Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Open Thread for Wednesday

You guessed it - still too much work and no Mayor Sam.

Some suggested topics for today's open thread :

Nuch's tantalizing hint at a criminal case involving the City's expenses for MJ's memorial.

Signature gathering for CD2 race.

Someone wants to give Walter Moore a radio talk show.

Great idea! French workers "bossnap", threaten to set off bombs in their own workplace

Los Angeles City parks need an exemption to water restrictions or taxpayers will be stuck paying to rebuild lost play fields, golf greens, etc.

City Clowncil today debates restricting public comment and new penalties for what they feel is abuse of the privilage.

new City of Oakland to tax marijuana shops. LA next?

Blog away, dum dums.

(From RonKayeLA.com via YouTube)

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Or, ". . . for WednesDay"

1) Is there an anti-literacy exam you all have to "pass" in order to be blog writers on Mayor Sam's? (If you can read the questions on this test, you're already overqualified).

2) Is Higby allergic to people who can spell?

3) Is there a big sign in the front window of "Sister City Communications" that says

"Hi Skool Grettuates kneed Not Apli?"

4) And finally, will this message be posted?

Answer key:

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. HELL no!

July 22, 2009 9:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Finally. A City Attorney who talks about protecting the interests of the people instead of the politicians.

July 22, 2009 9:59 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Or, "... for Wednesday",

1. Will the MS 5150 Troll ever learn the difference between typos and spelling mistakes?

2. Who the eff cares?

Waiting with bated breath...

July 22, 2009 10:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Or, as the cat said waiting at the mouse hole after eating cheese -- ". . .with 'baited' breath."

-- To the illiterate, "just a typo" is convenient cover for spelling errors or sloppiness. (Here's another, "the keys stuck.")

-- To the illiterate, spelling never matters, just as logic never matters to the dimwitted.

(But I knew answer #4 would force you to post that, when otherwise you would have deleted it. How's it feel to be MANIPULATED by a "5150"? I think that makes you, at best, a "5249.")

July 22, 2009 10:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

At least you have now accepted that you are 5150.

Now get yourself some help.

July 22, 2009 10:30 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Krekorian is the first to qualify to be on the ballot.

Pretty good quick turn around, they must have their shit together.

July 22, 2009 11:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

That LA Slimes article on the lifting of water conservation for Recreation and Parks is really slanted.

Instead of focusing on protecting parks resources from serious heat-related loss and damage and how that cost will eventually come back to the taxpayer -- which is what will happen, do not fool yourself -- it's written as if this was some kind of a privilage.

I usually trust Zahniser, but this elitist angle is a load of BULLSHIT.

hmmm....wondering if Zahniser lives in Westchester.

July 22, 2009 11:33 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm thinking that some kind of class-action lawsuit by the citizens of Los Angeles against the City and DWP for personal property losses due to their water conservation legislation is in the not-too-distant future.

July 22, 2009 11:40 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

More of Krekorian on the hot seat


We asked Democratic Assemblyman Paul Krekorian about his decision to run for Los Angeles City Council, among other things, during a Q&A on Tuesday, but there was more to the conversation.

In these additional questions, which did not appear in our print edition, we kept Krekorian on the hot seat about his legislative efforts:

Q: Educators have argued that you, as a former school board president, have maybe not done enough to advocate on behalf of schools and limit the impact of state cuts on students. Can you point to concrete measures that you have promoted that will prevent these kinds of cuts?

A: I have pursued legislation that will actually improve the funding of districts like Glendale and Burbank, but this has been an environment of such dramatic downward pressure that it really is a question of minimizing the harm and since schools take up 50% of the entire state general fund budget. When you’re faced with the necessity of cuts this dramatic, there’s no way that they’re going to not impact on the schools. So we’ve tried to make it as easy as possible for the schools to meet that burden by, for example, adding cuts to the maintenance factor so that there’s repayment. Giving greater flexibility to their school districts to be able to spend their categorical funding in ways that meet the needs of the specific district. Other ways that we have tried to minimize the harm. But look, there’s no way around the fact that when you’re faced with a $40+ billion deficit as we were earlier in the year, that that’s going to have an impact on education.

Q: But do you feel that you used your experience as a school board member to promote some of these things?

A: I think both in my arguments on the floor of the Assembly and in my caucus, my passion has always been to fight for public schools and I think you can see that on the comments that I’ve made during budget negotiations right on the floor of the Assembly and I’ve done everything that I’ve been able to do in advocating with my leadership, with my republican colleagues and with others to try to protect education funding. Not just protect education funding, but increase education funding and I think given the unprecedented nature of this fiscal crisis and all that we face I believe we have done as much as could humanly be done to try to protect our schools.

Q: You and many in the entertainment industry have celebrated the passage of your legislation to curb the occurrence of film and television productions that locate in other states because of financial incentives, but some say that your plan will not do enough to help keep large projects, which have the most related jobs, within the state. Is your bill strong enough to have a significant impact on local economies.

A: Oh, absolutely. That argument about larger projects really doesn’t — it’s not consistent with the reality of the entertainment industry. And that is that the larger budget films are the ones that will be least influenced by production incentives so that’s why we focused this incentive on the types of projects that will be most likely to be influenced on whether they go to another state or country or stay in California. Now, is it enough? I believe it probably is not enough but it’s an important start after 15 years of failure by other legislators and leaders in Sacramento to try to enact this. My bill is the first success that we’ve ever had in creating an incentive for film and TV production. So I’m very proud that we’ve broken through that barrier. Now we need to build on that success and expand it further.

to be cont

July 22, 2009 11:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Krikorian cont

Q: One of your bills promoting high targets for renewable energy production has received mixed responses from power utilities within your district. Do you believe you can successfully promote the plan without the backing of your local utilities?

A: Yes, but I want to make sure that we continue to develop the policy in a way that really does best serve the interests of the utilities in my area as well as other areas in California. So we continue to work with municipal utilities in Glendale, Burbank, Los Angeles and throughout the state to address the concerns that they have about their existing renewable portfolio. And in fact, in AB 64 we are developing language to ensure that those resources will be able to be included.

Q: Will the changes allow out-of-state renewable energy resources to count toward your higher targets for utilities, which would have to produce a third of their power from green sources by 2020 under your plan?

A: We’re trying to find the balance that will allow us to grandfather in resources that were acquired in good faith by municipal utilities that were operating under the rules that were then there, while also fulfilling the objectives of the bill which are to generate green jobs in California and to offset the local air problem that comes from generating fossil fuel within California. So striking a balance is challenging, but we’re getting close to achieving that balance.

Q: Does your plan have the teeth to help these utilities overcome challenges presented by environmental groups or cities that block developments of green power plants or transmission lines?

A: That is perhaps the most important objective of this bill: to make it easier for utilities to be able to build that transmission, which is essential to freeing California from its dependence on fossil fuels. It takes eight to 10 years to build a high voltage transmission line in California and unless we expedite that we won’t be able to take advantage of the great opportunities that are presented for expanding sustainable renewable energy in California.

July 22, 2009 11:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Q&A: Paul Krekorian

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Krekorian has come under fire from critics of state government and constituents who say he should step down while he runs for another office.

He is campaigning for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council and has already garnered some endorsements, including that of Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

Krekorian’s supporters have celebrated his efforts on legislation to promote in-state film and television projects and to increase green energy production. But his detractors argue that he has been a participant in a broken state system that continues to push California into deeper financial disarray, even as leading lawmakers have solidified a deal to close a $26-billion deficit.

Krekorian’s 43rd Assembly District overlaps with the Los Angeles City Council’s 2nd District, and he recently moved from his home in Burbank, which is for sale, to an apartment in the community of Valley Glen.

ZAIN SHAUK: The state is in a financial crisis that doesn’t appear to be ending. Many Californians argue that the government is broken, and that major changes are needed. Why are you running for Los Angeles City Council at a time when some say the state’s government needs all the help it can get?

PAUL KREKORIAN: I agree that fundamental reforms are going to be needed in Sacramento to change the dysfunctional process of budgeting that we have right now in Sacramento. No question about it. I think the people are largely going to have to drive that change . . . My focus is and has remained on doing the best job that I can right now for the people of the 43rd District and for the entire state. The fact that I’m running for this other office is not detracting from the work that I’m doing in Sacramento to try to bring about that change.

Q: Are you abandoning your job after only three years of service and when there is a lot of work to be done at the state level?

A: I’m not abandoning anything. I’m continuing to work every day for the people of California and for the people of the 43rd Assembly District. If in September or December I happen to be elected to another office, I will be leaving this office after the legislative year, so there is no abandonment of anything at all. I am working every day to try and pursue the best policies that I can for the people of this district. My constituents in Los Angeles also face a significant crisis at the city level, and I happen to believe that my skills and experience will help to remedy some of the problems that City Hall is facing as well. But I continue to be completely involved in the work that I’m doing in Sacramento.

Q: Why do you want to make the switch to city government in the first place?

A: I was born and raised in the San Fernando Valley. I have a very deep concern for the direction that the city of Los Angeles has gone in the course of my lifetime. I think that I bring a unique combination of experience in the private sector, local policy making, state policy making, public education, that will allow me to make a significant, immediate contribution to help in solving the problems that are happening in City Hall.

July 22, 2009 11:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Q: I’m gathering that maybe you feel your contributions are more effective in City Hall than in Sacramento. Why is that? Does it have something to do with the way the Legislature operates?

A: I’ve had a very strong record of legislative achievement in my three years in the Assembly, but I think the thing that I am most proud of is my ability to serve the individual needs of constituents in this district. We’ve had a tremendously successful ability to solve problems for constituents, and that’s really the primary job of a City Council member as well, and I expect that we’ll be having the same level of achievement in that position. But you’re certainly right that there is a great deal of frustration involved in trying to achieve a positive agenda in an institution that is as badly gridlocked as is the state Legislature and its relationship with the governor. That is a frustration.

Q: Is that why this is the best decision for you?

A: I think I can make a more immediate impact for the best interests of my constituents in an environment in City Hall that is not as subject to the partisanship and constraints that I now feel at the state Assembly. I intend to continue to work in whatever position that I’m in, whether I stay in the Assembly or I’m in another position. I intend to be very vocal about the need for reform in Sacramento, and I think all of us as a community need to be.

Q: Do you feel that operations in Sacramento are so ineffective that a constitutional convention, as has been suggested by some Californians, has become necessary?

A: There’s no question that the state needs some very fundamental reforms, which would include changing the initiative system, for example. Making it harder for the special interests to fundamentally change the constitution and to incur expenses for the state through the initiative process would be one. We’ve already taken steps toward redistricting reform through Proposition 11, which I hope will be a step toward minimizing some of the partisanship that we feel in Sacramento now.

We need to, I believe, change the budget system. The two-thirds majority vote requirement for a budget, which California shares with only two other states in the nation, dramatically adds to the partisanship, and it detracts from our ability to achieve consensus, and I think that has done terrible harm for the people of California. And I think term limits also have done a significant amount of harm to policy making because it has effectively shifted disproportionate influence to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Q: Did term limits play a role in your decision to seek another office?

A: It plays a role because I think if I had a longer opportunity to see through some of the important policy objectives that I wanted to pursue I would feel more able to pursue that agenda successfully.

Q: So because your time is limited in the Legislature, are you just giving up on those efforts for reform and moving on?

A: No, I’ll continue to be vocal about it, and I will, if I remain in the Legislature, I’ll continue to pursue that. What I’m saying is I think that the ability to complete those tasks in that short amount of time and to really build the consensus that’s necessary, build the support throughout the electorate, these are the things that happen across the course of many years. Fundamental change doesn’t happen overnight, and it doesn’t happen within a two-year span, it takes many years. I’ll continue to pursue that, but I think my ability to do that as a member of the Assembly is reduced by the fact that I have such a short duration to be able to complete it.

July 22, 2009 11:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Q: Some have speculated that your decision may have been related to the pay raise you would receive by switching to the Los Angeles City Council or the opportunity to work closer to your family. Did those factors play a role in your choice to seek that office?

A: Look, if I were working in the private sector now I would be making, I’m sure, a better living for my family than I would be in either of these positions. That is not a factor that comes into play in making a decision about public service. And these are demanding jobs in both places, whether it’s in Sacramento or City Hall, they take a considerable amount of time away from family, just as serving the local government does as well. I do have young children, and being in Sacramento is very taxing on them. It’s a difficult thing for a family to have to do, but certainly the issues that relate to salary — that has no bearing whatsoever. Being able to spend a little bit more time with my kids, that is an attractive part of pursuing another position.

Q: Leading lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to terms Monday on a deal to close the state’s $26-billion deficit. Are you relieved?

A: It’s a hard question to answer because the budget is not a good budget. This is a budget that will cause terrible harm to Californians for a very long time and it’s a result of the economic collapse of the global economy and the national recession and the impacts that it’s had on California. This is a budget that none of us would otherwise want to support. That being said, the crisis we have faced that has caused the issuance of IOUs, basic services not to be provided, the closure of health clinics, terrible strain on our public schools and public safety that comes from the lack of resolution — this is I think in some respects worse than the ultimate outcome.

Q: Why do you think this budget deal, which will severely cut funds from public services, is a necessary plan?

A: California has faced a $26-billion deficit and was running out of cash, and we couldn’t pay our bills. We had to issue these IOUs, and we weren’t able to meet our month-to-month obligations. That causes horrendous problems for people . . . The ramifications of having this crisis continue were, in many respects, the worst possible solution. So having a resolution of the budget solutions, which will mean terrible pain over the next few years, at least while we recover from the recession, those will be terribly painful things to have to accept, but even worse would have been a continuing degradation of California’s fiscal health.

Q: Some argue that lawmakers have repeatedly crafted gimmicky solutions that do not truly solve the state’s problems. Are you and your colleagues presenting a real fix or another flawed plan that will require a set of adjustments in the coming months?

A: If we continue to slide deeper into recession, if our unemployment continues to increase, if our revenues continue to decline in a way that’s beyond what we would predict at this point, then it very well may be that we have to come back and make even deeper cuts and further adjustments that will be, again, very painful. That is dependent on the economy. The basic question of whether or not California has grappled with the more fundamental structural issues is something that I think we need to be addressing regardless of what the economy does.

Q: But many argue that the new budget proposal includes accounting maneuvers and overestimates for some revenues that make it doomed for failure and will require more wrangling between lawmakers in the near future.

A: This is not a perfect solution and I can’t predict what the economy is going to do in coming months, so this is the best result that can come out of a compromise out of Democrats and Republicans and the Legislature and the governor given the unprecedented fiscal collapse that the country and the state has undergone.

July 22, 2009 11:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

ANOTHER open thread day?
Where the heck is Higby still on vacation?? What GIVES?

July 22, 2009 11:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If your posting the Krekorian interview to make Krekorian look bad it is not a very good example to use.

Having read through the whole thing, he sounds more mature and level headed than any one on the council right now.

July 22, 2009 11:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This Krekorian guy sounds like Thomas Jefferson compared to the current city council crowd.

Keep it coming.

July 22, 2009 12:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

pretty amazing to hear Hahn talking about how important it is to listen to the public!

she's the biggest offender - she cut off the opposition to the Autry and let every single one of the Autry supporters talk!

what a load of crap.

July 22, 2009 12:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Council is discussing limits of public comment and when to cut off the speakers.

Damn, Wesson is saying that most of the time even Zuma Dogg doesn't qualify for that but it sounds like Smith would like a much broader interpretation of "decorum." Alarcon makes valid points about the waste of time these people cause, debating the same things over and over when they may be of interest to no one but themselves. Poor Dion looks nervous like he's always in nicotine withdrawal, can't remember what he said any more than usual.

July 22, 2009 1:01 PM  

Anonymous Thomas Paine said:

He does kinda sound like Jefferson. Maybe that's the problem.

July 22, 2009 1:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:01, what was the final outcome of that item?

July 22, 2009 2:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wesson has lost his sense of reality. Zuma Dogg has never come to Council in a something like a KKK hood, fergawdsakes. Yo - Wesson, Zuma really ain't the problem. Pull yer head out.

July 22, 2009 2:19 PM  

Anonymous Nuch supporter having serious doubts said:

I was at the very first community meeting in which Carmen Trutanich was introduced as running for City Attorney. Coincidentally, this was at one of Ron's SLAP meetings and the guy taking Nuch around and showing him where the grassroots supporters gather was ... David Saltzberg - aka Zuma Dogg.

Nuch relied on David to show him the community, and later Nuch's campaign people made a lot of promises on Nuch's behalf to David regarding hiring him if Nuch won the election. David is a believer. He didn't need those promises to push for Nuch in interviews and on talk radio. He pushed Nuch because he believed. In that way, our friend David is very much an idealist. I recognize that trait, because I'm one too, and being an idealist means you are in for a lot of letdowns in this world.

Nuch won, and I voted for him. I had made up my mind to do so the very first day David introduced Nuch to us at SLAP. I very much liked the man I met before he had any real idea that he might win. I thought he had true integrity.

As David, Nuch's truest believer, falls deeper and deeper into serious personal crisis due to being homeless and unemployed, I am beginning to have equally serious doubts about Carmen Trutanich's integrity.

What's it gonna be, Carmen? Is Laura Chick right about you? Are you going to keep those campaign promises, especially the personal ones you made, or not?

July 22, 2009 3:02 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Krekorian comes in first with Tamar and Chris killing each other to finish second.

July 22, 2009 3:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Word coming out of city hall is the Mayor is going to fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks AEG should pay up. We need people to get pissed at this asshole and call or write an e-mail. He had a press conference today saying he was shutting down 25 FIRE STATIONS in August. This Asshole is still hiring for his office, keeping all 17 Deputy Mayors at over $125,000 EACH, still has 96 staffers, attorneys, consultants and 8 PRESS PEOPLE. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE. Not one person out of city hall has been laid off. GET UP OFF YOUR LAZY ASSES AND DO SOMETHING.
Tell this loser AEG or Jackson's should pay up.


July 22, 2009 4:32 PM  

Blogger Joe B. said:

God, do I love the French!

July 22, 2009 7:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Finally, a City Attorney who's not afraid to go in and KICK SOME ASS!!!

Go Nuch!

July 22, 2009 9:53 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

I never knew what a whiny little crybaby that Grieg Smith is. And he never sounded dumber or more illogical or more like a county club pussy than he did today during the "shove it up your ass #54 Item" on Weds agenda. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR NEW AND ADDED SPOTLIGHT YOU BIG TEDDY BEAR OF A WHINY DUMB LOSER (of pension money) CRYBABY GRIEG SMITH. (Hey GRIEGY BOY, LOSE THE SUPEFLUOUS "I", YOU IRRESPONSIBLE PENSION MONEY LOSER. YOU SHOULD HAVE STOOD UP AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THAT GRiEG "HELLEN KELLER" SMITH, the whiny little "see no evil, hear no evil, lose all the pension money under his watch no evil, loser.

July 23, 2009 12:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Villaraigosa was booed when introduced before last night's Dodgers game. This was Tuessday when he was sitting with the McCorts and Pete Carroll. How embarrassing. I hope people continue to boo his sorry ass where ever he goes..

July 23, 2009 5:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You moron. Do you realize how moronic and infantile your name calling appears?

Whatever message, ever so slight, that you may be trying to send gets lost in the unimaginative pejoratives and stupid punning in which you constantly engage.

Grow up and stop with the childlike names.

Oh, yeah, Greig will lose the "i" about the time that you lose the glasses, the hat, the beard and get a shower.

July 23, 2009 7:52 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


July 23, 2009 9:11 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"You moron. Do you realize how moronic and infantile your name calling appears?"

Nothing more moronically infantile, Greg Smith, than name calling when you are complaining about name calling. You really are dumb and whiny like Zuma Dogg says.

July 23, 2009 9:16 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thank you 7:52 am

I really don't know how those rantings that sound like they are coming from a mental institution get past the moderator.

July 23, 2009 9:33 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Zuma is right when he says GrIeg Smith is a whiny crybaby. Has this teeny little boy voice. Sounds like a spoiled brat. He's so overly defensive. It's hard to have a real and meaningful dialouge with the emotionally arrested developed man.

July 23, 2009 10:34 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yeah 9:33, Zuma Dogg is all that BUT the point is that Trooch was only too happy to USE Zuma Dogg to get his feet wet in the local scene -- that guy had just been forced to move to San Pedro, he couldn't have known or cares any less about areas like Eastside to Venice or the Valley - about as far as you can get from pedro mentally and physically.

Do you REALLY think he gave or gives a damn about Boyle Heights, the Jews on the Westside, the old people in Sherman Oaks obsessed with their billboard issues, the gays whose parade he rode his Harley in with Jan Perry (how's that pay off for you, Jan?) or ANYONE not in pedro?

Of course not but he knew how to listen to their gripes, and parrot back their concerns. He even managed the same trick with the dummies left in OpEd at the Times and with David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, whom he SHMOOZED UP and stroked their egos. (Have you seen him "working them?" Couldn't have wrapped the old pros around his finger so easily.)

Trooch was only too happy to urge Zuma on to attack Jack Weiss and Antonio in the same vile, childish and obnoxious ways you now complain about. Nothing was too low. Trooch similarly used Zine and David Berger as his attack dogs so they'd say the slanderous things that he didn't want to be quoted saying and could PRETEND to distance himself from when it suits him, but take advantage of it.

Berger he can get on the public dole, and hope to keep using him as a personal attack dog - just read the guy's blog and listen to him on the radio, and you can see the guy has a blind obsession for Trooch, his own meal ticket and shot to rise above obscurity. And Zine already is on the public dole with his huge pension, figures he has a shot at Chief if he pushes Bratton out of the way first.

But Zuma Dogg -- what public role is there for a foul-mouthed bum who shoots from the hip, and worse isn't even corruptible enough to only attack those Nuch tells him to? Idealists are dangerous and hard to control. Especially if like Zuma they have egos big enough to think they should be Mayor, running the whole city.


They used him and Zine encouraged him, got Zuma to put his Weiss- bash (which would have been slander were Weiss not a public figure) on YouTube, fed him info. Let him on, strung him along.

But now, they don't want to be associated with Zuma or the "Venice Outlaws." Or the rest.

You choose to ignore this because it just confirms what Laura Chick and Doug McIntyre have belatedly discovered.

That Trooch will do and say anything to get elected, pose with them for the cameras to get their support, then when push comes to shove and they've have to actually do something for them in return, deny they'd made any promises and just lie. Out for himself and his few real buddies like Steve Cooley, to further their own personal political plan. Using people as stepping-stones with the lack of remorse or even self-awareness of a sociopath.

He did as a candidate the same lying and posing to a jury to get his thugs and criminals off, any way he can, using any tricks and "acting" he can, coaching the clients to "act" innocent and get sympathy, to make the victims look like they have an ulterior motive or have been "paid" to make accusations of being raped or beaten. As though they weren't going through hell again, having to relive the trauma for the jury.

That's how he and his diehard supporters are treating Laura Chick now -- as though she's doing this for her own publicity. Kevin James and the rest claiming she's been bought, making up all kinds of lies. Anyone REALLY believe she needs that? She'd want nothing MORE than to keep to the high road with her job as the state's watchdog.

Trutanich is so practiced in this form of lying he doesn't bat an eye.

July 23, 2009 10:37 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So in other words, Carmen Nooch screwed the Zuma Pooch?

July 23, 2009 11:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's interesting 10:37 but I'm waiting to hear from ZD that Nooch screwed him over.

July 23, 2009 12:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:27 read his blog. But so far he's being very restrained because he's still hoping for a job, hoping that Nuch just "forgot" and will make good as soon as he realizes.

July 23, 2009 2:11 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 23, 2009 10:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

City of Los Angeles,

Due to the water ordinance my plants are dead.

Thank you.

July 24, 2009 8:54 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tru is corrupt. Wait and see.

July 24, 2009 6:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home