CONTEST: Jill Stewart says that some politicos call the Thursday before an election “Dirty Tricks Thursday.” Man, does she ever have the Dog Trainer over a barrel — if she’s right. After all, that’s the exact day that the Dog Trainer ran the Arnold stinkbomb.
Problem: I ran a Google search with the term “Dirty Tricks Thursday” — and struck out. Every marginally relevant result quoted Jill Stewart.
Bonus points to the first reader who can find evidence of the phrase “Dirty Tricks Thursday” being used before Stewart used the phrase the other day.
Comments Off on CONTEST: Jill Stewart says that
HUMOR TIME: Reader Steve sends some things you shouldn’t say to cops. My favorites include:
I can’t reach my license unless you hold my beer. (OK in Texas)
Are you Andy or Barney?
I thought you had to be in relatively good physical condition to be a police officer.
You’re not gonna check the trunk, are you?
When the Officer says “Gee, Son…. Your eyes look red, have you been drinking?” You probably shouldn’t respond with,”Gee, Officer…. Your eyes look glazed, have you been eating doughnuts?”
Also, Xrlq has a good one.
Comments Off on HUMOR TIME: Reader Steve sends
THE CLINTON KISS OF DEATH: Michael Williams wonders why people are so eager to have Bill Clinton campaign for them. Michael makes a pretty good case (complete with pictures) that you don’t want this guy coming anywhere near you.
Comments Off on THE CLINTON KISS OF DEATH:
THE DOG TRAINER RESPONDS, SORT OF — REDUX: Apropos my post recounting my inquiry to the Los Angeles Dog Trainer regarding the Davis/Arnold double standard: I have received another (I assume final) response. Reader Representative Jamie Gold says:
I’ll put it this way, no one involved with the then-investigations has given the reason Stewart gave for why the investigation didn’t end up in the paper. People here now who investigated it then said just what I told you. Standards on that front haven’t changed — if it’s rumor and nothing that is substantiated enough to run, then it doesn’t run.
I’ll forward your point to John Carroll that you think the paper should address her allegations head-on.
For completeness’ sake, I’ll add that I have received information regarding people who worked on the story, who are now with another publication. I e-mailed both of these fellows on Sunday (October 5) with the same question. No response.
I am guessing this is the end of the line. If anyone thinks John Carroll is going to address this issue, raise your hand.
I see no hands.
Comments Off on THE DOG TRAINER RESPONDS, SORT
HUGH HEWITT CONFUSES ME AGAIN: I don’t understand how Hugh Hewitt can campaign for Weintraub’s independence, and still say: “I find it both amazing and repugnant that Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll permitted his columnist Steve Lopez to describe Arnold as ‘Der Gropenfuhrer.'”
Either you’re for independence or you’re not. It shouldn’t matter whether the particular manifestation of the independence agrees with your politics.
UPDATE: A reader tells me I’m wrong, arguing that the term Gropenfuhrer “seems way over the top, near that area of the law we call slander.”
I agree that it’s way over the top. I emphatically disagree that it is anywhere near slander.
Let’s say that a regular columnist for a newspaper is reacting to the proposal by Mr. N-Word Cruz Bustamante to put price controls on the price of gasoline. The columnist makes reference to “Commissar Cruz” and his “Five-Year Plan” to lower energy prices. You’re the editor. Liberals might scream that the comparison to Stalin, who murdered more people than Hitler, is “way over the top.” But it’s clearly not slanderous, and this is your regular columnist. Do you prevent him from printing this??
Of course not. If you did, there would be a justifiable outcry.
That’s my point.
Comments Off on HUGH HEWITT CONFUSES ME AGAIN:
WILLIE BROWN??????: According to Weintraub, Arnold has named Willie Brown as part of his transition team. (Learned via The Angry Clam.)
Okay, Arnold Supporters. You have shown a remarkable ability to defend this guy on every issue. Defend that.
UPDATE: Sure enough, they’re trying. A reader who voted for Arnold says that naming Brown is “a brilliant move. Do you think it will make the head of the Retaliacrats more or less likely to try to recall Arnold? It’s all about respect, man.”
I think three things. One: in two years, Brown’s criticism of Arnold will be just as wild and unchecked as Ted Kennedy’s rhetoric about Bush. Two: I want the Retaliacrats to try to recall Arnold, because it will kill their party in this state (though I understand why Arnold wouldn’t want that.) Three: to paraphrase my friend The Angry Clam: Willie freakin’ Brown??
But thank you for the use of the term Retaliacrats.
UPDATE x2: By contrast, Bryon Scott is speechless.
UPDATE x3: BoiFromTroy offers a defense here.
Comments Off on WILLIE BROWN??????: According to Weintraub,
ARNOLD AMENDMENT: Orrin Hatch is already proposing the Arnold Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I knew this was coming, but I didn’t know it would be this soon.
YOUR MERETRICIOUSNESS IS SURPASSED ONLY BY YOUR FATUITY: George Will whacks the Arnold supporters and uses a lot of big words in the process. Another fine example of why I really don’t like George Will.
Comments Off on YOUR MERETRICIOUSNESS IS SURPASSED ONLY
THIS TIME, DEFINITELY: The Dog Trainer says that Arnold’s first day was An Encouraging Start because he called the notorious State Sen. John Burton, and intends to get along with him.
Heh. I said the other day that this is all reminding me of when George Bush took office and pledged to “change the tone in Washington.” He spent a lot of time trying to make nice with Senator Ted “Killer” Kennedy. That worked out real well. Just the other day, Kennedy showed how much the tone had changed with his comment that the justification for the Iraq war “was made up in Texas . . . This whole thing was a fraud.”
Yeah, but it’ll be different with Arnold.
Comments Off on THIS TIME, DEFINITELY: The Dog
STEVE LOPEZ: YOU REALLY NEED TO READ STEVE LOPEZ: Apparently trying to earn his $300,000 a year, Dog Trainer
blatherer columnist Steve Lopez is writing four columns this week, instead of his usual three. Clearly, this man feels it’s very important that you know what he has to say.
How important? So important that you’re going to hear his opinion whether you want to or not.
Today, Lopez says he may win $100 in some kind of election pool. (By the way, it’s “quite a spectacle” to see Lopez “so delirious” over the possibility of winning $100, given that his annual salary is 3000 times that amount.) If Lopez wins the pool, he says he’s buying copies of the Dog Trainer for the people who canceled their subscriptions because of the Arnold stinkbomb. Lopez recounts his daydream of his unwanted columns forced onto the front porches of the unwilling:
Every day, another one lands on their doorstep.
Day after day after day.
They voted, at least. Don’t they deserve the best coverage available?
They sure do, Steve. They sure do.
That’s why they canceled.
But why stop with free papers? With the kind of jack Lopez is pulling in, he could afford to hire some guys with bullhorns and place them on a dozen major intersections in the city, shouting Lopez’s wisdom at confused passersby. Or Lopez could hire teams of skywriters to belch his thoughts across the firmament (somewhere behind the smog) — every Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday.
Steve Lopez has something to say. And you are going to listen.
Comments Off on STEVE LOPEZ: YOU REALLY NEED