Festival of Books...Carol Burnett & Carl Reiner appear! Panel Discussions! Kid stuff...

The ever-popular annual Festival of Books - sponsored by the daily Los Angeles Times - returns to UCLA campus this weekend.

Celebrity speakers - with books to plug - are already rustling up widespread interest.

For instance, Mary McNamara will chat with Carol Burnett at the Ackerman Grand Ballroom, about her biography - This Time Together - to the delight of her fans.

In addition, special panel discussions are bound to be packed to capacity.

So, it may be wise to get an early start, to ensure you land a seat under one of the many big tents that will dot the festive landscape.

After the talks, most festival authors will remain to sign books.

There is no requirement that a book be purchased at the fair, so sling your own tome from home!

Most of the events are free, so budget-minded book-lovers keen on a relaxing a few hours in a park-like setting, should take advantage of the golden opportunity.

Kids pinning 'ya down?

Take 'em along!

There is a separate area for the young ones - where stage shows (and entertaining amusements) - will keep them contented (and most certainly nurtured at the same time).

Slated to play in the Children's line-up on Saturday, for instance, is Nickelodeon's "The Fresh Beat Band" (10:00 a.m.)

Author Carl Reiner (comic) follows shortly thereafter at 11:00 a.m. with a scheduled reading of  "Tell me a Silly Story."

Later in the afternoon, Henry Winkler will be on hand, too (2:40 p.m.)

Hero Complex will make a splashy entrance at the Festival this year with a fine array of comic books, manga and graphic novel publishers, and a bevy of writers and distributors from the genre.

The Los Angeles Times Festival of Books is the largest Literary Event in America today!

Info:  http://www.latimes.com/festivalofbooks

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Los Angeles Times..gets it wrong on Superbowl commercials!

Each week, the Los Angeles Times publishes a feature in the weeklend section of the daily, in which they mouth off about what is overrated and what is not.

In today's Sunday edition staff writers were inclined to lament that Super Bowl commercials were underrated.

Huh?

Actually, the complete opposite is true, if you are to believe the intense frenzied traffic on the Internet that proliferated during and after the highly-watched sports event.

In fact, at Yahoo and Alexa,  the  searches were so staggering, that the subject of  Super Bowl commercials was propelled into the golden heights of the top ten list.

Nowithstanding, earlier in the evening I also noticed links on a couple of well-travelled web sites inviting web surfers to play back those precious thirty-second-jolts of advertising which satiated a Nation's hungry for a bit of laughter in the midst of troubled storms that have been wearing us all down on all fronts of late.

Wake up, dudes!

When I was a kid, commercial break was the occasion to dash off to the water closet and take a whiz, rustle up a tasty snack, pick your nose (whatever).

To quote  one of the most successful slogans Madison Avenue ever came  up with:

"You've come a long way, baby!"

Saints win most-watched Superbowl?

http://www.julianayrs.com

TMZ...Michael Jackson scoop! Stooping low, according to legit press...

On Sunday, I was perusing the weekend edition of the LA Times, when I spied a feature criticizing TMZ gossip-mongers for swooping down like vultures on the Michael Jackson tragedy - and patting themselves on the back after-the-fact - for scooping the rest of the ravenous blood-thirsty pack come press deadline.

"Everyone knows we broke the story," Levin boasted in so many words.

Frankly, I was a little surprised by Harvey's curious conduct in this regard.

For starters, in my estimation, it is pretty much a given on the cut-throat landscape of news (and scandal) reporting on the West Coast, that Levin - or one of his eager-beaver cub scouts - will usually nab a breaking-news feature long before the competition has finished scratching around trash bins and dirty laundry for the clues.

Is Levin feeling the heat?

Aw, come on!

Those other newsies are a bunch of jealous cry-babies, anxious to carve up your territory, Harv.

Yup, they're lookin' to knock 'ya off your high horse.

In this shake-down scenario, anyway.

"This is a critical moment for TMZ, " the Times' writers snicker.

Naw, don't think so.

You'd like to bet the farm on it, though, right?

After throwing a little scare into Levin, who was no doubt anxiously perusing the red-hot copy on the sidelines, the troublesome twosome proceeded to sing the TMZ host's praises for a paragraph or two.

"Its reputation for breaking big celebrity news has made TMZ.com an online sensation with an estimated readership of 4.1 million according to Web Measurement Services."

Then, Scott Collins and Meg James go in for the kill.

"But the Jackson drama puts the spotlight on TMZ at a delicate time: its tactics have stoked growing outrage among publicists (hate 'em!) and government officials (they come in handy, on occasion). "

For this reason, the dynamic newsies at the Times, conjectured that advertisers have been hesitant to plunk cash down for print ads at TMZ.com or for lucrative commercial spots on the TV version of the pot-boiler bill-of-fare which broadcasts in tandem with the webbie offering.

Others will come running, so what's the big deal?

In fact, just as I was pondering this, the article zig-zagged off and noted for the record that TMZ officials were pleased with the outcome in recent days.

After all, the Jackson "scoop" took TMZ to a new level of recognition.

And, some touted that outcome as a triumph of the new rich media over the staid old.

Even still, in spite of silly off-point hysterical musings over the issues that missed their mark for the most part - and a lot of positive press for TMZ - the slightly-harried-looking Levin complained that "no one" gave TMZ the credit - for not only getting the story right - but getting it on tap for consumer consumption before the ink at big gun media outlets was even dry.

On the contrary, when I penned and posted my report on Twitter at approximately 3:23 pm on the fateful day in question, I noted that Levin and TMZ.com were abreast of the story as it was unfolding.

Specifically - I gave Levin and his team the nod for getting the word out to fans and the public in general - about Jackson's cardiac arrest, the CPR efforts by a firefighter to revive the ailing Pop Star, and the subsequent whirlwind emergency flight by helicopter to UCLA Medical Center.

Apologies accepted, Sir!

The front-page article went on to probe some of the tactics TMZ has allegedly facilitated in the past to unearth documents and obtain highly-sensitive information with the sinister aim of securing said for "exclusivity" rights.

Hard-core critics like Rob Silverstein - Executive Producer at Access Hollywood - griped that the TMZ staff were not beneath paying for top-secret paperwork and crucial eye-witness testimony.

Along with high-profile rivals, Silverstein contended that Levin and his company have been engaging in unethical journalistic practices which most news-gathering organizations do not allow reporters and editors to entertain from the get-go.

"But, I don't have absolute proof," the annoyed Exec fessed up.

In response, individuals on the other side of the battle lines simply shrugged, and innocently argued that people "just wanted to get their stories out".

Levin, who usually sidesteps the issue, confided to a New York Times reporter (in the wake of the pointed fingers and raging controversy) that the site paid "tip fees" that usually led to stories.

But, spokespeople for TMZ stressed for the record that the mad money laid out for "leads", were not used for "buy outs" or "exclusivity agreements".

The lawyer-Levin - well-versed in the law - is no fool.

The New York Times would probably scrounge about - and ferret out any smoking gun by simply enlisting the sniffing capacities of their own well-placed moles - so the genial gossip maven was smart to "admit" up front.

All of the characters in this tawdry tale sound like scrappers and dirty street-fighters to me.

To add a little color to the mix - and twist the knife in just a tad - the Times' staff writers also took a brief foray into the shadowy realm of TMZ's routine sleaze-ball coverage - sensational peak-a-boo out-takes and scandalous low-brow celebrity teases, for instance - they argued sullied legit attempts by TMZ to gain solid footing in mainstream reporting around the country where ethics in journalism are a prerequisite.

What is the crime committed here?

TMZ led the horses to water, and they slurped it all up, naturally.

Which segues into the next titillating point.

Popularity is up!

"We're very pleased with the ratings," quipped the Senior Vice President of programming for Fox, which airs TMZ on 17 stations around the country.

It is no mystery then as to why Fox intends to broadcast TMZ for at least two more years.

If he isn't already, maybe Levin should start slipping a little something into that designer cup glued in his hand during broadcast - brimming with a mystery elixir 'til now - to help him relax.

Is that the next scandal brewing?

News at 11!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Los Angeles Film Festival...shamed! The Richard Raddon ghost haunts event. Should gays boycott fest?

Tattler readers may recall from a controversial post that I suffered a nasty run-in with last year with former Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival - Richard Raddon - when I approached the devout Mormon about covering the annual Westwood-based event.

In fact, I am still baffled by Raddon's bizarre conduct, to this day.

Post:

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2008/06/los-angeles-independent-film.html

Shortly after I published the tell-all on the Internet, I spied a sudden surge on searches for Richard Raddon on google, which piqued my curiosity.

For some inexplicable reason, Raddon was suddenly a "hot potato" in the blogosphere; so, I dived in head-long and conducted my own dragnet on the high-profile film fest organizer to get to the bottom of the "dish".

Within minutes, I stumbled upon a whole heap-load of nasty sh** on the odd-ball local celebrity in the film biz.

A headlining scandal took the cake.

Allegedly, as "gays" in the Los Angeles lower mainland were engaging in a bitter fight tooth & nail over the issues pertaining to Proposition 8 (initiative to ban gay marriage in California) individuals - Raddon, for one - were stabbing 'em in the back by silently donating significant funds to support the cause.

Raddon's contribution to the witch-hunt?

A thousand bucks!

Shortly afterward, a war of words between "gay activists" and "Mormons" hit the fan, and a controversy erupted in the community that led to angry marches in the street and near riots.

Gays got organized in military-style precision!

Before you could say tit-for-tat, a boycott was launched against all businesses and individuals that contributed funds to the Prop 8 initiative, to demonstrate the clout of the pink dollar.

A trendy Mexican diner on Beverly Boulevard in West Hollywood - frequented by gays in the neighborhood for decades - was the first to feel the pinch and cave in.

The Los Angeles Film Festival was also a prime target ripe for levelling.

Unless Raddon was "let go", gays and their vocal supporters, threatened to boycott the Fest - shut-it down - if possible.

Bowing to pressure, Richard Raddon resigned, and justice appeared to rule the day.

However, the controversy was still bubbling on a back burner behind closed doors.

On the heels of the resignation, actor Don Cheadle - a member of the Festival Board - proceeded to urge Raddon not to kow-tow to the demands of the angry mob (along with a handful of other Directors at the Los Angeles Film Festival who held similar views).

This triggered a heated dialogue on various issues which was awash in the press for weeks on end.

When push came to shove, Raddon honored the resignation, and gays breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Now, as the new Festival (2009) prepares to launch in Westwood in the next ten days or so, there remains one burning question to be answered.

Since Richard Raddon supporters are still firmly ensconced at the LA Film Festival - and no doubt still hold their prior views on gays, the Mormons, the right to contribute funds to political causes (no matter how morally reprehensible), and a ban on gay marriage in California - should the gay community launch a boycott this year to ferret the rest out?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Not!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Newport Beach Film Festival...Director Gregg Schwenk, Saba Shirazi & Staff emotionally disturbed and mentally unstable! Pall falls over Fest...

For the past week, I was reporting on the events at the Newport Beach Film Festival, covering the parties, reviewing the films, and interviewing the talent.

Unfortunately, as the week unfolded, I encountered some rude and insulting conduct from Festival Staff (CEO Gregg Schwenk, Saba Shirazi, and a coordinator by the name of "Norma") which upset the status quo and revealed to me in a startling disturbing manner that there must be something in the water at Fashion Island (where the Festival Headquarters are situated) which was making people "crazy".

In the alternative, I would have to conclude in view of the shocking and disturbing scenarios that went down at the Festival Lounge, that festival staff were simply an unsophisticated lot, devoid of any logic or common sense, with sh** for brains!

It all started when I arrived at the Festival lounge one fine morning at about 9:55 a.m

A young man was standing at the open door with a mop and a bucket of cleaning solvent, so I was inclined to ask him if the Festival Lounge was open.

"Yes," he responded with a wide smile.

I sauntered through the glass door and was about half-way toward the check-in booth when a gruff masculine woman (her name is "Norma", I believe) lurched forward and shouted at me - in a tone of voice I was not inclined to respond well to - that the lounge was not open.

"The gentleman at the door told me it was."

Without reflecting on the situation, she immediately reacted in a negative fashion.

"He's just a worker and shouldn't be telling you that."

She then proceeded to step outside and scold the man!

Just a worker?

I wanted to remind her in so many words that he was not "just a worker" but also a "person", who was entitled to be treated with some dignity and respect, but I expected that would aggravate the situation (so I didn't).

A few minutes later, from my perch outside on the patio, I noticed three other people waiting to enter the lounge glance at their watches, then stand up, and file into the Festival headquarters.

So, I proceeded to follow.

At the buffet table, as I was pouring a cup of coffee, "Norma" walked over and continued to harass me!

"Couldn't wait to get in, could you? I told you were closed."

I glanced at my watch. It was about a minute to ten.

How petty!!!

I noted that the three other people entered and that they weren't being harassed - at which point - she told a lie to save face.

"They are all volunteers here for a special presentation."

Not true!

I later verified that one woman was actually an actress in town at the festival to promote the film she was in.

Liar!

When I informed the out-of-line staffer that I was not thrilled with the way I was being treated, an associate - another volunteer who I had a long talk with earlier in the week on Buddhism - grabbed my hand and literally pulled me over to the couch and plunked me down on it.

Over her shoulder, she uttered a comment to "Norma".

"I'll take care of this."

Since I don't like to be ordered around, or forced to engage in conversations I would prefer to avoid, I started to get up - at which point - the slightly "off" woman proceeded to firmly place a hand on each shoulder in a bold-faced effort to prevent me from getting up.

Jesus!

It suddenly dawned on me that these folks at the Newport Beach Film Festival were under the impression they could just order people around, physically manhandle them, control their movements at whim, whatever!

"Excuse me, but I have work to do," I said politely as I eluded her grasp and headed over to the computer.

Have you ever encountered such bizarre behaviour at a Film Festival?

Not me.

I proceeded to work on a rough draft for a short while, then gave up my place at the computer when I noticed another festival-goer waiting to hop on.

As I sat on the couch sipping my coffee, I spied "Norma" engaged in a lively conversation outside with Gregg Schwenk (CEO).

At this juncture, Mr. Schwenk entered the lounge, then strode over to me.

In flippant manner, that was a tad "gay", he said:

"Who might YOU be?"

First of all, I thought it mind-boggling that Mr. Schwenk didn't have an inkling as to who I was, in spite of the fact I had been reporting on festival events for over a week non-stop and held a press pass issued by his own publicity department.

In fact, I had posted numerous upbeat articles on the festival, which were currently being read by Internet browsers all over the web.

Notwithstanding, I thought the Executive Director terribly remiss in his duties for failing to make any good-faith professional effort to introduce himself to members of the Press when they arrived at the Festival, or - even lift a finger - to determine who the players vital to his organization were!

When I noted I was with "The Tattler" & "Pop Culture", he gave me a forced smile, then piped up amid a flutter of hands.

"Well, have a good stay."

I headed back to the computer to work on my features.

It suddenly occurred to me that I did not have all the pertinent info on Mr. Schwenk - his exact title, e-mail address, office location, etc. - so when he stepped back inside I was inclined to do two things.

First, in view of the conversation he had outside (in which "Norma" was obviously bad-mouthing me and distorting the facts), I decided it would be good form (and wise on my part) to enlighten him about his staff's rude and insulting conduct and note for the record that in view of coverage I was giving to the Festival I did not appreciate the abuse aimed in my direction.

When I asked for his card for future reference, he pulled out a silver case.

Once he managed to pry it open, the cards tumbled out willy-nilly, and spilled on the floor.

"I don't have any left, as you can see," he responded with a wild-eyed look of terror on his face.

Needless to say, I returned to the PC without his business card, since he obviously did not want me to have one for some inexplicable reason.

I thought the unpleasantness regarding "Norma" was all settled, so I put it out of my mind.

The following morning I waited until about 10:05 a.m. before arriving at the Festival Lounge - after all - I did not want to ruffle any more feathers.

As I strolled in, I spied "Norma" standing near the front desk. Instead of nodding hello, she turned away and ignored me. Then, she whispered something to a volunteer standing next to her. The woman in question then turned and gave me a dirty look.

After a brief discussion with a couple of sane volunteers about the movie I'd taken in the night before, I grabbed a coffee and then sat down at the computer to pen a review.

Ah, but things got curiouser and curiouser.

When I asked an employee at the computer next to me if he'd attended the movie the night before, he snapped at me that he didn't have time to screen films.

How odd, since he claimed to be a programmer on a selection committee for the festival.

Since he had been friendly to me all week, his cold manner now stood out like a sore thumb.

As I started to open the edit bay of the blospot, he uttered a nasty comment my way.

"All you do is sit at the computer. You don't attend any of the screenings."

What a thoughtless cruel remark to make!

If the man could read, and had the skills to maneuver his way to my web sites, it would have been obvious from the posts on my blog - that I had not only attended many films - but had been kind enough to give a handful of glowing reviews in some instant cases.

I'm no fool.

Obviously, "Norma" was slandering me and stabbing me in the back, and trying to poison festival staff - and filmmakers - against me!

So, I pointed out to the ungrateful bast*** that I had not only screened films - but, took it upon myself to get up early and scurry over to the Festival Lounge each morning - to pen a post so it could be published post haste on the Internet.

Since the dude was thick in the head, I underscored my intentions; namely, that it was my hope that by publishing the articles right away, it might encourage locals, film buffs, and industry types to trot on down to the festival and snap up a ticket or two before the end of its run.

"You people are lucky I am here penning these posts and giving you free publicity. Otherwise, you would be SOL."

A case in point?

During the run of the festival to date, I hadn't encountered too many press folks from major mainstream publications at the Festival, giving any meaningful coverage.

They should have been blessing the ground I walked on!

As to the computer issue - well, a short while later - Saba Shirazi (PR) actually had the nerve to complain about the fact I was using the computer to pen my posts for the Festival!

For the record, I should like to point out that when I attended the Cinevegas Film Festival, the publicity department provided computers for the press, so they could get their coverage out.

Smart cookies!

At AFI Dallas, the same thing.

To be honest with you, I was wondering how I would swing it in Newport Beach once I arrived at the Festival grounds, since my laptop was recently stolen.

When I saw the computers that were available, I was overjoyed that I'd be able to write my stories, then get 'em online right away later that day.

In the alternative, I would have been forced to file away my notes, film data, and promotional documents, until I returned home a week later to draft, edit, and polish the intended coverage.

By then, the Festival would have been over.

What good would the publicity have been to the Newport Beach Film festival at that late date?

I like to believe that my daily coverage has been catching the attention of the locals and film buffs and that - as a result - ticket sales have been bolstered due to my generous efforts.

In addition to that potential plus, the reality of the situation is, that when I was sitting at the computer at different intervals throughout the day filmmakers who sat down next to me got the opportunity to meet me and promote their films .

Indeed, for several filmmakers, that situation turned into a bonanza.

A few films I would not have taken in, I did.

After-the-fact, I either wrote a review - or in the alternative - gave the struggling filmmakers much-needed publicity for their films.

Oh, but Schwenk and Shirazi and "Norma" - and that silly "program director" - were just too blind or too stupid to figure that out in spite of the fact the whole scenario was unfolding before their eyes - daily!

Maybe if they read an article that John Horn penned for the Los Angeles Times (which was published this morning coincidentally) they might get it through their thick skulls that they were fortunate that I even bothered to attend their rinky-dink little festival (on my own cash) in view of the "global" doom that is descending on the film biz right now.

"Overseas DVD and television sales is slumping. International distributors can't get financing to buy movies, piracy is cutting into overseas ticket sales, foreign currencies are falling in value and key international territories have essentially discontinued acquiring American Films," he solemnly reported in his column on page 1 of the Calendar Section.

He then went on to make a couple of salient points.

By virtue of a quote from Jere Hausfater (Chief Executive Officer of the International Sales Company Essential Entertainment) he noted the following upsetting news.

"Japan has stopped buying English-language movies.The indigenous Japanese movies are continuing to dominate the box office."

"On top of everything else," he stated matter-of-fact, "Everything else - supply and demand equations - has been out of whack."

"There was a glut of product." Hausfater (Horn's source) continued.

"And either buyers paid too much for the movies and got burned or a lot of movies had to sit on the sidelines and then didn't get bought."

Clearly, these idiots at the Newport Beach Film Festival are either unknowledgable about the intricacies (and sorry state) of the film biz or just too damned obstinate (and arrogant) to recognize their failings.

Harassing the press (moi, for instance) - and likewise, ticking them off - amounts to suicide in view of the foregoing.

Bill Cosby said it best:

"A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need the advice."

Postscript

After the shocking incident which down yesterday at the Newport Beach Film Festival lounge, I spoke with an Officer at the local police station who informed me as follows.

"If someone grabs a person's body and attempts to physically hold them against their will, too, they "quote" - get what they deserve - "unquote".

Hear that, Ms. Shirazi?

http://www.julianayrs.com

Christian Bale...eats crow! Journalist Rachel Abramowitz at LA Times unprofessional re: TMZ!

Director of Photography lucky Bale didn't scratch his eyes out!

Christian Bale has fessed up!

"I was out of order beyond belief. I was a punk," he admitted to a disc jockey on air at KROQ yesterday.

The mea culpa was in response to an incriminating audio recording posted on the TMZ web site which painted a picture of a pampered star with a flair for the dramatic and prone to engage in abusive unprofessional conduct.

As I reported at this blog site on the Tuesday last, Bale blew his stack when a Director of Photography on "Terminator Salvation" fussed-about a little too close to the touchy actor as he was emoting for a crucial scene in the big-budget feature.

In a nutshell, Shane Hurlbut innocently stepped into Bale's eye line, annoyed the spoiled actor - and thereafter - was summarily dressed up-and-down in a tirade spiced with salty language that shocked fans around the country!

Post: 02/03/09

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/02/christian-baleshocking-tirade-on-set.html

Disc Jockeys jumped into the fray - and in a scant few hours - the tongue-wagging about Bale's scandalous conduct reached a fever pitch.

When the sexy star tuned in and got an earful of the criticisms - and heard playbacks of the ugly tirade that swept his emotions away that fateful day - he acknowledged he wasn't pleased with his conduct, either.

"There is nobody who heard the tape who is hit harder than me. I make no excuses for it. It is inexcusable."

That said, one has to wonder, does Bale intend to enroll in an anger management class with the specific aim of curbing that kind of unprofessional conduct in the future?

By the way, on the topic of a - "lack of professionalism" - the spotlight should also be thrown on LA Times writer, Rachel Abramowtiz.

In today's daily, Ms. Abramowitz reported on the incident, but displayed a shocking lack of ethics and professionalism in the process.

Why?

The writer never referenced the original source material.

Although TMZ secured the incriminating evidence - and was first to release the shocking tape and point the finger at Bale's disturbing abusive conduct in the mainstream press - Abramowitz never bothered to give any credit to the source.

I seriously have to wonder if the she ever took any courses in Journalism.

If I am not mistaken - "Ethics in Journalism" and "Citing Sources" - are discussed in Journalism 1, aren't they?

Shame!

Abramowitz under mistaken impression she's the star!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Barack Obama...photo reveals darker side! Gotcha...

The photograph on the front page of the Los Angeles Times capturing the 44th President at his desk the first day in office was a little disconcerting.

On the campaign trail - at election rallies and while on the road pursuing his American "dream" - the paparazzi snapped poignant stills of a smiling thoughtful man who resonated ripe leadership qualities.

Today's image was startlingly different.

The lens has uncannily captured a smug - almost prissy - Barack as he exchanged a few words with a Number 1 lapdog.

Am I misreading the photo, or is Obama assuming a noticeable air of superiority?

Is the Prez looking down on his right-hand man at the White House - Chief of Staff - Rahm Emmanuel?

And, the curious aura Obama projects is a telling one.

"I'm in charge now. So, fu** 'em," appears to be the message the head honcho is communicating.
In the final analysis, it appears that there are mysterious facets of Barack Obama's personality yet to be revealed.

As the Office of the Presidency makes demands, takes its toll, and - ultimately - tests his mettle, I expect new aspects of the man's true nature will spring forth as shining revelations.

James D. Miles once opined:

"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him."

http://www.julianayrs.com

Proposition 8...LA TIMES writer called bigot by readers!

I was just preparing to pen a post in response to a column a writer at the Los Angeles Times wrote a couple of days ago in respect to the El Coyote boycott - (which caused a lot of stress, anxiety, and financial fall-out to the owners and staff alike in the aftermath) - when a second article was published in today's daily.

In today's column, the journalist - Steve Lopez - was flabbergasted that readers of the first article responded in a hateful fashion and hurled the "bigot" label his way.

So, I am inclined to take all issues to task, for good reason.

In the initial report, Mr. Lopez noted that he took a jaunt over to the El Coyote to have a chat with Marjorie Christoffersen (who contributed $100.00 to the Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage cause) in the wake of the boycott that followed on its heels.

Christoffersen was teary-eyed over the fact business had dropped to an all-time low - and wailed to the reporter that (as a result) staff members may be laid off.

Since the business was patronized by many "gays" in the community - the disclosure of the restaurant manager's contribution to the Proposition 8 initiative - clearly incensed many who sprang into action and spoke out in protest by virtue of their pocketbooks.

I was irked by the fact - and prompted to respond to the piece because of it - that Christoffersen noted for the record that she used to walk between the tables and chat with the gay customers during the course of her twenty-or-so years of employment at the Mexican restaurant.

It staggered my sensibilities, therefore, that Ms. Christoffersen found it difficult to fathom how it was that her "innocent" actions came to be construed as a "stab" in the back by her long-time customers.

Notwithstanding, Ms. Christoffersen appeared to have little remorse over her actions.


Yes, she felt badly about the fact her contribution caused business to drop off.

In light of that admission, would the devout Mormon do it again?



Well, it was noted in the article that when she met with "gays" in the community to allegedly apologize for her offensive act - and organizers pressed her for a contribution to the anti-Proposition 8 movement - that she broke down in tears and balked at the suggestion.

But, you know what?

Many are missing the point.

In his article, Mr. Lopez noted that Ms. Christoffersen elected to give the $100.00 donation to the Proposition 8 cause because gay marriage was against the doctrines of her Mormon Church.

And, the columnist further argued, that Christoffersen should not be tar-and-feathered for the position she took pursuant to her right to free speech and religious freedom.

Likewise, the same argument was put forth by supporters of Richard Raddon, who were appalled at the way he was treated in the wake of his contribution of $1500.00 to the Mormon effort.

I agree, a person has a right to give to a cause based on their personal, political, and/or religious practices.

However, citizens around the country not only have the right to disagree with that position, but also are entitled to disassociate themselves with those who do not support their beliefs.

That's human nature.

Bottom line?

Gays have every right to boycott El Coyote - and shun Marjorie Christoffersen - if they so please.

Notwithstanding, I am of the opinion that the gays who recently wrote in to the LOS ANGELES TIMES - and labelled Mr. Lopez a "bigot" - were way out-of-line.


Mr. Lopez was simply reporting on the issues.

In fact, his article was balanced and well-reasoned and no cause for alarm.

He's not a bigot by any stretch of the imagination.


On the heels of this latest incident of misguided hate, I have to caution the gay community.

The scenario is kind of like the boy who cried "wolf", I guess.

If individuals are attacked here and there - without provocation or due cause around the political, social, and religious landscape - society as a whole will turn a deaf ear.

I urge the gay community to use some common sense and a modicum of intelligence when sifting through the issues with the ultimate aim of coming to grips with self-evident truths.

I think an old phrase that Joan Rivers once quipped ad nauseam is worth repeating here.

"Grow up!"

Continue with your efforts to overturn Proposition 8, but do so with dignity and grace.

You can rustle up a lot more with sugar - than vinegar - 'ya know!

Shopping Ideas

http://www.julianayrs.com

Tribune Co...owner of Los Angeles Times to seek bankruptcy protection! Cubs for sale...

Citing a financial slump - due to a loss of revenue to the Internet and a transformation of rich media in recent years - the cash-strapped Tribune Co. announced a bankruptcy filing may be in the wind to stave off creditors and float the Chicago-based conglomerate until the economy ends its downhill spiral.

The Tribune - which owns the Los Angeles times and the Chicago Cubs and about twenty-three TV stations - is seeking to renegotiate $12 billion (!) in debt primarily with financial institutions.

While the yuletide season is usually the time to feel jolly, there are glum faces all-around at the Tribune.

"Some advertisers are still pushing to get through the holiday season, but when others look to cut discretionary spending, we are right at the top of the list," an executive solemnly noted to the press.

Sam Zell had his hope chest pinned on selling the Chicago Cubs for top dollar.

But, landing a profitable deal will be tough.

Some hint that Zell - the mercurial business man that he is - may be crying wolf.

A former Tribune executive who has been following the trials and tribulations of Zell's topsy-turvy empire has conjectured that the bankruptcy proposal may be a sneaky way for the feisty company head to maneuver himself into a bargaining posture that is better-suited to structuring Tribune debt load.

Over the past few months Zell has laid off hundreds of employees in an attempt to cut costs and pay bills.

Russell H. Ewing once said:

"A boss creates fear, a leader confidence. A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes. A boss knows all, a leader asks questions. A boss makes work drudgery, a leader makes it interesting."

Sam Zell on a good day!

Los Angeles Times...lack of ethics in journalism!

As much as possible, I attempt to give the old local movie houses a plug or two - so the owners can continue to pay their bills - and provide reasonably-priced movies in the community.

The Regency in the Fairfax district, for example, charges a mere $3.50 for a matinee before the stroke of 6 p.m. daily.

And, six bucks for any offering after the dinner hour.

Likewise, the New Beverly Cinema charges a mere $7.00 for a double-bill.

A paltry sum when you consider that the films screened at the Revival house tend to be classics!

In recent months, I started to notice - for some inexplicable reason - that the daily paper (Los Angeles Times) has been touting both the Aero Theatre and the American Cinematheque.

At first, I surmised that their motives were purely altruistic.

"Heh, 'ya gotta catch this feature. It's a gem!"

Weren't they just drawing attention to a film event their readership may be fired up about attending?

Just last week, the answer to that question became evident.

"No."

The Los Angeles Times is a sponsor of the Aero Theatre & the American Cinematheque!

Imagine that!

They've been promoting those theatres on the sly because of a selfish vested interest.

Once again, the management at the daily has demonstrated their lack of ethics.

Nevertheless, the writers at the Times are quick to point out that flaw in others, when the opportunity arises.

David Hull put it succinctly when he said:

"Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society."

Obama...Los Angeles Times "videotape" controversy! Unbiased reporting?

When I spied a few twitters on the Internet last night over the Los Angeles Times scandal that has been brewing over the past twenty-four hours - I got the distinct impression from the musings of a handful of blog writers - that the editors at morning daily were wrongfully "withholding" incriminating evidence which established Obama's questionable past associations with individuals of dubious character.

On the heels of the brouhaha - management at the TIMES responded to McCain's finger-pointing - by publishing an account of their own version of events in what appeared to be a sincere effort to shed light on the issues.

For those of you in the dark, McCain is alleging that the daily "intentionally suppressed" a videotape it obtained through "unknown" sources which allegedly reveals Barack Obama at a 2003 banquet acknowledging a friendship with a leading Palestinian scholar and activist, Rashid Khalidi.

In response, the editors were adamant in their rebuttal piece - that contrary to what McCain believes - the newspaper sought to bring the matter to the public fore.


The editor noted for the record that - if anything - the daily simply sought to protect a confidential source who provided the tape on the provisio that it not be released.

The Times keeps its promises to sources, Editor Russ Stanton asserted to the media, in the wake of the controversy.

Management did not respond to the McCain's allegation that they were inclined to favor Obama, though.

Stanton either sidestepped that issue or overlooked it perhaps?

For the most part, the paper's arguments appear to be reasonable, under the circumstances.

But, can the LA TIMES be trusted to report fairly on the issues without bias?

After all, they are at the heart of the controversy.

It wouldn't be the first time a news organization - or media outlet - pulled the old soft-shoe to get themselves out of a tight fix.

Is there an independent "body" - a media watch organization - that can be called upon to act as a mediator in the dispute?

If not, perhaps the current crisis cries out for one to be established, to ultimately preserve the integrity and ethical standards of the media at large in the future.

Patrick Goldstein...Los Angeles Times writer pens pap! Wasted column inches...

Well, Patrick Goldstein is at it again.

Once again, he's penning ignorant musings for the morning daily, to satisfy his overblown sense of self-importance.

Just a few days ago, everyone was savoring a big chuckle over a silly piece he threw together on the Roger Ebert scandal.

If you recall, Roger Ebert confessed on his blog, that a nifty review on the feature - Tru Loved - was crafted without disclosing the fact the rotund little critic only screened about eight minutes of celluloid.

In response, Mr. Goldstein jumped into the fray (to rustle up some much-needed publicity for himself, no doubt. Poor baby!) and wildly predicted that Ebert's shame-faced admission would spark trouble for all critics around the country.

As I quipped at the time, baloney!

When I opened the newspaper and turned to the Calendar section and started to peruse his latest article this morning, I literally laughed out loud!

After noting that he attended a screening of a comedy this past week (Role Models), the ingenuous hack proceeded to ponder why the Academy didn't award more Oscars to that popular genre.

Duh!

In fact - he noted in the overly-long shallow piece - that after the screening he found himself "wondering" why the Oscars didn't recognize good work in comedy the way they do drama, animation, cinematography, editing (oh boy, he left no stone unturned on this one) - etc. etc. and so forth and so on!

The man is a piece of work, isn't he?

For starters, the subject he was whining about has been thoroughly covered - ad nauseam - for about two decades by a handful of top entertainment writers in the industry.

More galling, perhaps, is Goldstein's deceitful bold-faced effort to conjure up the impression that his take on the issue is a fresh insight!

Mr. Goldstein, do you honestly think everyone in the biz has lived in a vacuum for the past twenty years?

Or, just maybe, you thought we were born yesterday?

At this juncture, I think it's obvious why the Los Angeles Times is losing credibility (and suffering circulation losses) in recent months.

Who wants to read the tired old news that Mr. Goldstein is offering up under the pretense that it is his own original thought-provoking material?


Years ago, Frank Sinatra caught a lot of flack from the media for referring to journalists as a bunch of hookers.

In Mr. Goldstein's case, the label is right on the money.


If I was the managing editor at the daily, I would give Goldstein's butt a swift kick into the "Want ads" department.

His writing would be better-suited for drafting copy for used cars.

After all, his propensity for selling pre-owned properties, makes him well-suited for the task.

Roger Ebert...tawdry scandal! Ten lashes with wet noodle...

This past week, Roger Ebert posted a notice on his blog admitting that he did the unthinkable.

Allegedly he wrote a review of a film (Tru Loved) in spite of the fact he only took a peak at about eight minutes of the celluloid footage.

Yes, Ebert's attention span is short! (among other things)


The confession was enough to inspire a feature-length tirade by a staffer by the name of Patrick Goldstein at the Los Angeles Times, who asserted that Ebert's "blunder" would surely spell trouble for film critics.

Baloney!

For starters, Mr. Goldstein is a lousy critic.



On the occasion or two when I chose to struggle through one of his (um) critiques - it was obvious to my artistic sensibilities in about two seconds flat - that his pap not only underscored his lack of writing ability but his ignorance about film, too.


His chock-a-block phrases - and stilted way of expressing himself - signaled he was out to exalt himself (and his name and reputation) at the expense of whoever stood in the way.

For instance, in support of his ludicrous whining, he took a swipe at one of the reviewers in his own daily to elevate his status.

Here's what he had to say about fellow peer Kenneth Turnan.

"After reading Kenny Turnan's dismissal of "Quantum of Solace", one wonders whether Mr. Turan was dozing off during the film's breathtaking action sequences or simply walked out of the screening room after eight minutes, in emulation of Roger Ebert's rude dismissal of a movie earlier this year."

Goldstein is a back stabber, for sure!

True - it was wrong of Ebert to give the impression he caught the whole movie - simply from an ethical standpoint.

Also, patently unfair, when you consider that - bottom line - he didn't give the filmmakers two shakes in the final analysis.

Sometimes a film is a sleeper, starts slow, for instance.

On the other hand, if Mr. Ebert found it to be an impossible "yawn", he should have disclosed that in his review.

"Saw eight minutes of it. Hated it."

Occasionally, reviewers do face dilemmas.

But, a creative mind can fathom a way out of it.

For instance - this past week I caught sight of a couple of reviews on the new Madonna film - "Filth and Wisdom".

One critic hailed it as "naughty and nice".

I thought that Madonna deserved an advance write-up in view of the fact it was her first time out as a director, but since I hadn't screened the film, I could hardly plug it on that basis.

So, I put on my thinking cap!

I quoted a couple of the reviewers - pointed out how promotional blurbs were touting the sexy romp - and made mention of the fact I would attend a screening in the near future.

I remained honest and Madonna got a plug.

Earlier this year - due to a scheduling conflict - I was unable to attend the feature - "Memorial Day" - at a festival in the desert.

Since patrons walked out of the screening outraged - I thought the festival offering should be given some coverage - if only to warn audiences.

So, I interviewed an actress in the movie - in addition to - a handful of theatregoers who attended the premiere.

Hence, I was able to craft an article about the controversy.

In that instance - because of the way I broached the sticky problem - there was no dishonesty whatsoever.

But, getting back to Ebert.

For the most part, I find him to be a competent reliable critic.

On occasion, if he is passionate about a particular actor - or a project - he may be unduly influenced and go overboard.

Just maybe, the rotund little fella will end up with a stick up his butt, too.

In that instance, his opinion can not be trusted.

Funny that!

A few months ago I caught "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" at one of the local film houses.

Mr. Ebert was given a writing credit on that project.

What a disaster!

I could forgive Ebert for penning such a convoluted piece of trash - which didn't make any sense on any artistic level - in view of the fact the script was written about thirty years ago when he was starting out in a fledgling career.

Go figure - when the film screened at the min-fest - Ebert took the nod as a "sign" from the movie "Gods" (I surmise) that "Beyond" was on its way to cult status.

In fact, on the eve of the screening, he had the audacity to whiz off a telegram to the Festival Director in charge of the proceedings (to be read to the audience that night) in which he lamented that "Beyond" never received its due originally.

Maybe now, he added with gusto, the film would start screening at midnight screenings alongside classics like the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Well, I laughed!

It was bad enough that Ebert penned such an awful piece of trash - but worse still - to learn that he hasn't wised up to the fact "Beyond" was (and is) a stinker of high order.

What do they say?

Those who can't do, critique?

As to Mr. Goldstein, he should go write copy for brochures or flyers for garage sales.

After all, his contribution to the realm of cinema, is zip!

Los Angeles Times...quote of the day! Blogger screws up...

A controversy arose when a writer from a blog site (Blue Tidal Wave) submitted a story for consideration on Digg - which alleged that footage from a Katie Couric interview - was being "held back" to gain some advantage in the leverage game.

The writer, going by the moniker - The Saint - first lifted a quote from media critic Howard Kurtz, to jump-start his report.

"The worst may be yet to come for Palin. Sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing."

At this juncture, the Saint - less than Saintly judging by his scurrilous actions - proceeded to twist and distort the information to suit his own personal agenda.

According to the Times writer, David Sarno, the Saint took Kurtz's revelation and transformed it into an accusation of censorship replete with his own sounding board.

In short, here's what he posted.

"CBS evening news insiders say the censoring of the Palin interview was orchestrated by CBS news heads and Couric in an effort to show the McCain (!) campaign that they should choose the struggling nightly news program for their exclusive (!) interviews."

Well, for starters, there were enough red herrings in that little ditty to entice any super sleuth!


Sensing that Tidal Wave's tale of intrigue did not pass the smell test, either, the reporter at the daily followed up with a question or two of his own.

Ha! The Saint confessed.


The alleged CBS source was not that, at all.

The "insiders" fibber-boy was referring to - did not have any clout - and weren't heavyweights on the inside at CBS with privileged information, either.

"It was just a friend."

In addition, he admitted shame-faced the two only spoke "off-hand".

The icing on the cake?

"There never was any permission to cite a source."

When it comes right down to it, the Saint did not know if additional unused footage would be used at all, or if ever.

So, he put on his thinking cap, and dredged up the titillating accusation that the CBS camp was holding back footage with future strategies in mind.

It has since been determined that footage does exist; however, the wild scenario fathomed up by the Saint was nothing but a load of "hooey".

The truth of the matter is - Couric shot material separately for a "Questions" segment - which included a matching interview with Senator Joe Biden.

After chastising various individuals - and raising the issue of ethics in reporting - David Sarno uttered up what is undoubtedly the quote of the day.

"If there's one thing you learn from reporting on the Web, it's to be careful what you swallow."

Josh Groban...knee-jerk reactions from fans. Mentally unbalanced, few!

Groban fans need to awaken from deep stupor...


Just before Christmas last year - as fans were savoring the strains of Josh Groban's Holiday Season album (which pushed the CD to No. 1 on the charts) - the young vocalist whined in a Los Angeles Times interview that he was basically fed up with warbling carols and wanted to move on.

In a response post, I noted that Mr. Groban appeared to be a bit ungrateful - and, that in essence - he was throwing a damper on holiday spirits because he lacked the ability (or maturity) to follow through.

Of course - this caused a knee-jerk reactions from fans - who criticized me for tearing down their musical God.

Since the opinions of fools means nothing to me, I ignored their angst and moved on.

This past weekend - the Los Angeles times singled out Mr. Groban as being "overrated" - on the heels of a performance on the 60th Annual Emmy Awards show which the Times' writers labelled a bit "cheesy".

In response, I penned a post noting - that while Mr. Groban's voice tended to fall upon the "ears" blissfully at times - he sounded too "trained".

I proceeded to point out that if he sang from the heart, his vocalizing might improve.

Currently, he sings from the "head" - from a structured musical foundation - which limits his appeal.

Hence, the criticisms from various quarters in recent days.

No, I'm not the only one to find fault with Groban.

Shortly after I posted those comments yesterday afternoon, there was a big flurry of activity on the Internet!

Yes, Groban fans were in attack mode now.

I laughed!

I am a big fan of this director or that actor - but when other enthusiasts in those areas of interest in the arts disagree with me - I don't get all bent out of shape.

Different strokes for different folks, man!

Notwithstanding the obvious - it appears that a handful of Groban fans - are a little emotionally out-of-whack.

Their wild erratic responses indicate to me - anyway - that they lack the ability (and intelligence) to put forth any reasonable argument to back up any grounds for their nonsensical angry tirades.

Go figure.

Music tends to inspire the emotions.

In the case of Groban fans, they've gone looney tunes.

Grow up!

I don't know how to "wing it"...

Burn After Reading...ticket sales drop as predicted. Film fizzles. LA Times misrepresents facts!

Last week, I predicted that once the word got out that the new Coen release - "Burn After Reading" - was basically a piece of celluloid crap, that the ticket sales would drop off.

Opening week - due in large part to the all-star cast (which included Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and John Malkovich) "Burn" managed to rustle up approximately $25 million.

However - now that the theatre-going public has gotten wind of the fact that "Burn" is a bit of a stinker - Box Office has dropped off by over fifty percent.

Meanwhile, in the business section of the LA TIMES this morning, the paper falsely represented that the "dark spy comedy" was gaining momentum - when, in fact - it is losing its legs!

Notwithstanding this glaring irregularity, their list of top ten films does not accurately reflect the facts either; especially when you consider that "The Duchess" and "Appaloosa" had strong sales in limited release around the country over the weekend.

In sum, the top ten list the Times is touting, doesn't mean diddly-squat!

Part of the problem is that writers at the Times are not only inexperienced (incompetent at interpreting data and facts) but are also inclined to be biased in their reporting.

In addition, the paper kow-tows to advertisers to curry favor and boost sales, which doesn't bode well for ethics in journalism.

Understandably, the morning daily has lost its credibility as a legitimate news outlet.

In fact, smart readers are turning to the New York Times by the droves!

The more practical ones - on the other hand - are using the main sections of the LA rag to line their kitty litter boxes.

Zell must be turning over in his grave!

In sum, features in the Los Angeles Times amount to:

"All the news that isn't fit to print"



Can't all be winners, 'ya know...

Michael Phelps...LA TIMES' Bill Plaschke calls Olympic swimmer "Dork". A**hole!

Studly swimmer causes hearts to flutter...


I was taken aback bright and early this morning when I was perusing the morning daily - the Los Angeles Times - and came across a snotty remark writer Bill Plaschke made about Olympic Gold Medalist, Michael Phelps.

In his report on Phelps' near-miss for the "gold" last night at the Beijing Olympic games, he snarked:

"When America remembers how a dorky Baltimore kid once devoured the Olympics, this is what they will remember."

Dorky?

Get real, Plaschke.

A cashier at Gelson's said it succinctly this morning when she excitedly gushed,

"He's the man."

In contrast, when historians sift through old news clips of the Olympic competitions in Beijing, they'll recall that Bill Plaschke was a hack writer with a jaundiced view on life.

A**hole!

Bill Clinton...snared by Mayhill Fowler, a sniping senior! LA TIMES, shame!

The LA TIMES hailed Mayhill Flower - an over-the-hill self-proclaimed writer cum sh** disturber - as an outright "media revolution" in the morning paper.


In the tabloid-style piece, James Rainey argued that the so-called roving web "journalist" (I use the term very loosely) had a big one up on pundits and newsies like Tim Russert, Katie Couric and Larry King in recent days because she allegedly won the contest for nabbing the most provocative presidential quotes to date.

Bullsh**!

One of the quotes Mr. Rainey was referring to was an eyebrow raising comment uttered by Clinton - which she caught on video - in response to a question about the upcoming Vanity Fair article in which Todd Purdum disparaged the former president.

When you read the article - and are made privy to the machinations of Ms. Fowler leading up to the event - then it's quite obvious to any fifth-grader that the back-stabbing bottle-blond is "no journalist". In fact, she's not even a cut above an ambulance-chasing attorney, a private dick hiding outside Motels scrambling for the dicey goods on cheating husbands, or even the handful of tabloid writers who invent scintillating tidbits to titillate the nation at supermarket stands each week.

With a bit of gleeful cluck, Ms. Fowler attributed the big "scoop" to persistence, serendipity and the flouting of old rules of mainstream journalism.

Forget about the serendipity, there was nothing the least bit magical about the moment.

As to the flouting and persistence - yup - the two culminated in sleaze-ball conduct that ranks her right up there with the Nixon-era gang who "rat-fu**ed enemies of "dirty dick".

In contrast, she proudly boasts about her own slimy maneuverings.

"Of course, he had no idea I was a journalist," she chirped on the telephone to the reporter who was all ears. (I had no idea either)

"He just thought we were all average ordinary Americans who had come out to see him. And, of course, in one sense, that is what I am."

Whoa, Nellie!

You call an ambushing smut-chaser an average ordinary American?

Not content to let Clinton just twist in the wind in the aftermath she was inclined to stir up the intrigue a bit.

With dime-store-novel flair she confessed to the reporter that originally she intended to slip Bill her business card (Yeah, guess she figured he goes for older tail, too) with the hope of landing an - um - interview.

Darn it all - during a hot flash or something - she dropped the little name plate on the crowded rally floor - so what was Nancy Drew to do?

"I managed a handshake, but my mind went blank," she wistfully recalled of the moment that brought the moth close to flame.

"I missed my moment," she ruefully recalled to Rainey.

Yeah, at that juncture, she must have been just about p**ing her pants.

But, as fate would have it (Rainey himself was quick on the uptake and managed to piece the end scenario together on the fly) "...ever the ebullient retail politician, (Bill) reached out a second time."

Eureka! The Gods were smiling down on her, no doubt!

Now the female primal call for self-preservation was thrown into high gear as she scrambled for a scratch - an itty-bitty scrap of something - to snatch her back from the jaws of oblivion.

Yes - the Vanity Fair accusations that Bill dirtied his legacy by running with unsavory friends and business associates - would do the trick.

The hungry tigress leapt towards her prey.

"Mr. President, what do you think about the hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"

Ironic, in view of the fact she was just about to heave-ho the old axe herself into Bill's back.

When he responded with his infamous comments - "slimy, dishonest" - she videotaped it knowing full-well what she intended to do with the footage as she innocently gazed intently into his eyes.

She's a real piece of work, eh?

Ms. Fowler, sorry to burst your bubble, but -

You're supposed to be reporting the news, not creating it, fool!

No wonder celebrities, politicians and other luminaries in the public eye are wary of the media.

In sum, the premeditated efforts by scumbags like Fowler to launch an assault to assassinate character, underscore that she - and others like her - are nothing short of stalkers and slashers out for a merciless kill.

You're not a journalist, Ms. Fowler, you're a menace to the community at large.

It must be an ugly sight when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

As to the LA TIMES?

Well, they should be ashamed for glorifying such disreputable unethical conduct.

No wonder the daily has lost its luster in recent days.

But, it makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.

Meow!

Bill is irresistible, after all...

Mayhill Fowler..sniping senior snares Bill Clinton. Nasty stuff!

The LA TIMES hailed Mayhill Flower - an over-the-hill self-proclaimed writer cum sh** disturber - as an outright "media revolution" in the morning paper.


In the tabloid-style piece, James Rainey argued that the so-called roving web "journalist" (I use the term very loosely) had a big one up on pundits and newsies like Tim Russert, Katie Couric and Larry King in recent days because she allegedly won the contest for nabbing the most provocative presidential quotes to date.

Bullsh**!

One of the quotes Mr. Rainey was referring to was an eyebrow raising comment uttered by Clinton - which she caught on video - in response to a question about the upcoming Vanity Fair article in which Todd Purdum disparaged the former president.

When you read the article - and are made privy to the machinations of Ms. Fowler leading up to the event - then it's quite obvious to any fifth-grader that the back-stabbing bottle-blond is "no journalist". In fact, she's not even a cut above an ambulance-chasing attorney, a private dick hiding outside Motels scrambling for the dicey goods on cheating husbands, or even the handful of tabloid writers who invent scintillating tidbits to titillate the nation at supermarket stands each week.

With a bit of gleeful cluck, Ms. Fowler attributed the big "scoop" to persistence, serendipity and the flouting of old rules of mainstream journalism.

Forget about the serendipity, there was nothing the least bit magical about the moment.

As to the flouting and persistence - yup - the two culminated in sleaze-ball conduct that ranks her right up there with the Nixon-era gang who "rat-fu**ed enemies of "dirty dick".

In contrast, she proudly boasts about her own slimy maneuverings.

"Of course, he had no idea I was a journalist," she chirped on the telephone to the reporter who was all ears. (I had no idea either)

"He just thought we were all average ordinary Americans who had come out to see him. And, of course, in one sense, that is what I am."

Whoa, Nellie!

You call an ambushing smut-chaser an average ordinary American?

Not content to let Clinton just twist in the wind in the aftermath she was inclined to stir up the intrigue a bit.

With dime-store-novel flair she confessed to the reporter that originally she intended to slip Bill her business card (Yeah, guess she figured he goes for older tail, too) with the hope of landing an - um - interview.

Darn it all - during a hot flash or something - she dropped the little name plate on the crowded rally floor - so what was Nancy Drew to do?

"I managed a handshake, but my mind went blank," she wistfully recalled of the moment that brought the moth close to flame.

"I missed my moment," she ruefully recalled to Rainey.

Yeah, at that juncture, she must have been just about p**ing her pants.

But, as fate would have it (Rainey himself was quick on the uptake and managed to piece the end scenario together on the fly) "...ever the ebullient retail politician, (Bill) reached out a second time."

Eureka! The Gods were smiling down on her, no doubt!

Now the female primal call for self-preservation was thrown into high gear as she scrambled for a scratch - an itty-bitty scrap of something - to snatch her back from the jaws of oblivion.

Yes - the Vanity Fair accusations that Bill dirtied his legacy by running with unsavory friends and business associates - would do the trick.

The hungry tigress leapt towards her prey.

"Mr. President, what do you think about the hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"

Ironic, in view of the fact she was just about to heave-ho the old axe herself into Bill's back.

When he responded with his infamous comments - "slimy, dishonest" - she videotaped it knowing full-well what she intended to do with the footage as she innocently gazed intently into his eyes.

She's a real piece of work, eh?

Ms. Fowler, sorry to burst your bubble, but -

You're supposed to be reporting the news, not creating it, fool!

No wonder celebrities, politicians and other luminaries in the public eye are wary of the media.

In sum, the premeditated efforts by scumbags like Fowler to launch an assault to assassinate character, underscore that she - and others like her - are nothing short of stalkers and slashers out for a merciless kill.

You're not a journalist, Ms. Fowler, you're a menace to the community at large.

It must be an ugly sight when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

As to the LA TIMES?

Well, they should be ashamed for glorifying such disreputable unethical conduct.

No wonder the daily has lost its luster in recent days.

But, it makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.

Meow!

Bill is irresistible, after all...