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...

Las Vegas City Life...Andrew Kiraly, Managing Editor, publishes false statements, lacks Journalistic Ethics!

It must be the desert sun, or maybe there's something in the water, that makes journalists in Las Vegas so stupid...

A case in point, Andrew Kiraly - Managing Editor - of Las Vegas CityLife.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Kiraly contacted me to request an interview about a disturbing incident I reported on my blog in January, which "went down" at the Golden Nugget Hotel.

In a nutshell, I was walking through the rows of one-armed bandits one afternoon in the Casino, when a female security guard ambushed me, and demanded my I.D. in a rude insulting manner. I handed it over to her, but reeled over the fact that there appeared to be a case of mistaken identity or something. I mean, why was she harassing me?

When I asked her to explain her actions, she sought a quick defense. In response, she stated matter-of-fact that she spied me wandering about the casino floor, not betting, and looking suspicious.

Total nonsense!

In fact, in my hand I held a voucher that was dated and time-stamped, that verified I had been plugging coins into the slots for the previous half hour, contrary to her wild allegations!

Obviously, I caught the woman in a lie, trying to validate her unwarranted intrusion.

For good reason, I asked for her supervisor.

A pudgy, ineffectual man appeared, pooh-poohing my claims of inappropriate conduct. So, I asked to see his boss. At this point, he was quite adamant that he was the "top brass" at the Hotel Casino. Of course, I surmised his claims were false, and demanded that the "Manager" speak with me in person on the Casino floor, pronto!

At this juncture, Mr. Realmuto - the real Casino Manager - appeared.

After a brief discussion, he concluded that my complaints were well-founded. Realmuto assured me the Security Guard would apologize (or be suspended) and went on his way to take care of other Casino Business.

However, the Security Guard refused to come back to the floor and offer regrets.

So, I reported the distressing incident on my blog, warning tourists about questionable security practices at the Golden Nugget which might warrant a boycott.

Post: January 8, 2008

In spite of the fact Mr. Kiraly read the initial Golden Nugget post (which was self-explanatory) he asked me to respond to additional questions for the article he was penning. I complied with his request, by e-mail.

For a couple of weeks, I never heard back; so, I assumed he published the article.

Then, one day out-of-the-blue, he contacted me once again. On this occasion, he assured me he was basically ready to put the news report "to bed", but needed a couple of additional details clarified for the article.

At this juncture, he asked me to provide my last name.

Duh!

When I pointed out my name was at the top of my blog, he responded, "Whoops!"

Why kind of investigative journalist was this?

Then, to make matters worse, he proceeded to ask a couple of redundant questions. Even still, I remained patient, and provided thoughtful responses without delay to assist with his investigation of the facts.

Imagine my surprise when I was searching the world-wide-web last week and came across the article he'd written, rife with false statements.

For example, Mr. Kiraly reported that I refused to show my I.D. to the security guard.

A total falsehood!

Then, he proceeded to build a story on this false premise.

For example, he wrote:

"Now, strange things happen in casinos, but what followed was one for the books. Ayrs - steadfast in his refusal to show his I.D. and quickly becoming convinced he was the victim of some form of discrimination - drew a veritable chain of Golden Nugget management into a philosophical debate over whether he had to show his I.D."

The account was totally off!

There wasn't any philosophical debate over whether I should show my I.D. How could there be? I showed it upon request.

Mr. Kiraly got all his facts screwed up.

At issue was not whether I showed my I.D. - but rather - the false allegations the security guard made on the Casino floor, which not only embarrassed and humiliated me, but damaged my name and reputation to the other Hotel guests standing nearby.

Indeed, Mr. Kiraly's twisted account of the events, actually inferred that because of an "alleged refusal" to show my I.D., I was at fault.

Hogwash; nothing could be further from the truth.

But, Mr. Kiraly's lack of journalistic skills did not end there.

When I contacted him to inform him of the "factual errors", he had the audacity to assert that I neglected to disclose I showed my I.D.

False!

The reason I chose to conduct the interview by e-mail, was to ensure that all my statements were in writing, and to prevent any misquotes. In my response communication, I pointed out that I saved copies of all the previous e-mails, and that I was able to verify he had been properly informed.

I also noted my dismay over the fact he appeared to try to shift blame on me.

To date, there has not been any reply from Mr. Kiraly.

After firing off a communication to the Editor, I received word back that a retraction would be printed.

But, how do you unring a bell?

I noticed at their web site this past week that the editor has noted in the article, at their online web site, that a mistake was made in respect to my "alleged" refusal to show I.D.

But, even in this instance, the paper has failed miserably in respect to journalistic ethics.

Normally, a newspaper prints a retraction in a "separate" notice, in a prominent place in the publication. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure attention is drawn to the fact that the journalist made a mistake in reporting the facts, and to make a good faith effort to ensure readers are aware of it.

At Las Vegas CityLife...they recognized they were legally and morally obligated to correct the errors; but, bottom line, it's evident by their sloppy patch-up job that they did not want to draw attention to the fact their managing editor made such grievous errors in respect to a representation of the facts.

I have to wonder at this point how a top-level editor managed to mess up so royally.

Does the man have difficulty reading and understanding English (and comprehending facts) or is he just out-to-lunch?

All things considered, I can't help but ponder the notion that he chose to misrepresent the facts, to suit his own agenda.

Either way you look at it, the man is a menace to the field of journalism.

Andrew Kiraly...looking a little bleary-eyed!

Andrew Kiraly...publishes false statements, lacks professional ethics. Bleary-eyed, Las Vegas CityLife?

It must be the desert sun, or maybe there's something in the water, that makes journalists in Las Vegas so stupid...

A case in point, Andrew Kiraly - Managing Editor - of Las Vegas CityLife.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Kiraly contacted me to request an interview about an disturbing incident I reported on my blog in January, which "went down" at the Golden Nugget Hotel in Las Vegas.

In a nutshell, I was walking through the rows of one-armed bandits one afternoon in the Casino, when a female security guard ambushed me, and demanded my I.D. in a rude insulting manner. I handed it over to her, but reeled over the fact that there appeared to be a case of mistaken identity or something. I mean, why was she harassing me?

When I asked her to explain her actions, she sought a quick defense. In response, she stated matter-of-fact that she spied me wandering about the casino floor, not betting, and looking suspicious.

Total nonsense!

In fact, in my hand I held a voucher that was dated and time-stamped, that verified I had been plugging coins into the slots for the previous half hour, contrary to her wild allegations!

Obviously, I caught the woman in a lie, trying to validate her unwarranted intrusion.

For good reason, I asked for her supervisor.

A pudgy, ineffectual man appeared, pooh-poohing my claims of inappropriate conduct. So, I asked to see his boss. At this point, he was quite adamant that he was the "top brass" at the Hotel Casino. Of course, I surmised his claims were false, and demanded that the "Manager" speak with me in person on the Casino floor, pronto!

At this juncture, Mr. Realmuto - the real Casino Manager - appeared.

After a brief discussion, he concluded that my complaints were well-founded. Realmuto assured me the Security Guard would apologize (or be suspended) and went on his way to take care of other Casino Business.

However, the Security Guard refused to come back to the floor and express regrets.

So, I reported the distressing incident on my blog, warning tourists about questionable security practices at the Golden Nugget Casino which might warrant a boycott.

Post: January 8, 2008

In spite of the fact Mr. Kiraly read the initial Golden Nugget post (which was self-explanatory) he asked me to respond to additional questions for the article he was penning.

I complied with his request, by e-mail.

For a couple of weeks, I never heard back; so, I assumed he published the article.

Then, one day out-of-the-blue, he contacted me once again. On this occasion, he assured me he was basically ready to put the news report "to bed", but needed a couple of additional details clarified for the article.

At this juncture, he asked me to provide my last name.

Duh!

When I pointed out my name was at the top of my blog, he responded, "Whoops!"

Why kind of investigative journalist was this?

Then, to make matters worse, he proceeded to ask a couple of redundant questions. Even still, I remained patient, and provided thoughtful responses without delay to assist with his investigation of the facts.

Imagine my surprise when I was searching the world-wide-web last week and came across the article he'd written, rife with false statements.

For example, Mr. Kiraly reported that I refused to show my I.D. to the security guard.

A total falsehood!

Then, he proceeded to build a story on this false premise.

For example, he wrote:

"Now, strange things happen in casinos, but what followed was one for the books. Ayrs - steadfast in his refusal to show his I.D. and quickly becoming convinced he was the victim of some form of discrimination - drew a veritable chain of Golden Nugget management into a philosophical debate over whether he had to show his I.D."

The account was totally off!

There wasn't any philosophical debate over whether I should show my I.D. How could there be? I showed it upon request.

Mr. Kiraly got all his facts screwed up.

At issue was not whether I showed my I.D. - but rather - the false allegations the security guard made on the Casino floor, which not only embarrassed and humiliated me, but damaged my name and reputation to the other Hotel guests standing nearby.

Indeed, Mr. Kiraly's twisted account of the events, actually inferred that because of an "alleged refusal" to show my I.D., I was at fault.

Hogwash; nothing could be further from the truth.

But Mr. Kiraly's lack of journalistic skills did not end there.

When I contacted him to inform him of the "factual errors", he had the audacity to assert that I neglected to disclose I showed my I.D.

False!

The reason I chose to conduct the interview by e-mail was to ensure that all my statements were in writing and to prevent any misquotes.

In my response e-mail, I pointed out that I saved copies of all the communications, and had evidence in my possession that verified he had been properly informed.

I also noted my dismay over the fact he appeared to try to shift blame on me.

To date, there has not been any reply from Mr. Kiraly.

After firing off a communication to the Editor, I received word back that a retraction would be printed.

But, how do you unring a bell?

I noticed at their web site this past week, that the editor has noted in the article at their online web site, that a mistake was made in respect to my "alleged" refusal to show I.D.

But, even in this instance, the paper has failed miserably in respect to journalistic ethics.

Normally, a newspaper prints a retraction in a "separate" notice, in a prominent place in the publication. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure attention is drawn to the fact that the journalist made a mistake in reporting the facts, and to make a good faith effort to ensure readers are aware of it.

At Las Vegas CityLife...they recognized they were legally and morally obligated to correct the errors; but, bottom line, it's evident by their sloppy patch-up job that they did not want to draw attention to the fact their managing editor made such grievous errors in respect to a representation of the facts.

I have to wonder at this point how a top-level editor managed to mess up so royally.

Does the man have difficulty reading and understanding English (and comprehending facts), or is he just out-to-lunch?

All things considered, I can't help but ponder the notion that he chose to misrepresent the facts, to suit his own agenda.

Either way you look at it, the man is a menace to the field of journalism.

Andrew Kiraly...looking a little bleary-eyed!

Lawyers...the good, the bad, and the ugly! Happy Holidays!

Today when I opened up my mailbox, I came across an envelope with a cheery holiday greeting inside, from my attorney.

Gee, what a surprise!

I don't recall ever receiving such a welcome surprise in the mail from a lawyer, unless it was a check, of course!

Years ago, a friend in the legal profession informed me, that when it came to legal Eagles, "...some wear white hats, and others wear black."

The truth of the matter is ...most naive students go into Law because they are under the impression it is a noble profession, worthwhile pursuing.

But somehow, along the long and winding road, a handful get corrupted.

Yeah, for the most part, attorneys have a bad rep.

One business associate assures me he'll never vote for Candidate John Edwards, after all, "...he's an attorney, not to be trusted."

From experience, I am inclined to conjecture that the ranks at the State Bar are comprised of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Yes, lawyers come in a garden variety...from ambulance chasers, to rights' fighters, to those opposed to police brutality (who usually end up in the brig for something as silly as tax evasion).

One of my favorite attorney jokes?

"It is unfair to believe everything we hear about lawyers because some of it might not be true." (Gerald F. Lieberman )

You can always figure out who is the attorney in a crowded room...when anyone enters unannounced, the attorney is the last to glance up to acknowledge the individual - after all - he's under the impression he's the most important person in the room. He'll take note when he's darn-well ready to!

In a bank, or in a Hotel Lobby, you can always pick 'em out, too - they're the precise ones always dotting their "i's" and crossing their "t's", among other things.

Ever notice that a lawyer is quiet before answering a question you've posed 'em? That's because they've been taught to think before they leap - er - speak; yes, the sly devils are painfully aware there are serious ramifications for musing out-of-turn. Hillary Clinton is a classic example of what happens when this principle theory of lawyering goes unchecked.

There have been a proliferation of attorney jokes over the years, but the truth of the matter is - as soon as a person gets into trouble with the Law - who do they call first?

You got it - a legal rep - to be sure!

I think folks are jealous 'cause lawyers have control over client trust accounts, are usually put in charge of distributing estates (guaranteeing a hefty administration fee, to boot) and quite generally, are given the benefit of the doubt by professionals and officials all around - being an officer of the court - and all.

So, of course, an unethical law "man" (or woman) may succumb to temptation and the urge to - ah! - co-mingle funds.

As the old saying goes, "...there's a bad apple in every cart."

So, of course, a sorry few will be tempted to eat the forbidden fruit...the spoils of their profession.

I suppose if there was no strife in the world, or quarreling within social circles - and people were inclined to keep their promises - there would be no need for lawyers, that's for sure.

But, until there is "Peace on Earth and Goodwill toward Men", I expect we'll have to put up with 'em.

Til then, Happy Holidays, all 'ya barristers, each and every one!