About the only person who hasn't heard that Senator Hillary Clinton isn't running for President in 2004 is Newsmax.com's Carl Limppecker. The limp, clownish one is still touting his book thusly: "In Hillary�s Scheme Limbacher makes dozens of new revelations: ... Why Hillary is running in 2004, and not 2008." Limppecker's perfect record on accuracy remains unbroken.
Turns out Little Mick isn't quite the cunning bi-linguist he imagined himself. Mick has revealed himself to be monolingual as well as monobrowed. Says Poco Miquito :
But it seems very possible at least that the importation of a nasty reference to "those outside the race"--e.g., non-Chicanos--was unwarranted. I've corrected the text and appended updates below.
Gee, doesn't it suck when your prejudices are unfounded?
One wonders about the type of interaction our Southern California friend has with his Spanish-speaking fellow citizens on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, Kausfiles readers will learn much more about buying porn on eBay than they will about Arnold S.'s recent and not-quite repudiated ties to Kurt Waldheim. I hear Waldheim's old organization had some interesting slogans too, Mick.
Speaking of strange book reviews, like the one of Joe Conason's Big Lies in the New York Times (insightfully critiqued by Jesse Taylor here, the Washington Post also has a strange review of Joe's book.
The first four paragraphs are taken up with a point that could be covered in one sentence: "Joe Conason is a self-proclaimed liberal."
The reviewer, someone I have never heard of, drops this bombshell at paragraph four:
A reader's reaction to any politically partisan book -- Conason's, Alterman's, Michael Moore's, Coulter's, Limbaugh's -- is bound to depend on his or her worldview.
You think? How about jocks: Do they like P.E. more than the unathletic kids? Do rich landowners like capital gains tax cuts more than unemployed vagrants?
After four paragraphs of this crap, the reviewer gets to the meat of the book ... but not really. Instead he says Conason should have interviewed Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter, even though it's doubtful they'd talk to him. And then the reviewer says, "granted, the book's credibility would be heightened if Conason spent more space examining the alleged hypocrisy and lies of, say, Bill Clinton." But, really, how much more credibility would the book have if Conason just put a new title on The Hunting Of The President? I'm guessing not much.
The reviewer does allow that Joe's book is more civil and thoughtful than the crap put out by Coulter and O'Reilly, but that's a given. In all, there's little description of specifics and nothing to make the book sound particularly interesting. It's a positive review, but entirely inconsequential. Post readers would have been better served with a thorough description of what's in the book, not a bunch of gripes about what's not in it.
Not surprisingly, the Worst Action Hero lacks the courage to address the citizens of California he wants to govern.
For purely personal reasons, I couldn't be more thrilled that Arnold is dodging this debate.
I love a good summer cliffhanger, all hype and no peril: Will the Borg destroy the Enterprise and its crew before there are enough reruns for syndication? Which second-tier character actor without a long-term contract shot J.R.? Will one of the Friends do something uninteresting with/to/on another one of the Friends next season?
But this summer has a real-life cliffhanger, one no less unimportant and no more uninteresting than the Hollywood ones.
When last visited St. Sully, he was agonizing about whether to dump the Catholic Church:
But I also need some time and space for spiritual reasons. It's hard to describe the agony gay Catholics are now in; and I'm facing a pretty major life-decision. In this, you need quiet to listen to God and pray sincerely for his help in the struggle to maintain a good conscience and lead a moral life. From your emails, I know I am not in this alone, and I'll be praying hard for all of us in this storm, pro and con, to find God's will for us, whatever it is.
Is Sully's agony real? Who knows? Did the Catholic Church turn anti-gay just this year? Of course not.
Will Sully produce some long-winded, self-indulgent blog version of the 95 Theses? We can only hope.
Meanwhile, since Sully is so adept at compartmentalizing his crises of conscience, he's certain to overlook the fact that his Eagle, "Ah-nuld," proudly used the slur "fag" in the swingin' Seventies, and currently opposes gay marriage (at least for homosexuals). I guess that does qualify Arnold S. as a "pro-gay, hard-ass Republican." But Sully can struggle over that one suddenly next summer.
Here's a bit of non-traditional casting: Welshman Anthony Hopkins as American professor Coleman Silk in the film adaptation of The Human Stain. Funny, Hopkins does look Bluish, a least on the poster. (Maybe they changed his character's name to Coleman Smurf.) I guess if Sir Tony can pass as Nixon, anything is possible.
Nicole Kidman co-stars as a janitor with cleavage.
I saw a werewolf with a Chinese RPG launcher in his hand
Walking through the streets of Baghdad in the heat
He was looking for a place called Qusay�s Bierhalle
Going to get himself a big glass of VX, neat
Werewolves of Saddam
If you hear old Rummy lyin� about quagmire
Better not question him
The truth got mutilated again last night
Werewolves of Saddam again
(ah-oooo)
Werewolves of Saddam
He's the hoary-headed gent who once called Saddam �friend�
Recently he calls all Bush critics �traitors�
Better not seek truth from him
He'll lie to your fat face, Tim
His policy is a failure
(ah-oooo)
Werewolves of Saddam
Well, I saw Dick Cheney lying through his teeth
Doing the Werewolves of Saddam
I saw Dick Cheney, Jr. choking on a pretzel
Doing the Werewolves of Saddam
I saw Condoleezza drinking a pina colada with Gwen Ifill
Her press was ... perfect
(ah-oooo)
Werewolves of Saddam
(Apologies to Warren Zevon, who is deservedly No. 1.)
Why was Representative Bill Janklow (R-S.D.) allowed to drive with a record like his? I still don't see a purely political angle in this, but the reporting to date makes it clear that Janklow's arrogance and utter contempt for the safety of others made this kind of tragedy inevitable.
Janklow has gotten more than a dozen speeding tickets in recent years, state records show, and has been involved in at least eight accidents in the past 10 years. In the past, he has made light of his driving habits. His penchant for speed, in a state of vast distances and empty country roads, has been part of his political mystique.
If the facts alleged are proven, Janklow needs to spend some substantial time behind bars, contemplating the seriousness of his crime. He also needs to resign.
The contempt in which the Moonie Times holds its readers is a beautiful and humorous thing to behold. Here's part of an editorial from today's rag, bashing General Wesley Clark.
Mr. [sic] Clark's evasiveness regarding his Democratic Party affiliations is troubling, but his ignorance of American politics is more disturbing. Last week on ''Crossfire,'' Mr. Clark said: "The majority of the people in this country really aren't affiliated with parties, they're independent." This is dead wrong. Three-quarters of the voters register as Republicans or Democrats, and another five percent or so belong to minor parties. Four out of five voters identify themselves as partisans because they embrace the particular set of political ideals for which their chosen party stands. They grasp something that apparently eludes the general: Politics is about principles.
In the November 2000 national election, there were 205,815,000 Americans of voting age. Of that number, 156,421,311 were registered voters. In other words, approximately 76 of the voting age public is registered to vote. If every one of the 105,586,274 voters who cast a vote in the 2000 Presidential election was a partisan (that is, registered with a party), only 51 percent of voting age Americans cast a partisan vote in the 2000 election. If we use the Moonie figure of 80 percent partisans, however, only 84,469,019, or 41 percent, of voting age Americans cast a partisan vote in the 2000 national election. (And that assumes all partisans voted for the presidential candidate of the party they were registered for.)
80 percent of all voters may be registered with a political party, but those that can't be bothered to vote are hardly partisan, much less principled, as the Moonie rag would have us believe. The Moonie rag counts non-voting party members as principled while simultaneously characterizing Americans who vote but don't join a political party as "mercenaries." Of course, a cult would consider those who refuse to join a group as dangerous deviants.
Now, I am very partisan, and think partisanship is a good thing. But that doesn't mean refusal to join a political party cannot be a principled position. And membership in a political party doesn't confer any principles -- just look at the members of the Republican party.
The Moonie rag also overlooks the fact that some portion of voters who register with a party don't do so because of the "political ideals" of the party, but rather for personal gain (such as a patronage job) or because of family influence or other factors.
One could attribute the Moonie Times' smear of General Clark to a disturbing ignorance of American politics. But the Moonies know exactly what they're doing -- crafting fraudulent talking points their suckers readers can spread like a highly-contagious veneral disease.
Note: The above figures are only approximate, since they do not take into consideration the unknown number of Democrats who had their votes stolen.
"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force." -- August 28, 1963
Thursday evening, Neil steps out to officially represent the presidential family at the George H.W. Bush/Kiwanis Sports Hero Award dinner hosted by the Kiwanis Club of Houston. The award recognizes high school athletes from the Greater Houston area and from Rice University and the University of Houston.
Why else would Kaus be so obsessed with the sale of a used porn magazine. (And who the hell would buy a used porn magazine?)
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law....
Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.
The elements of a valid cause of action of abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: it is the malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. The person bringing the suit is only interested in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the object of the process and which offends justice such as unjustified arrests, criminal procecutions, subpoenas to testify, attachmentsto property, executions on property, garnishments and other provisional remedies can be considered to be capable of abuse.
A lawsuit is termed frivolous if it is brought in spite of the fact that both the plaintiff and his lawyer knew that it had no merit and it did not argue for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law or no underlying justification in fact based upon the lawyer's due dilligence investigation of the case before filing (i.e. the well known U.S. Federal Rule 11). Since it wastes the court's and the other people's time, resources and legal fees, it may result in sanctions being levied by the court upon the party or the lawyer who brings the action.Bill O'Reilly:
Even O'Reilly conceded that "we never thought we were going to win the lawsuit. We wanted to expose the vicious tactics being used by the far left."
Discuss.
Outsider Mr. Schwarzenegger depends substantially on Sacramento insiders from Pete Wilson Inc. He also pledges to clean up Sacramento. But one of the state's biggest scandals involved insurance companies that failed to pay legitimate earthquake claims. They gave hush money to Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, who resigned in disgrace. And, you guessed it, Mr. Schwarzenegger hired the culprits.
I'm guessing that it's the interracial sex that's got Wes Pruden and the Neo-Con gang soiling their sheets.
Once again, California leads the nation... absent confirmation of those Skull & Bones rumors.
Ever wonder why ultralightweight girly-boys like Rich Lowry and Lucianne Goldberg Jr. pop up so often on CNN's Reliable Whore-ses? Could it have something to do with the fact that Howie Kurtz is in bed with their National Review colleague? Eric Alterman reports:
Want to hire a conservative �media strategist� who is married to the most famously conflicted of interest reporter in America? Meet Mrs. Kurtz. I don�t suppose there�s any conflict in letting Howie cover the California recall candidate his wife happened to work for and is now plugging in National Review. Nahh. (Now if Howie would just quit the Post and go to work for National Review�for whose editors he has been acting as a defacto media promoter anyway�that would solve everything. But there�s always the matter of back pay�.)Of course, there's nothing wrong with Howie marrying a right-winger. Karl Rove surely gave the union his blessing. The problem is Howie's pretense of objectivity.
Take, for example, Howie's plo-chob of Arnie S.'s media managers on the August 17 Reliable Sources
KURTZ: Paul Farhi, let's face it: the press has just been dazzled by the Arnold campaign. And so for example, one day last week doesn't answer any questions but they put out word that Rob Lowe, the actor, is joining the campaign. Everybody writes about that. So how does he get away with it?
FARHI: Well, you're talking, first of all, about the smartest media manager candidate in a long time.
KURTZ: In recorded history, perhaps.
It beats begging for sex, Howie says.
Significantly, weasel-boy Kurtz did not disclose his wife's past media management work for Arnold during the program. (He did mention it on the program the week before, but hid the conflict on the 17th.)
Howie went on to complain that the San Francisco Chronicle reported Arnold's gleeful comment about shoving a female actor's face into a toilet, as part of a film role. That's not a campaign issue, Howie whined.
Meanwhile, I can't find Howie mentioning Arnold in his online Washington Post column. Has the Post muzzled Howie? That question could be interesting fodder for Howie's next online chat, coming September 2.
David Neiwert has a report on all the cranks, neo-Confederates and anti-Semites (including Mel Gibson's dad) in the crowds at an August 23 Montgomery rally in support of Judge Moore.
With friends like that, Roy Boy might as well whip it out and start hosing down the Ten Commandments with his own urine.
