Today's lame denials

Here are some lame denials in the news today. Yahoo reports:

San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon said Wednesday the fire was not set on purpose.

“We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out,” he said.

No, I assumed that they intentionally burned down the cabin in order to kill Dorner. If there was ever a perp that the LA cops did not want to take alive, it was Dorner. But maybe no reward:

LA’s mayor offered the hefty sum for the “capture and conviction” of Dorner. But, since he was presumably killed in Tuesday night’s fire it would be nearly impossible to convict him.

Now there is a lame technicality. The tip did lead to the cops getting their man.

The NY Times was busted wtih a fake car review:

Broder emails regarding the Musk charge that "While the vast majority of journalists are honest, some believe the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story."

We're preparing a detailed response to the factual assertions in Mr. Musk's post, but I don't think we're going to respond to these and other ad hominem attacks.

Ah hominem? Broder is the one who wrote the false and nasty review. Musk just told the facts.

A supremacist judge complains:

The governor has been criticizing what he calls “the prison lobby” that profits from lawsuits filed against the state over substandard conditions in state prisons.

The administration said in a court filing last month that special master Matthew Lopes may be requiring the state to meet more strin­gent requirements as a way to ensure that “this revenue stream will continue.”

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton of Sacra­mento ordered the state to consider withdrawing what he called “a smear.”

“Defendants’ attack con­sists of a raw assertion of unethical conduct, with no supporting evidence nor even any hint that defen­dants actually believe the attack they make,” Karlton wrote. He added later that “the court can only be dis­mayed by the cavalier man­ner in which defendants ... level a smear against the character and reputation of the Special Master.”

He said he takes legitimate allegations of unethical con­duct seriously, but suggested the administration’s filing may violate a court rule that allows sanctions for court filings that are intended to harass or are without any evidence.

Karlton gave the admin­­istration until next week to withdraw the assertion or show why he should not strike it from the court record.

No, it is not a smear to say that the prison lobby profits from these lawsuits, and judge Karlton would recognize that if he were acting ethically. He is acting defensive because he has no good excuse for sticking his nose where it does not belong.

I knew that it was unethical for marriage counselors to seduce their clients, but I just learned that it is a crime in Texas:

A marriage counselor in Texas is on trial for allegedly using a couple’s therapy sessions to convince the husband to have sex with her. She is being charged with sexual assault.

Sheila Loven, 45, was a counselor for an Arlington couple who was having marital difficulties. After advising them to begin attending counseling sessions separately, she and the husband began having sex.

Ultimately she convinced the husband it was best to get a divorce, what with them sleeping together and all. ...

Loven’s attorney said the relationship was real and came from romance. He claims that there was no emotional coercion.

“It had all the elements of any other romantic relationship. They went out at nightclubs and dinner, and they spent almost every night together. What you will not see in this case is any evidence of manipulation,” attorney Adam Burny said.

No, it did not have all the elements. It was missing marriage, honest disclosure, unpaid dating, and the lack of home-wrecking manipulation.