McGinniss's sleaziness has been well understood. Let's focus on Random House, the venerable publishing house.
In the email [at the link], McGinniss reveals that his manuscript, then under legal review at Crown/Random House, could not prove its most headline-grabbing allegations. And yet, many of these “salacious stories” that lacked “proof” (in McGinniss’s own words) ended up in the book, and on televisions everywhere during the author’s current media tour … without proper sourcing, and without any apparent new evidence to support them.It's hard for a public figure to sue for defamation in the United States, but this email may be the proof of reckless disregard for the truth that Sarah/Todd/Bristol Palin would need.
That doesn't mean they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations.
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
why did it allow him to come forth with most of those tawdry accusations without proof
Oh, come on. Everyone with an active brain cell knows why.
No, you don't sue. But that shouldn't stop somebody in the Palin entourage from mentioning this slime every chance they get. And calling Random House out by name.
That doesn't meant they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations.
That's true, but, at the same time, it seems to me that someone needs to fight back against things like this. This is one of the worst, but they're, on the whole, pretty commonplace.
The Palins are pretty tough fighters, and I don't know that bringing these more to light could bring any more damage then has already been done. I'd tell her to fight, and I hope that she does.
- Lyssa
Sorry about the missing link! It's there now.
McGiniss has always been a sleaze; that's his schtick. Random House knew what they were buying.
Ann Althouse said...
It's hard for a public figure to sue for defamation in the United States
Perhaps this is the case that would change that.
Sue McGinniss and Random House. The only boost McGinniss would receive would be of his sleeziness. You cannot tell lies about people, and I don't care who they are.
They definitely should not sue. They should mock. Relentlessly.
Overreaching by the left, by McGinniss and also by Andrew Sullivan, has reached the point that Palin is benefiting from it and it is hurting the left.
"The Palins are pretty tough fighters, and I don't know that bringing these more to light could bring any more damage then has already been done."
Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those.
It might work for *only* Bristol to sue, for example.
As a public figure it is (to say the least) difficult to win and as a GOP candidate, kinda tough to argue tort reform if you are engaged in tort litigation. McGinniss needs to self implode and Random House needs to be seriously embarassed. And the book needs to die.
A lawsuit would boost sales. Because then people would want to see what the fuss was about. Mocking it and discrediting it ensures the book ends up in the $1 bin by Christmas.
Allen S., I wouldn't mind if Todd Palin let loose on these bastards. But Frank Sinatra was a pussy not to do it himself with Dominic Dunne.
Do we know if the email is real?
Sue the TV stations for false advertising and Random House for libel.
Is Palin a public figure when she holds no public office?
Gary Trudeau has collaborated with this coquí, what was he thinking?
Apparently it is
Can a class sue for slander/libel/alienation of affections? I mean, if Palins choose not to sue, someone should be able to get some extra income from these dolts, right? I, for one, feel really harmed by this and may lose some sleep and fail to respond adequately to my wife's loving embraces...
That doesn't meant they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations.
What's the statute of limitations on something like this? In other words, she could wait until she knows her gravitas or whatever is starting to wear of and then do it.
Hard to understand the left's "anything is permissible to destroy Palin" obsession.
Is Palin that dangerous? And why?
Perhaps she's dangerous in a different way than the left perceives.
Perhaps she really is so far outside the system, and owes so little to it, that she's a threat to entrenched interests on both the left and the right.
Ann Althouse said...
"The Palins are pretty tough fighters, and I don't know that bringing these more to light could bring any more damage then has already been done."
Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those.
One of the problems might be money. Miss Sarah resigned the Governorship because fighting the frivolous lawsuits was bleeding the family white.
I know the book did well and she has the gig with Fox, but do they have the money (and, doubtless, McGiniss is counting on the fact they don't) for a long court fight?
If they (Palin's) have proof of defamation in writing, they'd be foolish not to sue. Which would make them full partners in Random House - not to mention, true venture capitalists.
Too bad Aaron Burr gave dueling such a bad image.
She should sue the hell out of that bastard and the publishing company.
Perhaps she really is so far outside the system, and owes so little to it, that she's a threat to entrenched interests on both the left and the right.
============
Nailed it, Shouting Thomas
John Henry
It might work for *only* Bristol to sue, for example.
Todd's business partner might want to sue. He's not even a public figure. Can't remember his name.
"edutcher said...
I know the book did well and she has the gig with Fox, but do they have the money (and, doubtless, McGiniss is counting on the fact they don't) for a long court fight?"
I gotta believe the line of highly qualified lawyers willing to take this on with a contingent fee would be miles long.
In the first wave, the MSM reviews said that the allegations in the book were malicious and sensational. But they were not reported as specious and fabricated. A lot of it, via late night comedians, Trudeau, etc., has seeped into the public consciousness as the truth. Palin has definitely been defamed.
It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations.
I'm not sure in this instance that's an argument against suing.
You mean to tell me they're surprised?
It's like watching the European EURO fail. Did you know that 20 years ago it was PREDICTED?
Do you know how the political crooks did it? You can't claim "ignorance of the masses." Because the masses were promised wealth without having to work for it. And, it translated into nearly every country's language.
Except Margaret Thatcher's. She fought to keep the Pound Sterling. And, her reward was to be tossed out of leadership by own team. And, the BBC went to town to make fun of her. "And, all the other loonies." Where they pointed to fiscal conservatives.
So, no. I'm not surprised there were "teammates" of Joe McGuinness who were hoping he'd write a blockbuster.
Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those.
Good point. Of course, I'm approaching it with the assumption that it's all entirely false until I see something that credibly suggests otherwise.
I know the book did well and she has the gig with Fox, but do they have the money (and, doubtless, McGiniss is counting on the fact they don't) for a long court fight?"
Assuming that her case is anywhere near as strong as it looks, I'm sure that there are hundreds of lawyers who would do it not just for the contingency fees, but for the publicity alone. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
- Lyssa
The photo of Random House employee Joe McGinnis, on the deck overlooking the Palin's backyard, said it all for me. link.
What a creepy pervert that McGinnis was/is. Outdone only by certain preverted bloggers in our nation's capital.
I wouldn't sue for another reason. The New York Times v Sullivan standard for a public figure is so steep that there's a very real likelihood that she would lose. And if she sues and loses, it only makes it worse.
I'm sure that there are hundreds of lawyers who would do it not just for the contingency fees, but for the publicity alone. I'd do it in a heartbeat. - Lyssa
You read my neon mind.
Now, as soon as Todd Palin and his friends ... built the wall separating Joe McGuinniss's rental, from the Palin property ... that was the moment Joe could write his story GOODBYE!
Maybe, he should have just rented a helicopter and hovered, overhead?
But with the Palin's now out of his sight ... what was he gonna tell ya? All the gossipy crap from the crazies that the Enquirer paid for ... is the only "dish" he's got.
Plus, even Andrew Sullivan is pissed ... Since he's the one who tried to get his head into Sarah's uterus ... to claim she couldn't have carried Trig.
And, it's not that Bristol Palin didn't supply "dish." Don't forget she was on for a SEASON of Dancing with the Stars.
ONE SEASON! Do you know all the dish you could get if you just dragged your ass to the studio?
Do you know how Drudge started? (He fetched CBS's ratings secrets out of their very own trash. Where their staff left em. Not even shredded.
Joe McGuinniss' fail, though, tells you something else! It tells you SARAH PALIN IS POPULAR.
And, Meryl Streep's performance, ahead, of the IRON LADY ... is gonna be an Oscar SWEEPS ...
Do you know why?
So - bad guy publishes book with lies and you wouldn't sue because it might increase sales?
"It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations."
It would shine a spotlight on the various allegations that you're suing him as being lies for. Kinda the point.
Over all, you seem more concerned with what a perp *might* do than what they *did*.
There was a Soviet operative who planted a story that Cardinal Spellman and J. Edgar Hoover attended some kind of gay party and that Hoover wore a tutu at the party. The operative said that he made up the story in a tongue in cheek way, but the story has been endlessly repeated and has common currency......The credulity of liberals is surpassed only by their malice towards their ideological enemies.
"That doesn't meant they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations."
No, that doesn't "mean[] they should sue." They should sue because it's the right thing to do, for themselves and others; that simply enables them to do so despite the lamentable state of doctrine at this time. Misbehavior will continue until costs are attached to it. Depriving the author of a significant chunk of cash (and ideally donating it to a charity of which he would disapprove), and making him radioactive to other publishers, serves both justice and deterrence. Lyssalovelyredhead, edutcher, and AllenS are right.
Carol_Herman said:
Do you know why?
Archetype resonance
I agree that we...and I hope this doesn't sound to nasty.....but that we should be able to tell lies about public officials and not be prosecuted.
What if Hillary Clinton would have sued the people who said she burned American flags and had lesbian lovers.
What if President Bush would have hired a team of lawyers to go after everyone who made up stories about him?
But this book crosses the line. This guy and Random House made up the worst stories possible (in a sexist way) to destroy a politician.
You know "to sue" ... you have to show the judge how you were harmed.
So, to those who imagine "Sarah Palin should sue" ... She'd walk into court LAUGHING HER HEAD OFF!
No damage, would say the judge.
Sarah knows this.
She knew it as soon as Todd Palin and his friends built that wall! It was TEN FEET HIGH! The wood coloring didn't match. I think the separator-fence at the bottom was red. And, he built the taller part GREY!
Do you know ... if Sarah Palin runs for the presidency ... WHEN the subject of "FENCE" comes up ... She can do her "twinkle in the eye," and say "she'd leave the building of the fence to Todd and his friends."
You know, when I saw that fence I marveled at Todd's handiwork! He built a beautiful fence. He and his friends handled the height. They measured everything accurately. And, it was put in to look like it really belonged up there!
Sarah Palin is so way ahead, here!
Since lawyers comment on this blog, I'd like to hear from informed sources what the point might of keeping defamation, slander, and libel laws on the books in the United States.
It's easy to file a suit for defamation, slander, or libel.
Somewhere between really hard and impossible to win one.
I'd prefer to see these laws either sharply delimited, and, if that can't be done, eliminated entirely.
Who benefits from them now, except lawyers?
Don't sue McGiniss, sue Random House.
*or, if that can't be done*
While Joe McGinniss was still the "next door neighbor" to the Palin's, Joe whined that he didn't know why Sarah didn't bring him over some cookies!
This story even has a fantastic beginning.
It brought curiosity seekers.
Sarah didn't miss a step!
In her film about Alaska ... which was a hit on TV, too. There's a scene in it ... where Todd's in the back yard ... and she comes out ... The fence is already up.
Oh. And, the property is at the shoreline of a lake. Looking so beautiful.
Reminds me when Ann hangs pictures here of Lake Mandota. (Okay. I can't spell for beans.)
But it is so beautiful!
NO DOWN SIDE!
Excellent memories ... all around.
To "hate" ... never approaches Sarah's way of doing business.
All Joe McGuinness just did ... was shine up Sarah Palin's star even more!
Plus, I got a few good laughs!
Maybe, Joe McGuinniss can now write a sequel?
Her poll numbers skyrocketed this month, mostly with a sharp increase among independents. She's passed Rick Perry and is five points behind Obama, which is pretty much within the margin of error.
She was 20 points behind Obama last month.
I wonder if some/all of this resurgence is due to a perception that she has been slandered horribly?
And of course Obama did not help himself by calling for tax hikes this week. Oscar the Grouch could run against this guy and put up good numbers.
Keith Olbermann defends Sarah Palin here.
I swear, liberals worship the New York Times. Maher brings up the New York Times review. And Olbermann agrees that Palin got a raw deal.
It's frickin' bizarre how one person--the executive editor of the New York Times--can own the liberal mind.
Bill Keller is out as executive editor, Jill Abramson is in, and suddenly Palin is a viable candidate again.
Palin should send Abramson a thank you note.
Fred4, good point. Mocking and ridicule is more effective that an all out offense.
Instead of it being the book "they don't want you to read", it would be the book that you are embarrassed to purchase....or embarrassed to publish.
I'm not worried about what Obama does.
Yes. He's the president. Like it. Or not.
And, he seems to always be the thin guy. Reminds me (as an old timer) of Sammy Davis, Jr. Thin black guy who could dance like Fred Astaire.
For all the years Sammy Davis, Jr., came out on TV, he was surrounded by white guys. (Sometimes Frank Sinatra. Sometimes Peter Lawford. And, sometimes just the cast of Laugh In.) You always knew what you were going to get.
Same here.
The GOP still has not produced a condendah to take on Obama. And, for some strange reason ... perhaps because she has refused to say she'll run. She hasn't been invited up to the MEAT MARKET.
You want to call them debates? Be my guest.
When I was single I called stuff "dating" ... but it sure as hell felt like the meat market!
And, the GOP contestants don't even dance. Either alone. Or with each other. Or members of the audience. What kinds of crappy shows are those?
While Europe's currency is flushing down the toilet ... the idiot contendahs for the GOP nomination even refuse to say out loud ... "THEY'D CALL DA PLUMBERS IN BY NOW."
Lost opportunities.
And, Sarah hasn't even shown up, yet, in FULL ARGUMENT MODE.
Wait.
She's an original!
St Croix, your link, and then the comments on the linked story.....
Someone made a good point. They compare this to Dan Rather and the fruadulent Texas Air Guard docs. The lie didn't need to be prosecuted as it destoryed the liar without any legal action. Same with this book. The author will be thought of as a weird tabloid writer.
Carol_Herman said...[POTUS] Reminds me (as an old timer) of Sammy Davis, Jr. Thin black guy who could dance like Fred Astaire.
Kinda maybe. Sammy Davis, Jr. had a glass eye and still had vision; Barack Obama has a glass jaw, yet he thrusts it high like Mussolini.
The author will be thought of as a weird tabloid writer.
He already had this reputation. Presumably, that's why he got the book deal in the first place.
The point of a lawsuit would be to induce at least a passing regard for accuracy in their future publications.
I think that, if Palin sues, she ought to demand that the publisher change its name to Totally Random Shit House.
No matter if you disagree with her politics, but the hostility displayed toward her, the downright stalking and publishing these lies just proves how disgusting and contemptible contempoary liberalism has become.
As Al Gore is a useful idiot for Apple, Carol "Ditzy" Herman is the same for Ms. Althouse.
I think the sexism against Governor Palin is so over the top, that even liberals are starting to find it revolting.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but Carol Herman owns it.
Shining a spotlight? You mean more of one than having the pussyfaced asswipe on, I don't know, every show known to mankind?
The Today show for Chrissakes. Today.
Yeah. Shine a spotlight.
Take the guy to court. Beat him like a rented mule. Take his life, take a huge settlement from Random House and then settle comfortably into 1600. After the place is fumigated, of course.
Remember when Hustler asserted that Jerry Falwell had committed incest with his mother in an outhouse?
If you can't get damges for libel in THAT case, how can you get it in this case?
Hustler's defense was that no reasonable person could conclude, from reading their article, that it was plausible that Jerry Falwell had done such a thing.
So what are the Palins supposed to argue? That the allegations are plausible, but false?
PALIN DENIES USING COKE, ADMITS IN COURT THAT ACCUSATION IS "PLAUSIBLE"
It's like a Catch-22.
And now Random House seems to want to dig in, circle the wagons and generally try to double down.
I imagine Mr. Breitbart has more to release. I imagine Random will be sorry they took this position, regardless of what the Palins do.
And Carol Herman starts in talking about pound sterling and Maggie Thatcher.
Go Carol, Go Carol!
1-800-nut-bags
You seldom have written evidence of an author writing unprovable allegations. This is a very rare situation.
But, yes, she should sue Random House for distributing it. McGinniss is already known to be a poster child for abortion. When a murderer like Jeff McDonald can win a suit against you, you're a truly horrible person.
Re: Falwell vs. Hustler, and "Plausible..."
The "reasonable person" standard could be put to great effect, here.
Simply quote all of the liberal pundits, reporters, editors, talking heads, and politicians who *have* taken these defamatory allegations seriously.
Then ask the court to either rule that all of these talking heads are *not* reasonable people...
I think Palin should do an interview with the New York Times.
She should do it now, before she announces.
I think she has a window of opportunity. Fair treatment! From the New York Times! How often does a Republican get that?
She should do her interview with this guy.
And she shout not discuss McGinniss, or the Republican race. Instead it should be a high-minded discussion about crony capitalism and the political class.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but Carol Herman owns it.
This explains everything. Since I, as is true for everyone else, get charged per use of the ENTER button, writing like Carol Herman would drive my blogging costs through the roof. The only way a "normal" person could afford it is if they, in fact, owned the internet.
If what he says is so wrong, why isn't Plain suing him?
Want to take a wild guess?
Precisely.
Poor old Herman Carol tried to scrape by with a low word count, but she got him with the monthly fee.
Want to take a wild guess?
Want to take a flying fuck?
If what he says is so wrong, why isn't Plain suing him?
Try reading AA's post all the way through, then try reading through some of the comments above for some ideas why not suing, despite having a good case (for argument's sake), is the better course for her to take.
Now that the cat is out of the bag Random House is unlikely to publish this "blend of fact and fiction" in the UK, a market that usually eats this stuff for breakfast.
Libel suits are notoriously hard cases to win, especially if the plaintiff is a public figure, whatever that means. Consequently the game is couch your lies as the the "testimony of anonymous but reliable sources" and other such weasel words. With a skillful lawyer at his elbow a sleaze merchant like Joe McGinnes can skate as close to the edge of outright lies as he wants.
However, in Britain the libel laws are written as to make lying in print a dangerous undertaking. The law is fair to everyone, regardless of status. Not only that in UK courts the loser pays the winner's legal fees and costs.
However, in Britain the libel laws are written as to make lying in print a dangerous undertaking. The law is fair to everyone, regardless of status. Not only that in UK courts the loser pays the winner's legal fees and costs.
Is this related to CH's earlier mumblings about Thatcher?
YOU CALL THAT MUMBLING?
However, in Britain the libel laws are written as to make lying in print a dangerous undertaking. The law is fair to everyone, regardless of status. Not only that in UK courts the loser pays the winner's legal fees and costs.
The libel laws in Britain are much stricter than ours.
They do not, however, necessarily deter lying in print, and they certainly don't prevent sleazy publications (such as the News of the World) from enjoying big sales and long lifetimes.
Nor are they fair to everyone. The threat of meritless libel suits is widely used in Britain (and the Commonwealth countries that still follow British law on these issues) by people with deep pockets to bully those without deep pockets into submission.
In recent years, Britain has become rather infamous for "forum shopping" libel suits. Some gangster in Ukraine will file suit for libel in Britain, against some Italian magazine that called him a gangster.
When people have been slimed (as Sarah Palin has been) or merely feel they have been slimed, they want revenge. They have visions of bankrupting and destroying their enemies.
But providing scope for pure revenge plays, while it may assure more income to lawyers, doesn't make for very good law.
Random House has published some good books over the years. It's co-founder, Bennett Cerf, fought and won the right to publish Ulysses in the US. There's a movie out there about Cerf called Infamous (2006) which I now want to see.
Plus, it's always interesting speculate on how a company's (and a country's) dead founders would view modern day practice of their "babies."
YOU CALL THAT MUMBLING?
OK, how about maunder?
I mean, Bennett Cerf had absolutely no problem with "obscenity" so long as it was clearly understood that it was fiction. Of course, the line between fact and fiction in Joyce's Ulysses was a bit blurry. But here's one thing on which we can all agree: Joe McGinniss is a hack (and a pervert).
I mean, Bennett Cerf had absolutely no problem with "obscenity" so long as it was clearly understood that it was fiction. Of course, the line between fact and fiction in Joyce's Ulysses was a bit blurry. But here's one thing on which we can all agree: Joe McGinniss is a hack (and a pervert).
(so good I had to say it twice).
_________
wv = trump
hmm...good one.
That could quickly become standard usage around here.
I meant "maunder," of course, not double-posting.
McGinnis is so over the top that he is helping Palin.
In the past once a false charge was made, the later corrections were never allowed to change the repetitions of the false charge as if that very charge tainted the victim.
Palin has come through and beat the game. She is a winner.
Oh, no, they should sue. Bertelsmann would probably dissolve the imprint to avoid the embarrassment...
"Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth."
Which allegations do you think are true, Ann? And why?
@Kirk Parker: Hustler never made an assertion about that, they published a parody.
That's right, it was a parody. They ran a Campari ad with copy supposedly written by Jerry Falwell. I did not make that clear; not sure it rises to the level of "idiocy" but perhaps.
A parody is intentionally and knowingly false, intended to be hurtful. What makes it not libel is that parody is not intended to be believed, that is it clearly not plausible.
Maybe McGinnis can avoid a libel suit by putting "parody" on tiny letters in the bottom corner of the front cover of his book.
chickenlittle wrote:
There's a movie out there about Cerf called Infamous (2006) which I now want to see.
Bennett Cerf appears as a character, and only briefly, in the 2006 film Infamous, but he's hardly an important character. The plot revolves around Truman Capote (Toby Jones) and his relationship with convicted murder Perry Smith, played by the remarkable Daniel Craig.
sorepaw wrote:
The libel laws in Britain are much stricter than ours.
More clearly defined is a better description of British libel law.
The threat of meritless libel suits is widely used in Britain... by people with deep pockets to bully those without deep pockets into submission.
The deep pockets advantage is even more acute in the United States where everybody pays his own costs.
In recent years, Britain has become rather infamous for "forum shopping" libel suits.
Not nearly so infamous as forum shopping intellectual property suits in this country. Patent and copyright trolls are making billions and are helping to drive the industrious and innovative to more welcoming shores.
I think you're right about not suing and giving them more publicity.
In any case, Palin might run for president and this would only be a distraction.
Overreaching by the left, by McGinniss and also by Andrew Sullivan, has reached the point that Palin is benefiting from it and it is hurting the left.
=================
Not really. Between her own bad actions (quitting governor halfway through her term, etc), and the media bashing....a McLatchy/Marist poll had the public, 72-24 I believe, responding to the question do they want Sarah Palin to run with a big "NO!!"
rcocean said...
"In any case, Palin might run for president and this would only be a distraction."
Palin isn't running for President. Why would she want to help out Romney by doing so?
Gabriel,
After you replied I went back and re-read my comment, and decided it was way too harsh. The part you quoted is fine, and contains the important part of what I meant to get across, so let that stand, but I'm deleting my original...
Cedarford, Palin's leaving office early will probably hurt her. I was taking that into consideration.
Obviously the media attacks hurt her. My point is further attacks as what is practiced by McGinniss and Sullivan are probably helping her now. If you attack too relentlessly eventually there is a backlash to that. We have reached that point.
But you will continue to hate Palin regardless, correct?
@Fred4Pres: Shhhh! Cedarford's irrational Palin-loathing actually helps!
@Quaestor: Thanks for the heads up! That makes me want to see it even more.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics and Joe McGinniss.
'Nuff said.
From a ruthless perspective, the only way McGinniss is hurt in this is if he's tarnished his own brand so much that no publisher will touch him from now on. For that to happen, two things have to come to pass:
1. Sales of this hatchet job tank.
2. Random House has to feel some pain.
For number (2) to occur, suing either party doesn't help; the suit itself will drive sales, and has been pointed out it would be hard for Palin (or anyone in her immediate family now, since they've become de facto public figures with all the media exposure they've received) to win such a suit.
A high-profile/successful boycott of Random House titles might work, though.
@chickenlittle
Do see Infamous, it is a worthwhile effort. Another film that plows some of the same ground is Capote, starring Phil Hoffman in the title role. I suppose in order to simply the Academy balloting Capote was released in 2005, though the two films were often playing at the same time in some markets. One would think the money people would be wary of such duplication of effort so close in time, but it seems to be more and more common these days.
Capote is also well worth your time. Though both deal with the Clutter murders and the aftermath, Capote spends more time developing the Clutter family as characters, and (no offense to the excellent Toby Jones) Phil Hoffman handles the Truman Capote role with a bit more aplomb and shading. You'll enjoy both, so rent 'em both (but not at the same Blockbuster, else the tattooed dropout manning the POS may think you're a bit gay)
wv: pollysis - the inflammation one gets from one too many phone calls from the Marist Institute
They're not selling lies, they're selling soap narratives. People pay money. Profit.
I don't think it touches Palin one way or another, so damages would be hard to show.
It's too clearly a narrative, for readers who like that sort of thing.
@Quaestor: I saw Capote. Loved it! Hoffman brings out any character--even in things as low key as Pirate Radio or as bizarre as Love Liza.
Perhaps she really is so far outside the system, and owes so little to it, that she's a threat to entrenched interests on both the left and the right.
Some of us have been saying this for years.
It explains why the Republican establishment will never defend her, and sometimes goes out of its way to trash her.
Saint-Croix,
And she shout not discuss McGinniss, or the Republican race. Instead it should be a high-minded discussion about crony capitalism and the political class.
YGBSM!
Yeah, it should be. But in the NYT it won't be.
YGBSM
???
You Gotta Be Small-Minded?
Your Gay Buttocks Smell Malicious?
Your Green Bounty Sucks Magnificently?
I give up.
Instead it should be a high-minded discussion about crony capitalism and the political class.
Right ... Because if there's anything toward which the editors and publisher of New York Times have sworn eternal hostility, it's crony capitalism and the political class.
The deep pockets advantage is even more acute in the United States where everybody pays his own costs.
"Loser pays" applies after the case has gone to trial and a verdict has been issued, right?
That leaves plenty of room for bullies with deep pockets to operate.
And "forum shopping" is likely to be a bad thing whatever kind of law is involved.
Exactly how do abuses of US patent law excuse abuses of British libel law?
Wouldn't it follow that British libel law and US patent law are both in need of changing?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा