Tag Archives: talking heads

Avenatti’s standing takes a header? Too bad, dude

So now there are reports that a loudmouth lawyer is feeling the pain of a plummeting public standing.

Cry me a river, will ya?

The lawyer is one Michael Avenatti, who I believe is the least sympathetic public figure this side of Donald John Trump Sr. He represents — for now! — Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress/stripper who has alleged that she and the future president of the United States had a one-night fling about a dozen years ago. She got a $130,000 hush money check to stay quiet — about an event that Trump says didn’t happen. Go figure.

Avenatti has been a cable talk-show staple since Clifford/Daniels burst onto the scene. To be totally candid, this guy annoys me in the extreme. He shows up everywhere. He is on a first-name basis with all the leading talking heads. He clearly has established himself as being part of the most dangerous place on Earth: between Avenatti and a TV camera.

Well, now his stock is plunging.

Stormy Daniels says he isn’t representing her correctly. He is doing and saying things in public without her permission. Daniels says she is considering dumping him as her personal counsel.

What’s more, he was accused briefly of striking a woman in a “domestic dispute.” Avenatti, who is estranged from his wife, denied it vehemently. The local district attorney then decided to forgo filing a formal felony criminal charge against Avenatti. The Los Angeles city attorney’s office, though, is still pondering whether to pursue a misdemeanor case against him.

And then there’s this: Avenatti is — or was — considering running for president in 2020 as a Democrat. His modus operandi reportedly is to become the Democrats’ pit bull in a fight with Donald Trump.

If they go low, according to the Avenatti Doctrine, we go even lower; we fight ’em tooth and nail, hammer and tong; strap on the brass knucks; let’s get ready to rummmmmble!

I want this guy to vanish. I am tired of hearing his voice, of looking at his mug, of listening to him proclaim how he is always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Say good night, counselor.

What’s with this ‘MBS’ crap?

Hey, what gives with the TV news talking heads and their various “contributors” and their casual reference to a guy who ordered the murder and alleged dismemberment of a U.S.-based Saudi journalist?

The individual to whom I refer is Mohammad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. The CIA says this monster issued the order to kill Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

He’s a bad dude, man!

The talking heads, though, are calling him “MBS.” MBS? I always thought we reserved that kind of reference — call it an endearment, if you wish — for public figures we held in much greater esteem.

You know who I mean. MLK Jr., JFK, RFK, LBJ, FDR. That’s all you need with these folks. No full names are necessary. We assign nicknames to others. Such as Ike, The Gipper, Give ‘Em Hell Harry, Dubya.

Mohammad bin Salman does not deserve this level of familiarity from our talking heads. I hereby call on them to knock it off.

Call the guy what he is: a cold-blooded murderer.

MBS. My keister.

What’s with this new talking-head cliche, ‘full stop’?

I guess I need to brush up more frequently on talking-head jargon.

I’ll admit, for starters, that I do watch a lot of news and commentary during the day. Retirement has freed me up to do these things. Thus, I hear a lot of contemporary jargon flying out of the mouths of pundits/contributors/commentators.

You’ve all heard ’em: Kick the can down the road; at the end of the day; all that being said; boots on the ground; going forward … blah, blah, blah.

Here’s a new one that well might replace “at the end of the day” as my least favorite, most annoying cliché.

“Full stop.”

What the hell?

I think I first heard that term used in a “Star Trek” movie. Capt. Kirk ordered the Starship Enterprise to come to a “full stop.” My response then was to giggle a bit. “Full stop? Does that mean something other than simply ‘stop’?”

Now it’s taking its place in geopolitical discussion. The chattering class in Washington is now using “full stop,” I reckon, to emphasize that their disagreement with a public policy issue.

“That issue just won’t resonate with the American people. Full stop.” Is that how they use it?

I’ll continue to watch the news, absorb what the talking heads are telling me. I just will have to ignore one more annoying cliché as I listen to the “experts” offer their take on the day’s prevailing issue.

Maybe I just am getting more curmudgeonly.

I’ll make a vow never to use any of those clichés in this blog. I’ll refer instead to what the United Press International style guide said about them: Avoid them like the plague.