Patterico's Pontifications

4/9/2007

Bob Clark – The Final Interview

Filed under: Miscellaneous,Movies — Justin Levine @ 9:13 pm

[posted by Justin Levine] 

I opened up this week’s L.A. Weekly tonight and got a chill down my spine. Unbeknownst to me, this week’s edition features the final interview with director Bob Clark who (along with his son) was killed last week by an (illegal alien) drunk driver.

The interview was conducted just 4 days before his death and was actually being put to press right around the time of his fatal accident. (The LA Weekly website has put up an extra page concerning Clark’s death that is not found in this week’s printed edition.)

The person speaking with Clark in the interview? None other than director Quentin Tarantino – who sings Clark’s praises. (I completely forgot that Clark had directed the kick-ass B-flick Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things.)

Given Taratino’s own praise for him, this interview clearly would have kicked Clark’s career back up into high gear had he lived.

What a waste…

Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 7)

Filed under: Accepted Wisdom,Environment — Justin Levine @ 6:44 pm

[posted by Justin Levine]

In case you haven’t come across it already, Professor Richard S. Lindzen’s views are worth a close read. In the current ‘climate’, he should be commended for speaking up.

DontDateHimGirl.com defamation lawsuit tossed

Filed under: Court Decisions — Justin Levine @ 3:31 pm

[posted by Justin Levine] 

I have long predicted that this case would be tossed out of court – but I didn’t necessarily think it would be on a personal jurisdiction issue. I figured that the absolute protections from the Communications Decency Act would preclude liability. However, the court made the choice not to hear the merits of the case (or lack thereof).

Oh well. I’ll still take the win in the ‘being psychic’ contest (Not that it was a tough prediction though).

[Hat-tip: How Appealing]

Howard K. Stern destroys his reputation

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Buffoons,Current Events — Justin Levine @ 1:31 pm

[posted by Justin Levine] 

Many in the media have suggested that Howard K. Stern was an “enabler” in terms of Anna Nicole Smith’s drug abuse. Others have speculated that he may have directly caused the death of Anna Nicole. But that charge is nothing compared to the damage that Stern has done to his own reputation by hiring attorney Lin Wood – a man who has made a legal career out of filing frivoulous defamation lawsuits.

Memo to Stern:  If you actually care what the media says about you, then simply make yourself accessible to outlets other than Entertainment Tonight and tell the truth to the best of your recollection. Hiring Wood indicates that you have a lot to hide and that you are determined to try and bully the media into silence and submission.

This is my favorite part of Wood’s statement (I can’t help but chuckle every time I read it):

To those considering making future false accusations against Mr. Stern, please consider the following advice: don’t do it. You are not immune from suit if you are not a member of the traditional media. Redress for false attacks on reputation is available for Internet accusations as well as those published in print or uttered on television and radio broadcasts.
   …
And to those who believe that Mr. Stern is hesitant to bring suit and thereby open up his life on cross examination during the discovery process, you are wrong. Mr. Stern has nothing to hide and he correctly views civil litigation not only as the forum for obtaining accountability for wrongdoing, but also as a forum for the public to learn the truth.

Why chose a courthouse as a “forum for the public to learn the truth” when you have unprecedented access to the media (in both traditional and new forms)? I don’t believe that Stern caused the death of Anna Nicole. But given his status as a public figure, his incessant need to be around Anna Nicole, and the fact that some of the prescription medications were reportedly in Stern’s name, it is not unreasonable for people to speculate about Stern’s role in recent events. 

It is similar to the Jon-Bennet Ramsey situation. I ultimately don’t believe that the Ramsey’s had anything to do with their daughter’s death – but I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to speculate about what may have happened. Wood also represented the Ramseys in their attempts to browbeat the media. The way the Ramseys reacted to the media speculation and investigation ultimately did more to harm their reputations – not less. (It goes without saying that this same dynamic also applied to Wood’s client Gary Condit in relation to the death of Chandra Levy.)

The forum to redress unfounded speculation is the public sphere – not a courtroom. In a world with the blogosphere and unprecedented access to mass communication for the masses, the reckless gossip does more harm to his or her own reputation, rather than the target of their speculation.

So says I. So endeth the sermon.

TPMmuckraker nonsense in the Clement Note

Filed under: General — WLS @ 1:29 pm

I wasn’t going to post this as a note of its own, but in adding to Patterico’s note below about Paul Clement, the TPM entry today contains this little nugget of nonsense:

That means Clement was in charge of personnel decisions relating to Monica Goodling (in other words, it was his call to make her the first ever DoJ official to stay on the payroll after pleading the Fifth) …..

Huh????

That is like saying 2+2 = 22. 

Goodling consulted a vary prominent and “wise in the ways of Washington” power attorney named John Dowd. 

Fresh off the Scooter Libby conviction, Dowd knew better than to let his client walk into a Senate Committee Hearing where all the cards are not on the table, and begin answering questions under circumstances where others at DOJ have been talking to members of the Senate behind closed doors about what his client has said or done. 

Goodling’s attorney then sends a letter announced that Goodling will not answer questions voluntarily, and if subpoenaed she will assert her rights under the Fifth Amendment.

 Since it is senior officials back at DOJ about whom she believes may have placed her in legal jeopardy necessitating the taking of the Fifth, she takes a leave of absence rather than return to work. 

 And this is all Clement’s doing/fault because …….  ?? 

 Only in left-wingnut’s mind.

What I suspect Goodling did was take a leave of absence with pay — the pay being her unused vacation time.  An employee with her service time would accumulate 4 hours of vacation time per pay period (26 pay periods per year), for a total of 13 vacation days. 

 A DOJ employee can accumulate up to 240 hours of unused vacation time — a total of 6 weeks — if they don’t use their annual allotment of vacation time each year.

 Dowd sent a letter stating Goodling’s intention to assert her Fifth Amendment rights on March 26, 2007, and at the same time began her leave of absence.

She resigned from her position with DOJ on April 6, 2007.

The period between the two events is 10 days.  

 Seems likely to me that she probably had 10 days unused vacation to cover that period of time given that she worked for DOJ for 5 years, druing which time she would have accumulated 65 days of vacation time.

 Frankly, I expect more from TPMmuckraker — I probably shouldn’t.

  

  

The Latest Travesty

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:40 am

The U.S. Attorney Scandal keeps getting worse and worse. TPMmuckraker Rakes some real Muck with the revelation that the Solicitor General, who is currently in charge of the investigation, is Paul Clement — who (drum roll) clerked for Scalia!

Are there no depths to which these Bushies won’t sink?!


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2145 secs.