Just How Demeaning Is It To Be A Lawyer? Just Ask The One Working For Meghan McCain.

You may also like...

32 Responses

  1. Rick says:

    I'm surprised he didn't gesture towards California's new(ish) online impersonation law: http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/01/california-bill-criminalizing-online-impersonations-in-effect-starting-today/

    Seems like somebody hasn't been attending his "frivolous threat arsenal" CLE classes.

  2. Scott Jacobs says:

    I’m not like the child molester; I’m only like the guy who sells the child molester a panel van and an array of colorful and delicious candies.

    Don't lie to me now… That was your favorite part, wasn't it?

    Also, I would like to point out the following from the thuggish screed that flowed like stupid from the printer of Albin Gess:

    We, request that you take down the posts and the comments associated with them.

    Three things:

    a) I have long wondered who "edits" McCain's columns, and now I know.

    b) alternately, I suppose that it is possible that an Avatar of Irony momentarily took possession of whoever typed this missive, causing them to mirror one of the very things the client was being mocked for.

    c) if none of the above, where the holy monkey-fuck did that comma come from? It appears out of no where from the aether, as though summoned by some sort of diabolical linguistic warlock who is possessed by malicious intent.

  3. G Thompson says:

    Having never heard of this woman before, sometimes it is good to live elsewhere, and now having had the misfortune to now be less intelligent after reading her drivel (can I claim loss of intelligence and Emotional harm now?) the immediate thought that occurred was

    "Does Stephanie Myers have a long lost relative who is even less able to write coherently?"

    And forget Hemingway, Laurence Stern penned this woman's incoherency best in "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy" (1759)
    "[h]ead like a smoke-jack;— the funnel unswept, and the ideas whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with fuliginous matter"

  4. Astonied says:

    Ken…just wondering if your life insurance is current and paid. Gess reminds me of that infamous cheerleader's wacky mother.

  5. "Ken", if that is, indeed, your name, I will have you know that I attended Colombia University, which is an excellent, and most famous, university in New York City. In fact, Colombia University is the home of the world's most excellent, and famous, school of journalism, so it stands to reason that I know what I am talking about, when I say that "parody's" such as that by "Red State" are not protected under the First Article of the constitution. In fact, as a professional journalist myself, I have sources, and resources, and so it was simple for me to obtain a copy of the First Article of the constitution, by downloading it from http://www.wikipedia.org, and I am here today, to tell you, and your s0-called readers, that the word "freedom of speech" DOES NOT EVEN APEAR in the First Article of the constitution. What do you think of that?

    In fact, I was discussing this with my BFF Erica, just yesterday, as we sat poolside at Bel Agio, in Las Vegas, where you probably couldn't even afford to go. The Bel Agio Hotel and Casino is very exclusive. It is reserved for a better class of people. No hicks from the sticks! Like you. Erica, by the way, is a professional journalist, as well, working as she does as an editorial assistant at Shape Magazine, and I will you know that Erica had never heard of your so-called First Article of the constitution, so it's precedent as a so-called law seems highly unlikely to me, in the judgement of two professional journalists, like Erica and I. And my father, I will have you know, is a United States Senator, and a leading candidate for President of the United States, and engages in high level discussions with the President of the United States, all the time. So it would seem to me, as a professional journalist, and a close family member of one of the most powerful men in the world, that you do not know what you are talking about. At all.

    You will be hearing from my attorneys shortly, if not today, if you do not apologize, and take down these lies that you have spread about me, and about my family, I will have you know. I hope that you have insurance.

    XOXOX!!!

    – Meghan McCain.

  6. Laura K says:

    Dear Ken,

    You can tell Ms. McCain–if she really posted that last comment–that she must stop talking about her Columbia education if she wants us to stop guffawing every time she uses incorrect grammar, syntax or such incredibly inane skill in vocabulary selection.

    Dear Ms. McCain…How many times was Madeline L'Engle turned down by publishers? Louisa May Alcott? John Milton? It took them a while, needless to say, and these people thought. That's it. Thay used their brains.
    I realize I am belaboring my earlier point, but atending a prestigious school does not make you intelligent, nor does it make you an able writer. Publishing a book with relative ease does not put you in the company of thinking, thoughtful men and women.

    Your father hasn't said a graceful thing since his concession speech. I don't see that you can even make that claim. Please learn how to write or apologize for your errors as the rest of us mere mortals do. Failing that, please just go back to the pool.

  7. Laura K says:

    Oh, and whoever wrote 'Ms. McCain's' reply? NICE GAG. If you're feeling compassionate, do inform the President of Columbia University that you were satirizing. Maybe he won't throw up again (as he must every time this bimbo opens a keyboard). Acid reflux is almost as repugnant as Ms. McCain's prose…

  8. TJIC says:

    > resembling what would happen if you gave Jane Teasdale a political column and a sharp blow to the head.

    Genius!

  9. Xenocles says:

    "You can tell Ms. McCain–if she really posted that last comment…"

    [facepalm]

  10. Patrick says:

    I dunno, it reads like the genuine article to me.

    McCain dictated a stream-of-consciousness "book" in 2009. The book's sole merit was that it prompted this savage review.

  11. Laura K says:

    Sorry, Xenocles and Patrick I was wondering if it was a spoof. If my silliness your brain offended, nothing but crediting the wag behind the post was intended…

  12. Nicolas says:

    This is the American bar's version of the Nuremberg defense.

    It you don't want to do something unethical or humiliating, then quit.

  13. Douglas Muth says:

    Ugh, I just read through Meghan McCain's Twitter feed.

    I want those 30 seconds of my life back.

  14. ElamBend says:

    Dammit Patrick, you beat me to the punch. I love that review.

    This particular paragraph stands out:
    "It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot. This being a professional website for which I have a great deal of respect, I searched for a more eloquent or gentle way to accurately phrase the previous sentence – but could not find one. It is important to know that I was repeatedly tempted just to put the book down, eat the relatively small price I paid to download it to my Kindle, and silently curse Hyperion for publishing this book. After all, they are the ones taking advantage of this particular idiot’s fifteen minutes of fame by exposing her idiocy for the entire world to see. By all appearances, they didn’t even have the decency to hire someone to edit the book – more on that later."

    Now, I know it's just fact of life that some people are going to get jobs/make money based upon who their daddy is, but I find it particularly galling when the person has absolutely no merit what so ever. (Jenna Bush as NBC Today Show corespondent comes to mind). It's even worse though when such a person is lazy and petulant about it; this is where Ms. McCain excels.

  15. Goober says:

    I just read one of her blog posts and can promise that I'll never do that again. Here is a sentence from the "Rick Perry is GWB 2.0" post:

    "Among the litany of things that could be listed to showcase Perry’s extreme views, his comments that Social Security is nothing more than a “Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained” is reactive."

    It is quite obvious that no one is bothering to edit her posts. To be quite honest, if she is a Columbia Graduate, it is obvious that even SHE isn't proof-reading her own posts. I proof-read my comments on this blog more than she seems to proof-read her own articles on a widely read internet blog. She claims to be a journalist, and yet she doesn't even have the intellectual chops to be able to properly determine whether a sentence needs an "is" or an "are"?

    Since there is a precedent for a person who's behavior is so over-the-top horrible to be "libel proof", I wonder if a similar precedent could be set that someone this obviously vacuous is "parody proof?" The problem here is that I see the point being made that the parody that Red State put up could easily be mistaken for Ms. McCain's actual writings, because even though they are monumentally stupid, they aren't stupid enough that a lay-person wouldn't mistake them for her own writings. So, it seems to me that a "parody proof" precedent needs to be set here. She's made her own bed by being so arrogantly lazy and petulant about not seeing her own failings. Let her sleep in it.

  16. Ken says:

    Put another way, Goober, if her writing really is so horrific that it is indistinguishable from vigorous parody, then how does vigorous parody put her in a false light?

  17. Ken says:

    Also, I make typos and misspellings and grammatical errors all the time. I could use an editor. But nobody's publishing me in a mainstream fashion without making me use one.

  18. Patrick says:

    Well, that and the fact that her alter ego is named "Totally Meghan McCain", rather than "Meghan McCain".

    It's sort of a tell that Meghan McCain isn't the actual author of this clever parody of a vacuous nitwit.

    As to whether her lawyer's embarrassment at reaping a harvest of mockery outweighs his pleasure at billing her $750.00 an hour for the ten hours it took to prepare this travesty of a pre-suit letter, we'll likely never know.

    $7,500.00 buys a totally bitchin weekend at the Bel Agio.

  19. NLP says:

    I got as far as her picture. I think I'll have to take this in small bites.

  20. SPQR says:

    And to think at one time I thought Snell & Wilmer a decent law firm …

  21. Ken says:

    Snell & Wilmer is a good firm with a good reputation.

    Good firms with good reputations shouldn't do this sort of thing either.

  22. Mike says:

    Never thought I'd be more cynical than Ken, but I'm thinking the lawyer is feeling pretty balls right now. He wrote a nastygram, and the guys at Red State punked out. That lawyer got to make a nice call to the client.

    Plus, a lot of people are in the market for lawyers without personal integrity. Need a guy who will make up the law and threaten people so long as the check clears? Now everyone knows whom to call.

  23. Laura K says:

    –Patrick, I had not yet had my coffee and I succumbed to a moment or six of hopless optimism that maybe there was another satirist beyond "totally Meghan McCain" out there. I should not have done that.

  24. Here's the problem: There's no legal ethics rule that effectively prohibits a lawyer from writing threatening letters that are bluffs. And when the piece at issue is fleeting, and there is a chance that the bluffer is a whack job, it doesn't meet any cost-benefit calculation to dare the possible whack job to sue. And those of us with precarious businesses and lives and wives we have to consult can't always afford to take that chance. Sometimes I've called the bluff. Sometimes I've capitulated, while writing the lawyer that they suck.

    An organization dedicated to defending against such suits would be a great comfort.

    Excellent post, Ken.

  25. Ron Miller says:

    It is silly, I agree.

    I'm fine with the parody. I don't see the need to mock Meghan McCain's fame, though. She's famous for something other than her natural God given or learned talents. So what? That puts her with half of the famous people we know. At least she is trying to write which is substantive.

    I just think there are a lot of harder targets out there for serious people. She's a young girl. Let's cut her a little slack.

  26. KansasGirl says:

    If Al Yankovich can parody singers and their songs, then RedState can parody this nobody.

  27. Scott Jacobs says:

    She’s famous for something other than her natural God given or learned talents. So what?

    It's that she labors under the delusion that she is famous for exactly those reasons.

    Mockery and derision are the only possible cures.

  28. Dyspeptic Curmudgeon says:

    Seems that the "lawyer's letter" got parodied IN THE RESPONSE….

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/05/my-client-will-not-be-bullied

    HAH!

  29. Calvin Dodge says:

    "… even though no rational person could possibly mistake them for a post by Meghan McCain …"

    Actually, an old friend of mine did just that. OTOH, he's a Leftie, so I guess the "rational person" clause doesn't apply.

  30. Calvin Dodge says:

    Ron Miller – she's 27. Even though I'm twice that age, I don't consider her to be a "young girl".

  1. October 4, 2011

    [...] At RedState, Leon Wolf has been parodying the work of Senatorial daughter and talk-show personality Meghan McCain. McCain's lawyer, Albin Gess of Snell & Wilmer, wrote RedState editor Erich Erichson to threaten litigation over the posts, which prompted this magnificent letter in response (PDF) from Georgia attorney Christopher Scott Badeaux, representing Wolf. It also guaranteed more critical attention to McCain herself and her work, including this cruel entry by Ken at Popehat. [...]

  2. October 5, 2011

    [...] "At RedState, Leon Wolf has been parodying the work of Senatorial daughter and talk-show personality Meghan McCain. McCain’s lawyer, Albin Gess of Snell & Wilmer, wrote RedState editor Erich Erichson to threaten litigation over the posts, which prompted this magnificent letter in response (PDF) from Georgia attorney Christopher Scott Badeaux, representing Wolf. It also guaranteed more critical attention to McCain herself and her work, including this cruel entry by Ken at Popehat. [...]