anyone ever hear of ergonomics?). Ovitz out.
More succinctly, and without pumping out yet another bromide concerning our turgid, draconian yet mellifluous nature, Monkeygrudge went about scanning both Typepad and Blogspot blogs for their use of a certain set of words which are found at Peter Schmies's Word Classification Test. In the Blogspot world, our humble piece of writing here tied for third. The fatuity of this exercise may seem pellucid, yet we at FauxPolitik take no exiguous degree of gratitude from this reverent praise.