Let's Pick On A Different Law Professor for a Change.

Don't remember his name. Don't care. Anyway this guy is a conservative, and we all know there is no excuse at all for that kinda shit! None!

Anyway, I guess he's popular in that strange clique of right wing law professors.

Now the reason I am bothering with this for a post is I am ignoring Weiner's resignation. For now. But seriously. He posted some weird own back-slapping post about how he predicted the result in the WI Union Busting case.

Ok. Well kudos to you. (That's meant as sarcasm.) Given the politics of the situation, and that lots if not most people would have bet that outcome, doing the Smurf dance over that one is sorta disproportionate to the alleged victory.

Anyway here's the sick little follow up. Here.

I call it sick because after the first self back-slap, he got a comment from some visitor tsk tsking him for "spiking the football," and in doing so, not coming across as dignified as one might expect from a law professor. His reply to that was adding the stupid little dancing cartoon critter vid. In of itself, that's not really sick. But getting all excited over that guess (since it really was a low hanging fruit kind of thing, really) is as excessive a thing as an elaborate End Zone dance by a pro football running back who plowed through a line of Pop Warner kids, to make the score. Shit. I am pretty sure I have seen such a thing (by analogy) in some comedy movies. Or episodes of The Simsons. Likely both.

Now if he had picked the trifecta for all three legs of the Triple Crown? Ya. That would be impressive. Shit. Even picking the trifecta for one of the legs would generate genuine kudos. But this shit? Let me try another analogy. It's like stealing candy from a baby and then declaring oneself to be a criminal mastermind.

It's sorta pathetic, actually. Even if meant as funny. Still sorta pathetic.

But hey. I did say he was a conservative. I am not going to say all of them are like that. But most seem to have complicated alternative realities. Seems.





And YES. I have seen that Weiner is out. I am sorta sad to see him go, mostly because he was so effective at sticking it to the GOP pig-dogs. And of course, that's why he was targeted by the pig-dogs. And since he did not really make any friends there in Congress, seems he had to stand alone. Guess that's a harsh reality to have to own up to. So now that this thing (seems to be) is over, I will admit this much.

I over played the "they are ratfucking him" line, early on. Little did I know then, that he had made it so easy for them to get him (a Clinton sized ego for a lesser man, seems.) It was as if he placed the "Kick Me," sign on his own back, for crying out loud. He made a series of mistakes that rate up there with Gary Hart!

But I am particularly saddened that the GOP pig-dogs get a congressional scalp, not for official misconduct, but for what is essentially the non-crime of being a hetero male with a pulse, a twitter account, and a fancy phone, and the bad judgment that often goes with that territory. Ya he lied. But most people are dishonest (or at least not exactly forthcoming) about their sex lives and drives at some time, if not most of the time. That's part of being human. I wanted to forgive him. But he was hurting the party. So good luck in your future endeavors, Mr. Weiner. And like they say at the bar at closing time, you don't have to go home, but ya can't stay here.

Not Exactly Quickies. Weinergate, and Palin + Revere Apologists, and There's No Crying in Baseball.

Worst part of the Weinergate scandal at this point, beyond the fact his schumckyness has now made him a limp advocate for the party (yea, I went there,) is not that I feel 'played.' I gave him every benefit of the doubt and now there's no doubt. Paraphrasing what some Frenchman said about the Clinton Monica thing? All the blame and shame but with out having real sex? What was the point? Anyway, yes now we know more about yet another politician's silly pseudo, in this case, sex life. But that leads to the answer. The sight of Breitbart taking his victory lap was truly sickening. Mr. Weiner. I'm sad you lied. I'm mad you gave that career ratfucker even a pyrric victory.

And about his "Vindication?" As what? As a scumbag? I want to say I have never seen a scumbag so self-pleased for doing no more than being a scumbag since Larry Flint won his case at the Supreme Court. But that would be too much of an insult to Larry Flint.

Anyway, Weiner's got worries, still. The House Ethics investigation means this shit is not going to go away any time soon. And given timing, election season will be here again before you know it. And that leads to the other bit. I heard today on my local NPR station that NY is losing two congressional seats. And no one in Congress (so I heard) seems to be in Weiner's corner. So his current district could get lost, be eliminated, go poof like a puff of smoke. Well He can still run for Mayor. Horn Dog (real or virtual) status should not hurt. But it's the liar part that needs to be managed.

Moving on to the Palin + Revere apologists (and Ann Althouse is in the club house, drinking that Kool Aid as well,) Geeze Louise people! Saying Paul Revere warned the Brits is like saying Kahlid Sheik Mohammed became a cooperative informant . . . after he was water boarded.

Did any of these people think to read Revere's own account? Before we go there, let's cover the basics. His mission clearly was not to communicate with the British. His mission included the directive, avoid the British. Avoid capture. And aww shucks, he got captured. And the Brit officer pulled a gun on him and threatened to shoot him in the face.

What sort of fucked up mind can take that, said that way, or even in Revere's own words, and take away from that as a factoid that Revere "warned" the British? If he was able to stick to the plan and avoid contact with or capture by the British, his mission would have been a complete success. Fact he got captured and said anything at all is perversely celebrating the failure aspect of his mission. And that is very fucked up thinking. Oh. And need I say the account of what he said to the Brits in his own word, and the disturbed Christmas tree lights knotted-ball of confusion ejaculated by Skulls Palin, Cyborg Decoy Unit are worlds apart?

Oh. And she called the question, a day or more later, a gotcha question. Now I did see the vid from "Morning Joe" where they ridiculed her for her, as one panelist said, thinking/saying any question she did not handle well was her definition for what is a gotcha question. That's the tame joke. Reality is any question that makes her have to think on her feet, make that think at all, is for her, a gotcha question. She really is that weak a thinker, I am sure.

Last thoughts before I head for the exit. The meme that she has been treated unfairly, such as Ms. Althouse suggested, and that craptastic documentary allegedly whines and drones on and on about? I call bullshit.

Let me explain my metaphor. It's fairly common to refer to the grid and being on the grid. I take it further and a little geekier, as in the Tron movies they specifically talk about the Game Grid. And when I say Game Grid I mean that virtual space where politics, and entertainment and media over lap. And if one chooses to try to make a living on the Game Grid, they should know that it can and will get rough there time to time. No one has to like you on the Game Grid. And one way or another one is dealing with competitors, if not rivals, on that grid.

Remember that line from the movie, A League of Their Own, that says,"There's no crying in baseball?" Well there is not a hard and fast rule that says there's no crying on the Game Grid. But if you are one to cry over a little metaphoric body contact, you don't belong on the Grid.

Confession. I never was a full on jock kid. But I played street hockey. I joke and say it was an excuse for pubescent boys to hit each other with sticks. It was a little more than that. But I loved me some, giving some hits.

So Weiner Really Does Have Bad Judgment . . .

It might not really be adultery, but it's particularly bad as in embarrassing bad, considering he's a virtual newlywed. Go Here.

But now it makes sense. First let me go back and review what I said a few days ago.

"I think something is being held back, something potentially embarrassing."

Not that that was prescient of me. There must have been millions thinking that, at the same time I decided that was the case, last week.

So Weiner did some on line flirting and sexting and phone sex? Again, ordinary sex/relationship-life stuff. But now we know what he meant (minimally, as there could be more play pals out there) when he said he hoped his marriage would survive.

Now this does not prove that he lied about the original scandal. But it does prove he's a schmuck.

I was hoping that if there was any details of such silly sports, it would have been from before he got married, at least. Schmuck!

And I Was Just Thinking, Wishing Breitbart Would Contract, Get Some Horrible, Painful Disease.

You know. Because wishing ill on truly evil people is allowed. And all.

So I saw somewhere today (Mediate) that Breitbart posted that he has access to some private communications between Weiner and some other woman. And in Breitbart's twisted evil words, the existence of these things casts doubt on Weiner's version of the Twitter thing.

Ya. As if the mere fact I had a hook up with Alice means I lied about never hooking up with Jane. Ya. Right. Fucking evil liar. (I know I have been very cuss happy lately. I think I have been overdosing on trollish, scummy right wingers. And I don't even fight them on line anymore. I guess my net consumption of right wing shit is hitting the toxic level. I need a break soon!)

Anyway, Breitbart's drill down into Weiner's love/relationship-life brings to mind something I was thinking about on Friday, or some time recently. The whole, 'This is Your Sex Life, as Public Entertainment,' thing, is really one of the more vile, sickest things about our society. Ya. Most everyone has a weakness for a little schadenfreude, particularly when you don't like the person in question. And humans love them some gossip. And rubber necking too. But the sex/love life thing is a twisted version of all those things. It really is like the reaction particularly men get when they see, particularly in a comedy, some other guy get banged in the nuts. On one level we all think, "Fucking ouch! That's gotta hurt." But on the other level, it's all,"Ha Ha. That was not me."

Now that is only part of what I was thinking about the other day. I was imagining a press conference where a politician sucked into a sex scandal turned, in a way, the tables on the press by saying something like:

Imagine if we were not talking about my sex and or love life. Imagine if it was yours? Imagine if the details of your first fumbling sexual experience were all of a sudden declared news of the day? How about that time, and I say for example, only, you had too much too drink and woke up in bed with the wrong person? How about a list of all the people you ever had a crush on? How about if the three worst relationships of your life, were granting interviews and spilling out not only the truth about some of the details of your sex life, but mixed that up with so many lies there would be no way to separate truth from fiction with out furthering your embarrassment? Even so, if you are in a perfectly nice relationship, a normal ordinary relationship, imagine how you would feel if your partner started talking about the thousand and one little detials that make up the intimate part of your life, sexual or not? How would you like being confronted about that, by strangers, having the intimate bits of you life serving as entertainment for the public? Well?

No, I am not saying there is no place for such stories particularly from and about politicians. But there is a line. Adultery? Hmm ok. Sex crimes? Hmmm ok. Ya get arrested for what you do, then that is definitely up for public consumption. Messing with the help? That's newsworthy, particularly when tied in with adultery and such scandalous shit. And catching someone in obvious hypocrisy? Ya. If you actually do what you run around saying is bad, that's fair game. But the normal stupid details of a person's sex life? And in this day and age the Internet is often part of that? Well that really should be considered out of bounds, unless it really is otherwise newsworthy.

I am not saying there ought to be a law against it. But when someone like a Breitbart goes out there digging into someone else's sex life only to embarrass them, in some rat fucking, dirty tricks campaign? Well if we can't arrest the fucker, at least we can wish ill upon them, and without guilt.

More Weinergate Dirt. We Have Sorta Confirmation of a Conspiracy to Rat Fuck. And Possibly Other Crimes.

Tommy Christopher, one of the editors over at Mediaite, has posted a lengthy bit about how he has been trying to get to the bottom of the story, and the related back stories. He gives no new details about the core incident, but there was a lot of weird strange shit going down. And oddly enough, the point of entry for this journey seems to be Tommy Christopher's weak-assed lame-o-rama defense of Breitbart. Getting ahead of myself, yes Tommy. You are not a lawyer. That much is clear.

Anyway, here's the piece.

The writer seems to think it is all so important that Breitbart did not run the names or pictures of the two teens sucked in to the maelstrom of this story. In fact, a large part of his story is over that point. The writer even posts some tedious exchange between him and Markos of the famous Daily Kos. At one point during his efforts to get Markos to redact or delete names/pictures/whatever from Kos' comments section (reader submitted stuff,) the writer says,"There could be legal implications, I’m not a lawyer."

Ok. Let me deal with this part. I am not an expert in this field of law. For lack of a better label, let's call it Privacy Law. Far as I know there is no general rule that says identities of minors who get involved, deliberately or not, in scandal or conspiracy, or other kind of crime are due blanket protection. In many states Juvenile Criminal Proceedings, including the arrest report, are protected by release by the state. (Now I have experience in that stuff, as I used to do juve crim. defense work, in another life.) But that does not equal a global protection of minors-rule. So Tommy Christopher may have personal reasons for his belief that the kids names/pictures/what not should have been redacted. However I really doubt there is some law that requires that. (I am allowing for the possibility of some local law where the kids live that could go there. I doubt that, sincerely and with reason.)

So I find that part of the writer's story dead stupid, particularly as most of the shit concerning these teens was already posted on the Internet. So that skinny cat was already out of the bag. And it was posted elsewhere by one of the creepy wingnut ratfuckers. So I mean really? I did not get too much into Breitbart there, but Tommy's defense of his mostly obnoxious, and irresponsible conduct seems to be based on the fact that Breitbart did not disclose the already public and published names/pictures/what not of the girls. Excuse me? That's like praising the puppy for not eating the table leg, after you catch it shitting on the carpet. That is what I mean in calling this defense weak-assed and lame-o-rama.

Now for my case against Breitbart. Firstly, he is not only a known and proven and proud ratfucker. That's most of what he does. He might be an independent contractor, but he's a hit man, dirty trickster for the Right Wing. That's the base line. He deserves contempt for merely being the despicable person he chooses to be, and for doing out in the world what he chooses to do. He gets tipped off about this story (the one about the picture, if not the other allegations,) and from the get go, it reeks of a rat fuck. But its sexy, and salacious, and it badly, as in harshly rat fucks a rising star in the Democratic Caucus. So the ever so irresponsible ratfucker runs the rat fuck story, and then goes on TV and blabs about the innuendo. Now no matter what he actually knew when he first went on TV and blabbed the innuendo, and said there was more going on there with under aged girls, he was really way the fuck out there with his own rat fucking. That wasn't even gossiping. That was fanning the defamatory flames without proper evidence. And (I'm not sure of the timeline here,) if he already had reason to believe that his sources were not sincere and trustworthy, his performance on TV is even more contemptible.

Do I think we have the slightest bit of evidence of a crime here by Breitbart? At this point, no. And given the high standard for defamation of a public person? Any case by Rep. Weiner is at best dicey. Actual malice, or at least reckless disregard of the truth are the standards. In theory I think that can be proven in front of a jury. Hard part in a defamation case is getting it in front of a jury even when it's not a public person under the lesser burden. So I do not think any praise is due to Breitbart. His conduct was as slimy and awful as it has ever been, seems to me.

Now I have gone long here, and I am looking for the way out. So I will wrap up by saying that it seems to me there is a criminal conspiracy here between the people who were harassing the young girls during their attempt to rat fuck Weiner. (I won't get into the details but I think we can get there, as far as the crime is concerned, under the Fed. wire fraud statute.) And I mean the conspiracy was to rat fuck Weiner. I hope to see some arrests soon. Likewise, but to a lesser degree, the one girl who deliberately made up shit about Rep. Weiner? Not likely criminal, but she is one fucked up child (but come to think of it, there are some interesting theories of conspiracy. But for now let's say not a criminal.) Likely is no need for state involvement there, but I think some professional therapy is required. Wanting attention that bad that one would make shit up that could ruin a person's reputation? Honey, this ain't a movie starring young Lindsey Lohan. That sort of conduct is the product of a disturbed mind. So fix it.

That's all for now.

I've Never Spent This Much Time Thinking About Another Man's Junk.

Not that that is the part I have been thinking about. But ya know? That song, "Dick in a Box," has been stuck in my head for the past few days. Just saying.

But seriously, I think (hope) he did not do it and lie about it. Again, I really can't imagine him being so reckless in even posting such a pic to an on line hosting account and therefore, an array of redundant servers, that could be directly traced back to him. Never mind the sending a link to anyone else, part. And he has denied being the "sender." I will try to keep on taking him at his word for that part.

But his dissembling? I think there's something there that he knows and is holding back, that although does not change the core question, that is if he did not do it and has not been lying about it, such truth is something else potentially scandalous.

I am not going to speculate about the nature of that possible scandal. But I think something is being held back, something potentially embarrassing. I posted the short version of my theory yesterday afternoon on my fb page. I did not fill in the blank there. I will not here. I will just say . . . waiting for the smoke to clear, here.

UPDATE:

Good theory. Question is not only is this basically all that went down, and or whether or not the "hacker/prankster" has more and/or "more naughty" pix? But one of the writers at Mediaite speculates whether this was done by a former "associate" of the Rep?

I had been thinking along the similar lines, since yesterday. But I still wonder if that is all there is? Is there more to the story, or is it more of a matter that there's some kind of Mexican Standoff between the Rep. and his prankster? Or does the story get more salacious?

Seems to me my rat fuck theory is holding up. But this might not be a political rat fuck. It might be personal. He did recently get married? Is there some disgruntled ex out there?

Hey! It could be both personal and political. For all we know!

Some Quickies.

I call bullshit, on the people in the Alaska government who are printing the long awaited emails from Skulls Palin's time as Gov., instead of making them available digitally. According to them,"It does not have the ability to digitally redact information from the documents." Here.

I'm not merely calling bullshit here. I'm calling bald-faced lie. Granted, I do that shit for a living, so I can say over the past 6 years I have used at least 10 different applications that had that functionality.

Yo! Alaska! I can get you the number for a subsidiary of Deloitte, that can bang that shit out. If you want to save a few bucks, their shop in Bangalore is available. (Damned liars.)

Moving on. I really hope when the dust settles that Rep. Weiner comes out substantially clean here. And that is not merely because I want to see Breitbart put out of business if not arrested for some criminal conspiracy. And I would like to see that. But I want the media, generally, spanked. There's more innuendo here than evidence of any wrong doing by Weiner. Asking questions rhetorically is not journalism, dammit. Shouting questions at one person who has already said I don't want to talk about that anymore, only barely qualifies. Go out there and find facts, get answers. And remember the following. It's summer. It's the beginning of fake news season. Don't get ahead of yourself kids. And remember. Ratfucking has been around for decades (if not centuries, by other names.) Don't get played. The media looks really bad when tenderly led by the noses, as asses are. (Thanks to The Bard himself, for that last line.)

On to the Palinpalozza Tour. Speaking of the press being led by the nose, jeeze, Louise, please! Particularly if you in the press are upset by the Palin's refusing to play nice and give you advance warning of the schedule, cut the fuckers off. Go black out on her and her tacky bus for a week. Make a promise among yourselves, the big TV people and big papers that barring something rising to the level of a felony or an accident resulting in at least mayhem, you won't waste a second of air time or pica of text on that traveling circus. Leave it to the local papers and stations. There's no Pulitzer Prize just waiting to be snatched out of the air, unless she gets caught doing something so ugly nasty, that it will doom her career as a celebrity. And for now that is the only career she really has.

So back the fuck off. Ignore the attention ho.

And lastly, ya know how I am always tracking the GOP for the initiative of the moment? Seems that the race card is being played harder, particularly by Drudge. He's been spinning a narrative of a race war led by the blacks against the whites. And he's not alone in that. That shit is lining up just like I predicted; no depth of depravity is too low for these bastids.

And it all fits so nicely into Roger Ailes Nixonian era dirty tricks style of campaigning. Not an original observation by me there. If I have to credit someone for that, make it the recent Rolling Stone article about him. I haven't finished it yet, but it's widely reported.

That's enough, for now.

GOP Ratfucking in the 21st Century.

The Anthony Weiner (is it or ain't it a) scandal. Personally, I am willing to accept as true the statement from the alleged intended recipient of the photo (who oddly never got it, actually.) Seems like someone was up to no good here, and, as I believe this to be the truth, my heart goes out to the poor young lady in question. Smells Like a Ratfucking to me.

That Rep. Weiner would draw the attention of the scuzziest dirty tricksters of the GOP, seems a no-brainer. And this manufactured Twitter sex scandal just smells like a 21st century ratfuck.

Granted, we have that piece of shit James O'Keefe not only running his own tax exempt ratfuck shop, his shop allegedly is training others how to do that bullshit, manufactured video camera ratfucking. Why not take that to the Internet? Imagine what Tricky Dick's Original Gangsta Cali Ratfuckers would have done with today's technology? You don't have to imagine. Not if you have been reading this this far.

Megyn Kelly is an Immature, Emotionally Stunted Brat. At Best.

At worst, she might be the ugliest Fox News "personality" with their own show. Now don't get me wrong. On the outside she looks like a living, breathing Barbie Doll. But under that attractive exterior is a self, a being, a creature of underdeveloped emotions, lacking the most basic of social graces, and ability for self control. And on top of that, she's mean. Forget the chix in that movie "Mean Girls." She has them all beat. She's Dolores Umbridge mean. And I don't mean "Order of the Phoenix," Dolores Umbridge, who reall did not like children. I mean the "Deathly Hollows," bigoted witch from hell, who gleefully helps persecute non pure blood wizards, and is a knowing collaborator of the Death Eaters, Dolores Umbridge. (Remember. She had Mad Eye's eye on the door of her office. Where'd she get that, Hmmm?)

Below, I'm posting the link to her recent exchange with one of my favorite congress critters, Anthony Weiner. If you watch the vid, you will see her do her signature contempt act. She belittles her guests -- those who dare disagree with her, and even worse, dare correct her bullshit. And good lord, the woman can bullshit like a longhorn with a bad case of the runs. She snarls. She curls her lips. She changes her voice from one of the 'neutral' anchor/interviewer into that of a blonde haired, leggy, female Torquemada, persecuting some heathen for the Glory of God, allegedly, but more so for the malicious glee of it. And as an aside, I get it, that asshole, idiot right wing men (and some of the women folk too) get off on that sick shit. I don't get the why of it, though.

Among her other, usual socially deplorable tricks is she will cut people off. And I don't mean the ordinary way we take for granted in the media world. She does it in a super rude, arrogant, nasty, "I'm in charge, OBEY ME," kind of way. And she goes just plain batshit sometimes. I have seen her do this basically fucked up thing where she goes all kinda Urk Hai Orc on people and shouts something like, "I'm the host! I get to ask the questions! Not you!"

Ya. Like that's soooo mature! In this video, she takes that idea in another direction. She instead says, at one point, go ahead. Make a soliquily.

What the fuck?

Only on Fox News could an alleged journalist/anchor throw such a hissy fit and not get fired for unprofessionalism and infantilism. Again. For some weird reason, the right wingers eat that shit up, and ask for seconds. I don't get it. But it is train-wreck interesting to watch. As long as it's just the occasional clip. A steady diet of that kinda shit would be very unhealthy, I would say.

Grow Up, Child.


If I ever had the chance to meet her I would suggest the following. "Instead of telling people how you used to be a lawyer, how about acting like one?"

(On TV and in the movies, lawyers get to go all aggressive cross examining people. In the real world, not so much. If the trial is just before a judge, you don't want the judge thinking you are an asshole. And if it's before a jury you risk them thinking you are an asshole. So real lawyers behave much better than that, in court at least.)

Anyway . . .

One last thing. Why are right wingers so immature, crazy, or at least tolerant of and or willing to accept as normal, so much immature, crazy shit?

* * * * * * * * * * *

Edit to add and give credit where due, she did stick to the law, against Bill O'Reilly over the decision in the Westboro Baptist Church case.

Megyn explains the Westboro decision to Bill.

Granted, it was sorta funny seeing her take him to task for the same crime of 'invention of facts' that she tried with Weiner.

And even if she was a little more respectful, her style of argument is still too assholey.

Not that I am saying she should adopt in total, Peggy Noonan's method of delivery, but she should move at least a little in that direction. For those of you who do know know what I mean. Ms. Noonan answers (seems) just about every question asked, first with a world-weary sigh, and then proceeds, in a languid, soft, sub moderate volume, nearly emotionally flat level, with a butter would not melt in her mouth, tone. It's an interesting act. 30 minutes of that would be mind numbing dull, ya. But you can not imagine Ms. Noonan raising her voice if the room were on fire. We probably need more of that, or something closer to it, than the bat fucking crazy insane clown posse shout fests, that pollute so much of Fox New's programming.

Oh. And Sat. Was Double Rally Day.

The Worker's, WI Union Solidarity Day thing was the first one. The Women's Health Rally followed that one. And the Worker's rally ended up blending/bleeding into the Women's Health Rally.


Here's a pic of me, getting my protest on.

Best sign, according to me, was, "More Weiner, Less Boehner."

And Rep. Weiner's opening remark was an exercise in Freudian slips, maybe. He said he stands for women.

He remarked on the remark, but that part was garbled. I think he took back the Freudian part. Though.