Slate reviews the dismal history of dictators' sons, including Oday and Qusay Hussein, Baby Doc Duvalier, and the particularly creepy "Nicu" Ceausescu, who purportedly spent his years in Romania raping women at will, including, allegedly, gymnast Nadia Comaneci. Interestingly, the daughters of dictators have turned out rather well when given the reigns of power, although readers of this site know that hasn't always been the case.

One son in particular who comes in for some rough scrutiny is Saadi Ghadafi, number three son of the Libyan strongman. Like Oday, Saadi runs his country's soccer federation, as well as large shares of Italian power Juventus, the European Champions Cup runner-up (Angelenos who complain about moronic owners like Donald Sterling should note that the team Juventus lost to, AC Milan, is owned by Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, who is literally a Fascist). Ghadafi is not just a team owner, though; he also starts for the Libyan national squad, and was recently signed to a two-year contract to play for Italian power Perugia in Serie A.

So far, his work ethic has failed to impress his new coach or teammates: blowing off practices, insisting on living without roommates on the road, roaming the streets of Italy with a "posse" that includes most of the dregs of the sports world, including Ben Johnson and Diego Maradona. In short, he is acting like the North African version of Allen Iverson. The owner of Perugia, Luciano Gaucci, who received attention when he cut the Korean player who had scored the goal to knock Italy out of the World Cup last year, insists that signing the spawn of Moammar is not a publicity stunt.

Jesse Taylor, the twisted avatar of Pandagon, is blogging up a storm today, for charity. He's participating in Blogathon 2003, in which he will be posting every 15 minutes for 24 hours. So far, he's already written yet another devastating Peggy Noonan parody. To contribute, sign up here. Go Blue !!!

Consider the possibility that the Bush Administration will dump Condi Rice on the voters of California in the upcoming election. They get rid of an embarassment who seems to have a hard time getting her story straight on UraniumGate, and the State GOP gets a candidate with impeccable D.C. credentials who has had no connection whatsoever with state government. The more clowns in the race, the better for me !!!

SMYTHE FOR GOVERNOR !!!
What was once merely a dream of the pipe variety is now a fledgling possibility. On October 7, an election to decide a recall of Gray Davis will be on the ballot, diverting millions of dollars from our booming economy into what is, in effect, a mulligan for the Republican Party. Whilst normally I would question whether such an expenditure is a worthwhile use of taxpayer money (particularly since the reason for this election is the governor's attempt to close the pending budget deficit with, gasp, a tax increase), I don't much like Davis, didn't vote for him last November, and will not mourn his passing from the political scene.

I now have less than three weeks to decide if I will enter the campaign to replace Gray Davis. Since the two ideal G.O.P. candidates were killed yesterday in a gun battle in Mosul, the most likely outcome of this election is that a human cyborg will be governor (that is to say, Davis will either win, or be replaced by Ahnolt). The only condition I have towards running is that I refuse to spend any of my own money, although my good friend in the Universal Studios legal department has supposedly already promised that she "will spend whatever it takes" to ensure my election. However, promises like that are cheap.

What I really need is a commitment from my supporters that will guaranty that my sacrifices over the next three months won't be in vain. To raise that money, I have gotten "jiggy" with the Internet, as the kids might say, and put a "Paypal" button on my website. No anonymous contributions, please (unless, of course, they're legal under California law; I really haven't read up on the subject). I will need 3,000 dollars American to even get my name on the ballot, and I figure I will need at least twice that to put on an adequate media campaign. So give generously; after all, whether you call it a campaign contribution or a bribe, it's all speech, and I will remember who "spoke" loudly on my behalf at this crucial time.

If this story is true, then the Eagle County D.A. has no choice but to drop the charges. Not just the fact that five witnesses said she was bragging about the incident, including trumpeting his size, but also the fact that someone who was supposedly a rape victim was at a teen party just a few days after the alleged attack. At least, that's what I was told back in law school: a prosecutor is obligated to dismiss charges once he determines that there is no likelihood of success.

And, of course, if the story is false, it's precisely why it's a good policy not to publicize the victim's name. [link via TalkLeft]

There are two kinds of people in this world, blondie: Perhaps the most interesting thing I have ever read about Jimmy Carter is the fact that his favorite film is "Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo".

Yesterday was the biggest day ever for my site, as far as unique visitors are concerned: approaching 2000, without a single new post (until now). The reason, interestingly enough, is that I am the only person to date listed by Google under this search category. Not bad, considering I've pretty much avoided the issue until now; a policy I intend to follow, at least until some of the evidence in that case becomes public, or the people of Colorado actually take the case to trial. But as the invaluable LA Observed notes, others have been less scrupulous, publishing the young girl's name, address, e-mail, phone number, pictures, etc.

Regardless of how you feel about these charges, or about the credibility of the alleged victim, there is something distinctly rank about that sort of thing. There is a good reason the public has frowned on outing women who have brought rape charges, even when it is entirely possible that the allegations are false: anything that might lead to the further humiliation of the victim will discourage other women from coming forward in the future. The act of rape is inherently one that humiliates the victim. It would be counter-productive to intensify that humiliation, particularly when the accused is a wealthy, popular public figure with access to the media.

More to the point, it is the flip side of the criminal ambulance-chasing practiced by Nancy Grace or Dominick Dunne. The courts, by and large, do a pretty effective job sorting out the innocent from the guilty, and where they fail, there are plenty of watchdogs who will point that out. If the woman involved is some nutso groupie with a penchant for basketball stars, or an over-emotional flake seeking attention with these charges, that truth will come out eventually. It does not help matters to attempt to intimidate her (and other women) into silence just because she points the finger at a beloved public figure.

Excellent take on the favorite newspaper for "people who are too lazy to watch television." I've always wondered if any of the bylines for the New York Post are actually legit; Jayson Blair is probably too scrupulous with the facts to get a job there now.

That eclectic multi-city pop festival known as the International Pop Overthrow plays today at Johnny Foxx's in West LA, with shows in the afternoon and evening. Included in today's festivities is reclusive Yooper folkist Annette Summersett, who is both "visually appealing" and a "strong singer-guitarist". Yippee !!!

Which reminds me, I have to get out to a Dodger game sometime soon. It's not that I expect to be entertained by some of the most dull, lifeless athletic performances outside of Serie A. As this article points out, going to Dodger Stadium is an event in itself, encapsulating everything that is sweet and wonderful (and a couple of the things that are crappy--arriving late and leaving early is an expression of our baseball savvy, but it still leaves a bad impression) about living in L.A. The classic steam/grilled Dodger Dog is one of the main reasons to go on living, no matter what bad cards (or Cubs) you're dealt.

Eric Alterman makes some honest but politically incorrect remarks about the causes of hatred in France, the mouthbreathers take violent exception, and then he gets nasty. BTW, what are the odds that some of them will have a logical explanation for this abomination. [link via MaxSpeak]

Well, the good news is, the Lakers figured out what they're going to do with Derek Fisher.

Noted journalist William Greider seems to get the wonderousness that is the b-sphere. He has started a blog, and today he weighs in with questions that would be asked of the President if our country really had a loyal opposition and independent media.

A day like any other...I had one of those experiences that makes me proud to be a lawyer.

A bit of background, first. To supplement my income, I do court appearances for other attorneys, where I can use the same cunning and guile that all of you have come to know and admire. The two areas I usually get work are in bankruptcy and unlawful detainer (ie., the procedure by which the owner of a property evicts a tenant), although for the right price, I will handle other sorts of cases as well. There are about four attorneys who use me exclusively to do their appearances, and it provides me enough money to get by, even when my normal caseload isn't high.

Last night, one of my sources decided to freelance my services. Just before midnight, I get a phone call asking if I would be available to do an appearance at the downtown L.A. Superior Court on a motion to set aside an entry of default. The way the intermediary described it, the hearing would be a slam dunk: our client had been improperly served with the complaint in the unlawful detainer, filed a Motion to Quash Service, only to have the court enter default the following day. An entry of default, btw, is a clerical ruling which notifies the court that a party has been served with a complaint but has not filed a response. If you are a defendant and the other side has entered default, that is a bad thing. The hearing had been held over a day due to the other side not stipulating to having the case heard by a commissioner, and the attorney of record had to be in Victorville (about 150 miles away) on another matter.

Since I was going to be downtown anyway, on another case, I agreed, and gave him my home phone number, which also doubles as my fax number. Bad Move !!! First, because the attorney he was working for didn't get around to actually faxing me the documents until two in the morning. Second, because said attorney decided to fax over eighty (80) pages of repetitive filings in that case. Third, his fax machine couldn't handle the strain, so it frequently broke down in the wee hours; that, of course, meant that my phone rang repeatedly between two and four in the morning. And fourth,...we'll get to that later.

With only a few hours sleep, I drag myself down the Cahuenga Pass to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse downtown. As I'm arriving, I get a phone call from someone who identified himself as "Joe Marmon", counsel of record for my client. He basically tells me that the hearing is a slam dunk, and that there is no way I can lose, and that the judge told him at the initial hearing yesterday that he felt that the opposition was in such bad faith that he wanted to impose sanctions. My bullshit detector immediately went off.

Arriving in court, the judge immediately called our case, and began grilling me as to how I was retained in this matter. After about five minutes of obtaining the minutiae of my legal background and education, he asked if I had ever met Mr. Marman or my clients, what I knew of them, etc. As it turns out, at the appearance the day before, a number of other attorneys had recognized him under another name, as a lawyer who had been disbarred a decade ago. According to the right honorable judge, the only attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California named Joseph Marman practices law up in Sacramento, and that this case was news to him.

As you might have guessed, things didn't go well from there. Regardless of whether the judge bought my story, I had been exposed in a courtroom full of lawyers as a "front", an attorney whose practice exists only to provide a public face to a grifter engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Needless to say, the judge threw out the motion, adding insult to injury to the real victims of this scam, the clients who had unknowingly retained a conman to prevent their eviction.

This can't be good: Miramax Studios, which rose to prominence in the mid-90's when it took a flyer on Pulp Fiction, has decided to bifurcate the next Quentin Tarantino movie, cleverly titled Kill Bill. Besides the fact that the plot synopsis reveals a movie that might well suck big time, directed by Hollywood's biggest self-parody this side of Brian de Palma, and includes a cast consisting of largely washed-up performers (what, no Demi Moore?), is chopping a film in two really the best way for an independent film to be sold to the public?

A Thought for Bastille Day:

"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

--Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

My favorite right-wing columnist, Jill Stewart, is at it again, attacking a number of worthies who are backing Gray Davis in his attempt to survive the GOP mulligan that is the recall attempt. It's worth reading, both as an example of her hyper-charged writing style, and because she has a point, which is that the Democratic governor of California is as purchased as most Republican office-holders (in fact, many of Davis' contributors are Republican, such as Jerry Perenchio).

However, I do have a problem with one itty-bitty little thing. She probably could have used the help of a fact-checker. At one point, she refers to Stephen Bing, who gave $100k to the governor, as a "brat New York heir". In fact, I happen to know that is untrue. The Bing and I attended the same high school, in North Hollywood, back in the day. His parents are big-time donors to Stanford University. His grandfather did make his money in New York, but the whole point is kind of stupid, anyway. What difference could it possibly make, unless "New York" is supposed to be a euphemism for something else?

Bing is, in fact, a brat Los Angeles heir, who happens to give generously to many philanthropies and worthy causes. He has also written scripts for crappy sit-coms and movies (incl. Kangaroo Jack), and has just directed a movie. He got a bad rap for insisting that Elizabeth Hurley take a paternity test to prove he was the father of their lovechild (a not unwise decision, considering the fact that Ms. Hurley was a very active woman during the brief time they were "dating"). He may well be a dirtbag, for all I know, but I would assume that a reason he contributed money to the governor is that he believed, perhaps naively, that Davis is doing a good job, and shouldn't be recalled. But that would require actually accepting that people can disagree with you and not be the spawn of Satan, a concept that may be difficult for Ms. Stewart to understand.

At the command of MaxSpeak, I add William Greider's website to my list of worthies to the right. The "Regular Rants" feature has the potential to metamorphosize into a blog, which would be really keen.

Tonight is the annual Vicki Zale B-day Bash at Joxer's in Culver City. It's open to the public, there will be great music and drinks, and the only present you need bring is a pleasant disposition.

Here's a cagy way out of the California budget impasse: have the State Supreme Court declare that some item (ie., education, assistance for the blind, etc.) is a fundamental right, and order that the legislature approve its funding by majority (as opposed to 2/3) vote. The state gets its budget, the GOP doesn't have to vote on a tax increase, while still getting to play its recall games, and life can go on. Not that I'm supporting such a stunt....

What's wrong with this picture? CBS reports that the White House knew that the information Bush used in the State of the Union address about Iraq buying uranium from Africa was not true (or "might not be true") before he made the speech. Bush uses that information anyway. The White House acknowledges this week that the information was bogus. To date, no one responsible has been fired, no resignations accepted, no heads have rolled, for allowing the Commander in Chief to publicly misstate the facts before the American people. Thus, there is a presumption that the President endorsed the misstatement, at least retroactively.

So why shouldn't we place the blame with the President? Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? Professor, if I go into court and say something that is untrue, and that untruth is critical to my argument before the court, and I don't take steps to correct the record, I'm gonna get sanctioned big time by the judge, and probably by the State Bar as well (see State Bar of Arkansas v. Bill Clinton). It doesn't matter if I simply garbled my words, or made a statement that I thought to be true at the time; as an "officer of the court", I have an ethical responsibility once I know the truth to act appropriately, and not allow any misstatements I might make to sway the court. If you don't promptly correct a misstatement, you've lied.