... historic charm awaits you.
Write about whatever you want.
Consider shopping through The Althouse Amazon Portal.
And here's something new:
If I were paid to do it I would. Hit the PayPal button and donate $1,000 to that project and I'll do it. Otherwise, bleh.
I'll accept multiple donations if they indicate they want the NPR/Milo story and add up to at least $1,000. I'm willing to do the job of writing one post on this subject, for pay. That's my price.
Feel free to propose other topics you'd like to see a post about. I will give you my price. Of course, I will only promise to do a post on the subject. You don't get your money back if you don't like the way it was written.
Posts
150 comments:
Laslo Films presents "Uncle Ghost!"
"Uncle Ghost!"
Tucker communicates with his dead Grandfather.
A ghost appears.
His Uncle James tells of his times with The Ice Cream Truck.
People do not question the intent of the man in the ice cream truck.
I am Laslo.
You ought to take a lesson from Snopes.com.
They did a better post on the Milo/"NPR" kerfuffle than you did. And, when I wrote to them to supply the news that WNPR really did (just as was foretold in the emails that Snopes rightly investigated and published), Snopes simply updated their original post with the two links that I gave them.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/19/milo-yiannopoulos-npr/
As I wrote just a few minutes ago: Professor, if you have a "price" for doing a corrective to an erroneous story that your blog helped spread, I cannot help you. I am trying to imagine the post you'd write, if the New York Times told you that they would run a correction to a story that you critiqued, if only you will buy some of their stock, or purchase some advertising, or buy some of their NYT-logo products.
Assholery. Heh.
Chuck, I don't believe there's anything that needs correcting. If I did, I'd update the old post. You don't seem to acknowledge the phenomenon of cause and effect.
I write about what interests me, and your demands that I write a post on a boring subject are, as I've already said, assholery.
"I'll accept multiple donations if they indicate they want the NPR/Milo story and add up to at least $1,000. I'm willing to do the job of writing one post on this subject, for pay. That's my price." Would you consider not writing about it if the rest of us pay you more? Like, in a bidding war against the LLR? Of course, I see that you cleverly refer to "multiple donations," so I assume we don't have to worry too much about this blog being tainted by crude mercenary motives.
"Like, in a bidding war against the LLR? Of course, I see that you cleverly refer to "multiple donations," so I assume we don't have to worry too much about this blog being tainted by crude mercenary motives."
Is there a website where I can conduct this bidding war? I don't want to have to refund donations. I don't want the complication.
But the idea of accepting free-lance writing projects is something I like, but only if I have complete control to reject the project and to decide what gets written.
I'm not going to have my writing spiked.
Ann Althouse said...
Chuck, I don't believe there's anything that needs correcting. If I did, I'd update the old post. You don't seem to acknowledge the phenomenon of cause and effect.
I'd certainly be intrigued, if you had any evidence whatsoever for a "cause and effect" in the Milo/"NPR" story that contradicts anything I have written. But you've got nothing. Milo had nothing. Breitbart had nothing.
Remember: this god damned story is about "NPR" spiking a story for political reasons. Nobody but Milo Yiannopoulos started that. With what evidence, other than that the story ran later, precisely as WNPR (not NPR) emails stated it would?
I fully understand that you write what interests you. As is your right.
It is also your right, to publish effectively false stories, and never offer any further comment or correction.
You seem to be exercising your right(s). Congrats.
The evidence of cause and effect is that X occurred and then Y. It's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence (a word that means anything that makes a fact in issue more or less likely). I don't know what really happened, and you haven't pointed me to anything that gets closer to an answer. So the story stands as it is. I have nothing to say without something more interesting to read.
The phrase "effectively false" is bullshit, especially relating to something that was said in the past.
But I'm going to shut up about this now because you have been rude and boring. That's a really bad combination.
Thank you Althouse. Almost anything is more interesting than LLR's latest obsession.
That marquee is great lit up at night.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobilene/4299818534/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobilene/17203586969/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobilene/17202000308/
As Angel-Dyne stated about a month ago, Chuck appears to be a Sperg. Thank you Angel-Dyne. Not only did I learn a new word, but I agree.
$1,000 to write about Milo? That's a lot. I wonder how much it would cost to write about Milo & Otis.
Althouse, I finally got the wife to remember to use The Althouse Amazon Portal two days ago. She and my daughter are heavy users of Amazon so I think if they continue to use it that $1,000 is well within reach.
Why is Chuck so worked up about this? Truly bizarre.
Is it auto-schizophrenia when Chuck drives himself crazy?
Even Chuck's fucking dog hates him.
And the lesson you and Meade need to take to heart is never be nice to trolls and mobys. It's okay to be nice to ordinary assholes like me, though. It doesn't take much for us to recognize when we've crossed a line.
Chuck said...
You ought to take a lesson from Snopes.com.
More, Chuck, more! She'll fall to her knees any minute now!! You've got her right where you want her!!!
Chuck obviously thinks when a woman says no she really means yes.
Writing is like sex: First you do it for love, then you do it for your friends, and then you do it for money.
Girl with the Pony Tail on the Treadmill:
They laid off three co-workers today.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I guess I should feel bad, but it wasn't like any of them actually got anything done...
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Maybe I'm being too harsh.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I don't want to be THAT person.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
They're people, too. And now they don't have jobs, which sucks...
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
But they should never have been hired in the first place, really.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
They came straight from college, and thought their jobs were to tell everyone else what to do.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
No thank you.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Of course, now management will say we are short-handed and everyone needs to work a little harder.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Right.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Heaven forbid you ask for a raise. They'll just say 'Look, we're tight on money, we just had to lay off three workers."
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
So now the company saves money by laying off workers, I'm expected to work harder, and I won't get a raise.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I get it: I should be thankful to just have a job.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
A job that won't pay enough for me to get an Audi. Ever.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I am in control of my life. I am in control of my life. I am in control of my life.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Positive thoughts. Keep positive thoughts.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I will run another mile. Because I can.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I will turn all of this negative energy into an even firmer ass.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I have a great ass.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I am Laslo.
Your take on the Wasserperson thing would be well received.
I would have liked to have seen her face when the feds nabbed net laptop. What's the over/under on her lawyering up.
"Althouse, I finally got the wife to remember to use The Althouse Amazon Portal two days ago. She and my daughter are heavy users of Amazon so I think if they continue to use it that $1,000 is well within reach."
Thanks for using the portal, but the reward for that is you're buying products that you want and not paying anything more.
The proposed topic thing would require a proposal that I accept and put a number on and then you'd have to make PayPal contributions that have a written note about the purpose of the contribution.
I can't mix those pathways, because there's no message line in the Amazon system.
The evidence of cause and effect is that X occurred and then Y.
Not exactly. That can become the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Rooster crows, sun rises.
More personal attacks on me. Now including Ann Althouse. And yet no one is posting new or countering facts. All of the substantive hyperlinks have been from me.
No one has ever produced or even hinted at a memo, an email, a recording, a note of any kind; indicating that "NPR" killed or delayed the airing of the interview.
What a warped, sick forum this has become.
Even a junior-high-school science student knows correlation is not causation.
I sure hope those are LED light bulbs...
I sure hope those are LED light bulbs...
It's the world's largest EZ Bake Oven.
Chuck seems to be a Poker player going all in to impress the other players into folding their hands. That tactic got The Professor's blood up, so she called him, and then she raised him $1,000 to stay in the hand. The pressure is now back on Chuck.I would not bet against the Professor.
For the sheer entertainment value, I pledged and paid The Blog $5.00 a month, intended to help feed Zeus and now Ida. But that seems such a small amount now.
Our LLR finds, just as his beloved Obama before him, that the locals are just not capable of living up to his and "brilliant" Maddows standards.
This is de rigeour thinking on the left.
Naturally.
I learned today that the Wisconsin Foxconn Deal is "Fascism at its finest. Wisconsin style."
Wisconsin Style. Like with brats or something?
Earnest Prole: "Even a junior-high-school science student knows correlation is not causation."
That is what we have been saying for years to the leftists/global warming Alarmists/"lifelong republicans", but they won't listen.
Weird, I was thinking this weekend about how long it's been since an appearance of pony-tail girl, and like magic she reappears today.
I hope I don't owe Laslo a $1000!
Michael in ArchDen said...
"I hope I don't owe Laslo a $1000!"
How about if you run into me in a bar you buy me a drink.
I am Laslo.
Since we were just talking about Adams, I commend to you his Dilbert Collection It's Not Funny If I have To Explain it.
This is from 2004, well before he started punditry, but has some interesting insights into the way he thinks as he gives a small comment on his strip he's selected. The further advantage is that the strips (like this forex) are pretty funny even if you don't like the comment.
Anyway, I thought the comment for this strip (not actually one of the better ones imho) was pretty interesting in retrospect:
One of my corporate jobs involved making good arguments for bad ideas. I was good at it.
I vote for an Althouse-examination of this article/topic:
Gizmodo: How New Tech Could Threaten A Woman's Right to Abortion
For many years now an "artificial womb" has been my go-to hypothetical re: abortion. If the right to an abortion rests on the woman's bodily integrity then she has a right not to a dead fetus but a right to not have a fetus continue living inside her. Right now those two things are equivalent for most abortions but my point has been that technology is advancing such that we're able to sustain life (outside of the womb) earlier and earlier in fetal development and it's plausible that one day we'll have an artificial womb such that the threat to the woman's health of removing the fetus and having it grow in the womb is exactly the same as the threat to her health of having an abortion. When that point is reached what's the argument that the woman still has the right to kill the fetus? We as a society have already decided that men can't voluntarily terminate their responsibility for the fetus and child and currently a woman can do so only insofar as removing the fetus from her body results in the fetus' death. Once that's not true anymore why would women have any more of a right to terminate their responsibility for the fetus/baby than men currently have (which is to say, none)?
Anyway it appears we're getting closer to that moment and the pro-abortion folks see that technological change--a change that could mean life for all sorts of children who would otherwise die from medical complications--as a serious threat...which seems to imply that the pro-abortion side's insistence that bodily integrity was at the root of the argument for abortion was a lie all along.
Interesting fodder for a post or two, I'd think. I'd be willing to put $5 or so towards it if I have to...but to me the real value in most of the posts are the discussions in the comments, so I'd prefer to pay for a guaranteed discussion (rather than for a post w/o discussion).
A thousand bucks? Is that all it takes? Of course there's always the possibility (make that likelihood) that you won't write the story the way I'd want it written, Professor.
Wisconsin Style. Like with brats or something?
8/1/17, 1:34 PM
German Style fascism also had brats. Wisconsin Style fascism includes frozen custard and cheese curds.
Ann Althouse said...But the idea of accepting free-lance writing projects is something I like, but only if I have complete control to reject the project and to decide what gets written.
I'm not going to have my writing spiked.
Ok, that's very funny. Very, very funny. Good one, Professor.
It is possible to sing the words of Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway from Pajama Game. Throw in an Ole at the end of each quatrain to appall your New England friends.
For extra credit, you can sing the words of On Wisconsin to the tune of Schubert's An Sylvia.
What a warped, sick forum this has become.
Daria: Sick Sad World
Remember Daria? That was a good show. Beavis & Butthead, Daria, then King of the Hill. Good shows!
HoodlumDoodlum said...
"...How New Tech Could Threaten A Woman's Right to Abortion..."
This is close to a scenario I would posit that drove some people nuts:
Suppose we get 'Star Trek' technology quicker than we expected, and now have the ability to teleport.
With this, we now have the ability to teleport the fetus from the womb of one woman into the womb of another.
Does a woman have the right to demand abortion rather than have the fetus painlessly whisked away to a welcoming mother?
One argument I heard: the mother could experience emotional pain for giving up her child, without the closure that abortion would bring.
I'm fun at parties.
I am Laslo.
tcrosse said...It is possible to sing the words of Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway from Pajama Game
In the back of my mind I remember some sketch about a filth-mouthed star (Samuel Jackson I think) reading "gentle" poetry...and it was like "Stopping by the motherfucking woods on a fucking snowy evening" but I can't find anything on it. No chance I came up with that one myself. I know he did that "Go to sleep" book so maybe I'm conflating that w/something else.
tcrosse:
You can also sing "Pinball Wizard" to the tune of "Folsom Prison Blues".
Laslo Spatula said...Does a woman have the right to demand abortion rather than have the fetus painlessly whisked away to a welcoming mother?
Right, but that's basically it with this, yeah? Say the state or some charity pledges to put up money to pay for the artificial wombs. Or even leave the finances out of it (why should the "parents" not have to pay?), and this scenario doesn't require another woman!
Because of current technology at the moment women's "rigth" to an abortion is both the right to remove the fetus from their bodies and the right to not be responsible for the subsequent child. Those two are currently intertwined, but advancing technology splits the apart. Lots of people, including I think Professor Althouse, agree that the State does not have (and should not have) the power to force a woman to let a fetus inhabit her body against that woman's will. Almost everyone also agrees that men don't have a right to not be responsible for a child they've helped create (even to the point of unwillingly helping as a splooge stooge, etc).
The question, then, is whether pro-abortion people believe that women DO have a right to not be responsible for a child--which would of course be a right we've long said men do not have. Absent the argument that not having an abortion violates women's bodily integrity, what is the argument for allowing abortion?
If the right is to not have a fetus inside you when you don't want one and artificial wombs exist, then it's perfectly in keeping with your rights to require you to have that fetus removed and placed in the artificial womb. You'd still be responsible for the resulting child, though.
Absent the argument from bodily integrity what Constitutional right can there be for abortion? Feel free to restrict the discussion to "easy" cases where the fetus is healthy, is not the product of rape or incest, and so on.
How about if you run into me in a bar you buy me a drink.
I am Laslo.
I totally would.
How do we identify you? The "I am Laslo" t-shirt? Car with the PNYTAIL vanity plates?
Bad Lieutenant said...
Chuck said...
You ought to take a lesson from Snopes.com.
You think she should take a hooker to Hawaii on the company dime?
Me too!
But I'm going to shut up about this now because you have been rude and boring. That's a really bad combination.
8/1/17, 12:20 PM
And so effortlessly! Years of dedicated practice, or born gifted? Maybe a bit of each.
No offense Meade, I just think everyone should do that once in their life.
"I'm not going to have my writing spiked."
Ok, that's very funny. Very, very funny. Good one, Professor.
I saw that too. Since Milo alleged that his interview had been "spiked," and since it positively, undeniably, was not "spiked," I found that to be an unusual cheap shot.
I am certainly not "spiking" anything that Professor Althouse wrote. And my initial reaction was not to attack her in any way. I emailed her about this before addressing any comments to her. Here is what I wrote on the morning of Monday, July 31:
Re: I hope you'll give consideration to a "follow up" post.
From Chuck {hide details}
To annalthouse {hide details}
This was regarding your post on the story in which Milo Yiannopoulos bitched that "NPR" spiked his interview. I knew all along that he could not have been right, and Snopes promptly looked into it and agreed with me that the story was entirely unsuspicious. A standard recorded-interview broadcast scheduling matter.
And now, WNPR ran an edited version of the interview on-air, and also posted the entire unedited interview to Soundcloud.
My comment, on your "breakfast cafe" post:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=2175445174671046081&page=1&token=1501512024660
Naturally, I don't expect that Milo will own up to his libel of NPR. I don't expect Drudge to front-page a story about how Milo's story was false. I actually don't even expect NPR to wallow in the muck that is the world of Milo. I do think you should do a posting about the WNPR airing. Since your earlier post drew 303 comments, I think it would be good blog-hygiene to do a follow up post.
Best,
Chuck
As I have already indicated; I wrote to Snopes about the WNPR links, and they updated their post. The Snopes page is now the clearest and best explanation of the story anywhere on the 'net. I just don't understand why Althouse wouldn't update her post. (Understanding that updating an old post may be harder than a new post, and would likely be unread for the most part, I suggested a new post.)
What a warped, sick forum this has become.
Blatant humble brag. Embrace subtlety , twister.
@Hoodlum: "it's perfectly in keeping with your rights to require you to have that fetus removed." Not so fast. You'd still be invading "sovereign territory"--you did know a woman's body is sovereign territory, didn't you? Which the Constitution explicitly prohibits in Article, wait, no, Amendment, wait--lemme check.
Come on Chuck, give it to us. Tell us about Barron Trump again!
One definition
'Sperg
To wax obsessive on a subject of interest. Often to the point of annoying those around you.
Bad Lieutenant said...
Come on Chuck, give it to us. Tell us about Barron Trump again!
I have no idea why you'd bring that up here, and now.
According to attorneys retained by Melania Trump, Barron Trump is not autistic. And any YouTube videos suggesting that Barron might somehow be on the autism spectrum (and that no one should otherwise criticize Barron's behavior as antisocial) needed to be taken down per cease-and-desist correspondence from the attorneys.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/melania-trump-threatens-lawsuit-over-barron-autism-video-w452617
Chuck is a gamma.
The "Resistance Summer" has been pretty quiet...
Oh..just in:
"Friend --
The first bill that President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I like to think that first act set the tone for his administration: devoting every single day in office to making life better for the American people.
Rescuing our economy from the brink of disaster, reforming Wall Street, signing the Affordable Care Act, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," taking bold action on climate change and signing the Paris Climate Agreement, putting the protections of DACA and DAPA into place -- there are more accomplishments than you can list. It's a legacy that I'm incredibly grateful for and proud to be fighting for every day.
President Obama's birthday is on Friday, and we're sending him a card -- not only to celebrate his special day, but also to thank him for all he's done for us and make sure he knows we're still fighting for the values that defined his presidency."
Sebastian said...You'd still be invading "sovereign territory"--you did know a woman's body is sovereign territory, didn't you
Yes, good point Sebastian, and that's what Laslo's "teleporting" hypothetical has over mine--it wouldn't require any kind of surgery or contact with the woman's body.
It's tricky, though, to argue that a woman would be able to get a surgical abortion but would be able to refuse (on terms of bodily integrity) a similar surgical procedure just because she doesn't agree with the outcome of that procedure. And anyway most people seem to understand that we're balancing rights here--between the woman's bodily integrity and the fetus' right to life. The argument is that "forcing" a woman to carry a baby to term is a huge infringement on her bodily integrity. Ok, if we grant that, then it must be true that "forcing" a woman to undergo a simple procedure to remove the fetus (so that it can grow in an artificial womb) is a much, much smaller infringement of her bodily integrity. It would be silly to argue that NO infringement on bodily integrity is allowed (we already require people to undergo medical procedures to take blood samples, etc) so at best that'd be a huge weakening of the "balance" argument, and one that I would imagine would be fatal in terms of popular opinion.
How would the Court deal with that, though? Evolving standards, new technology, that sort of thing...
But that's where I think Professor A might have interesting things to say, maybe.
I'm not paying for any Milo story. Now a detailed takedown of Chuck's sad history on this blog on the other hand ...
btw; in yet more email correspondence to Professor Althouse, I warned her about a small handful of her regular commenters who wished to continually use the Barron Trump/autism controversy to malign me.
I of course didn't invent it, didn't publish it, and I never brought it up until the GOP primary debate in Detroit when Trump went off on some incomprehensible tangent about vaccines and autism. It was a variation on the old junk science/Jenny McCarthy nonsense. My theory was that perhaps this was one of those personal pathologies of Donald Trump, perhaps pertaining to his own son.
It is not a one-off misstatement by Trump. It came up again during the transition when Vaxxer Extraordinaire Robert F. Kennedy Jr. met with the President-elect in Trump Tower and the media latched on to it.
And for a long time, on other occasions before his presidential run (after, of course, the early childhood of Barron Trump) he has gone off on a vaccine/autism link.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/
Totally unrelated to any of this discussion and to any commenters here, I'll drop these links:
Know Your Meme: Autistic Screeching
Know Your Meme: Reeeee!
btw; in yet more email correspondence to Professor Althouse,
Whatever this blog's paying you, Professor, it ain't enough.
Somewhere, a street corner is missing its preacher.
Hey I think I once stood in line at that very theatre behind some scruffy dude with a guitar, to see some old film with Gregory Peck.
It wasnt Guns of Navarone. Now that film, I remember.
Notably when Peck chews out Niven. There was also a Maria!! Or wait, was it Sophia? Or Helena?..... It wasn't Ainsley, thats for sure.
"Chuck said...
btw; in yet more email correspondence to Professor Althouse,"
Maybe she'll read this when she gets back from filing for a TRO on you.
"Not exactly. That can become the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Rooster crows, sun rises."
No, because I used the word evidence in the legal sense. It isn't absolute proof, only evidence.
If y only happened after x, there is some evidence that y would not have happened without x. I don't know why the interview was eventually aired, but it was only aired after vigorous criticism accusing the station of having spiked it, so I do not know that it would not have aired if there had been no accusation. More info is needed.
https://youtu.be/PuLr9HG2ASs
The link above I saw at Unz on a Sailer post.
Harlan Ellison says these amateurs write for free and muck up his profession.
This iss why I always leave in a few errores when I comment, so folks don't get the idear I am giving my best efforts away as if they contain no value, money value.
Timbuktu teriyaki in Tokyo at midnight in mid-September, the smell of two-stroke gas recently combusted and quickly expelled from the appropriate chamber, rice sparkling the paved ground like spent shells used in firearms training excercixes before the war, this is what and where my soul cried out "where da beef be at yo?" But the night's stoic silence now precludes any possibility of an answer, not before the day's new dawn sparks the vast connected system, in so many of its complex ways, from making the moments right again to attempt it all over.
Professor did you read the Snopes page on this story?
http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/19/milo-yiannopoulos-npr/
Chuck reminds me of an elderly physician who trapped me at a party a few years ago and proceeded to tell me, in a monotone, not only every single detail of his fitness and diet and vitamin regime, but why he did those things. "I also take Vitamin B12 supplements. Do you know why B12 is important? Well according to an Israeli study done in 2004...."
"I ran for many years. 5 miles a day, sometimes 7 or 8. It was good for my heart health. But then I got a stress fracture...also I was once nearly bit by a Great Bernard. that had to be around 1991..."
All because I complimented him on his fit appearance.
Whatever this blog's paying you, Professor, it's too much.
If Ann wants to ask about topics, I've got one I've always wanted her to address.
What is going to happen when some Muslim demands the right to practice polygamy? And he has his 4 women all swearing they want to enter into one?
Consider on the one hand all the gay rights movement and "getting government out of the bedroom." And on the other: The very real fact that absolutely no one can claim the 14th amendment legalized polygamy, since the ones who wrote it also were the ones who stripped the Mormons of practically all their civil rights to fight against polygamy. And the teeny tiny matter that Utah and Oklahoma have it as part of their state Constitutions, and it is unable to be amended, that polygamy is a crime forever. Further, Utah's enabling act (and possibly Oklahoma) explicitly conditions statehood upon polygamy remaining illegal.
So: wouldn't legalizing polygamy by judicial fiat also mean that Utah and any other state suddenly are in violation of their enabling act and thus lose statehood? And wouldn't that be a compelling government interest to ban polygamy?
I'd love to see an expert legal scholar opinion on the topic.
--Vance
HACKED: TOP SUPER SECRET EMAIL TO (REDACTED)
PROFESSOR (REDACTED) I EMAIL YOU AGAIN TO REMIND YOU OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN TO YOU PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND, NOR REPLY. I KNOW IF YOU TRULY UNDERSTOOD MY THINKING YOU WOULD THINK THE SAME WAY I DO, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SMART WOMAN, PROFESSOR (REDACTED). I APPRECIATE SMART WOMEN, AND I HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS THE SMART WOMEN WHO APPRECIATE ME.
THE ASS-CLOWNS ARE OUT TO GET ME, YOU CAN SEE THAT. THIS MUST MAKE IT HARD TO PUBLICLY AGREE WITH ME: I UNDERSTAND THAT. PLEASE KNOW THAT WHEN YOU WRITE IN TEXTUAL SYNCHRONICITY WITH ME THAT I WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THE HORDES AND THE ASS-CLOWNS. I WILL KICK ASS IF I HAVE TO, IT IS WHO I AM: I ASS-KICK.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I CAN ONLY TAKE YOUR SILENCE FOR AGREEMENT FOR SO LONG. AWAITING YOUR RESPONSE.
(REDACTED).
I am Laslo.
Unknown said...
Whatever this blog's paying you, Professor, it's too much.
8/1/17, 3:07 PM
And yet, here you are.
Laslo, ha!
Ok, since Laslo is here in this thread, I refer, without comment, him to this story: http://nypost.com/2017/07/31/mans-quest-for-bigger-penis-turns-deadly/
I'm pretty sure Laslo is much, much, much more talented than I and no doubt will find a great way to use said story. Possibly in this very thread!
--Vance
HACKED: TOP SUPER SECRET EMAIL TO (REDACTED)
PROFESSOR (REDACTED) I HAVE PROVIDED YOU AGAIN WITH THE LINKS I PROVIDED YOU PREVIOUSLY. I KNOW IT IS EASY FOR SOME WOMEN TO GET DISTRACTED, BUT I REALLY SUGGEST YOU READ THESE LINKS IF YOU WANT ME TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
I WOULD NOT SPEND THE TIME ON THESE EMAILS IF I DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD GET UP TO SPEED WITH WHAT I KNOW. THEN AGAIN, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO. OR YOU CAN'T, MEANING I MISJUDGED YOUR INTELLIGENCE IN RELATION TO MINE. I HOPE THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
AWAITING YOUR REPLY,
(REDACTED).
I am Laslo.
Laslo, that some funny shit!
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Laslo is the Swiss-army sledgehammer of wit.
Hahaha Laslo.
Chuck said...
Bad Lieutenant said...
Come on Chuck, give it to us. Tell us about Barron Trump again!
I have no idea why you'd bring that up here, and now.
I know you don't! That's why it's so great!
According to attorneys retained by Melania Trump,
More! More! Do it again!!!
Be sure to bcc Althouse!
Pony tail swishing and super secret emails in one post!
Thank you Laslo.
So: wouldn't legalizing polygamy by judicial fiat also mean that Utah and any other state suddenly are in violation of their enabling act and thus lose statehood? And wouldn't that be a compelling government interest to ban polygamy?
Suppose instead of a Moslem it was a man who wanted to marry several other men. Would that marriage lie outside the definition of marriage in the enabling act, so that for the purpose of the act there was no marriage and no polygamy ? I ask as a pore ole country IT guy.
"Wisconsin Style fascism includes frozen custard and cheese curds."
Found a new Culver's by accident yesterday.
Stopped.
Asked if they had a patty melt, they said sour dough or Wisconsin style.
If you don't know I demanded Wisconsin style, you don't know Guild.
And yet no one is posting new or countering facts. All of the substantive hyperlinks have been from me.
Because no one else cares.
Milo was being provocative. Maybe he provoked them into airing the interview, maybe they would have anyway.
Guildofcannonballs said....
Timbuktu teriyaki in Tokyo at midnight in mid-September, the smell of two-stroke gas recently combusted and quickly expelled from the appropriate chamber, rice sparkling the paved ground like spent shells used in firearms training excercixes before the war, this is what and where my soul cried out "where da beef be at yo?" But the night's stoic silence now precludes any possibility of an answer, not before the day's new dawn sparks the vast connected system, in so many of its complex ways, from making the moments right again to attempt it all over.
Terribly awesome !
"What is going to happen when some Muslim demands the right to practice polygamy? And he has his 4 women all swearing they want to enter into one?"
Then they should be permitted to do so. It is their custom after all.
Even countries with annoying Muslim troubles like the Philippines recognize traditional law. And not just for Muslims btw, there are all sorts of subcultures, many still pagan or semi-pagan, with various parts of their customs recognized. There is a recognized concept in Philippine law of "good customs", embodied in various codes. From the code of Criminal law -
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
Art. 200. Grave scandal. — The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.
The US now has multiple cultures, as do all the ancient lands that provided its current population, its many conquered natives, its ex-slaves, and its own unique nations-in-a-nation (Mormons, say). I think there should be such a concept of good customs, as a cultural buffer.
This comes with multiculturalism, with empires. Ultimately it is unavoidable.
Let's all encourage Chuck to start his own blog. Of course, the time required for that will probably prevent his hanging around here, but I think that's a sacrifice most of us can live with.
tcrosse: wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to the gay rights brigade? I love it. But it's a very valid question. Same question as "why don't we let two brothers marry each other? There's no danger of a genetically challenged baby like with a brother/sister marriage."
I know a few states that allow first cousins to marry.... after they are both past the child bearing age, so there's no danger for a crippled child.
What a wonderful world our "betters" have led us to, isn't it.
--Vance
Buwaya: I can't accept that. I have many ancestors who ran from the federales who were hunting them down for trying to follow their beliefs.
There is no way this country can justify allowing Muslims polygamy without confronting the entire last part of the 1800's. Mormons were stripped of the right to vote, and the Supreme Court upheld that 9-0; enforced against all Mormons in Idaho: single, married, polygamous, didn't matter.
So while your idea has merit in a vacuum, it won't stand. Polygamy, we were told, was a barbarous relic of history. Kind of hard to walk that language back. The Republican party was founded to combat the "twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy." Now that Islam has shown up with both, I'm sure the Republican party as exemplified by Chuck will happily roll over for both.
Confederates and the Mormons got to feel the federal boot but today.... well, I guess they get to feel the federal boot again for resisting against Islam. Led by Republicans and Democrats eager to worship Allah. Funny old world, isn't it?
--Vance
I think there should be such a concept of good customs, as a cultural buffer.
This comes with multiculturalism, with empires. Ultimately it is unavoidable.
I'm OK with that but with one provision. Welfare is only for one wife. And her children.
Britain let that get away from them.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I CAN ONLY TAKE YOUR SILENCE FOR AGREEMENT FOR SO LONG. AWAITING YOUR RESPONSE.
Man For All Seasons (1966)
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Uh-oh.
Infinite Monkeys said...
...
Milo was being provocative. Maybe he provoked them into airing the interview, maybe they would have anyway.
Milo was being accusatory.
What Milo should do is (a) prove that "NPR" tried to kill the interview or (b) apologize for having initiated that story.
You all realize, I hope, that the notion that "NPR" was a player at all in this case was the original sin. By NO account, did National Public Radio make any editorial decision about producing, editing or airing this interview.
So we've sailed past Milo's first lie, onto his next lie; that the interview was spiked. WNPR's having aired the interview at a time promised in an email from about two weeks ago ought to end that controversy. But I guess I don't think like some of you.
"The very real fact that absolutely no one can claim the 14th amendment legalized polygamy, since the ones who wrote it also were the ones who stripped the Mormons of practically all their civil rights to fight against polygamy. And the teeny tiny matter that Utah and Oklahoma have it as part of their state Constitutions, and it is unable to be amended, that polygamy is a crime forever."
Sorry, Vance. Better get up to speed on prog overlord thinking. Sure they can claim the 14th legalized polygamy. When the time is right--e.g., when enough Muslims and there prog and polyamory enablers demand it--Tony K.'s successor will tell us, as he did in Obergefell, that, what do you know, the 14th always required equal treatment of polygamy, because of substantive due process, see? Those anti-Mormon nitwits just hadn't thought about it clearly enough, but the Living Constitution can set them straight. Bye, bye state law -- irrelevant, as Tony also told us: centuries of state law precedent, including constitutional provisions, on family and marriage can, nay, must be swept aside.
Hoodlum that is a rather interesting hypothetical. Of course if it were to occur then how would the woman get out of paying child support? Or if she wanted an abortion and the man wanted the kid the compromise would be the artificial womb and he gets custody and she gets to pay child support. I have a feeling the feminist are not going to look at these possibilities too kindly.
chuck says when Trump went off on some incomprehensible tangent about vaccines and autism.
Chuck, maybe the kid has Aberger's Syndrome and will end up as Secretary of the Treasury.
infinite Monkeys said...Milo was being provocative. Maybe he provoked them into airing the interview, maybe they would have anyway.
A-HA! I have you there, don't you see? Maybe? MAYBE? What about the Snopesberries, Infinite Monkeys?!
Ah, but the[Snopes]berries, that's, that's where I had them, they laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic, that a duplicate ["NPR"] did exist, and I'd have produced [evidence that a show taped in an NPR studio by a performer who said "this is NPR" and whose show is carried by NPR affiliates had no relation to NPR and anyway the interview itself was not spiked, nor even temporarily delayed...] Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory. If I left anything out, why, just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them.
What happens in a polygamous marriage with children by the various wives when there is a divorce? Who has custody or shared custody and child support obligations?
So we've sailed past Milo's first lie, onto his next lie; that the interview was spiked. WNPR's having aired the interview at a time promised in an email from about two weeks ago ought to end that controversy. But I guess I don't think like some of you.
Not a lie if you believe it.
LLR, of all people, relies on that.
but your assholery makes me less willing, not more.
Truer words have never been written.
And thank you Laslo. I had a few large laughs.
cubanbob said... Of course if it were to occur then how would the woman get out of paying child support? Or if she wanted an abortion and the man wanted the kid the compromise would be the artificial womb and he gets custody and she gets to pay child support.
Yes, exactly--under the "bodily integrity" argument she would have a right to have the fetus removed, but that's it--she'd still be on the hook for/be responsible for raising the child or paying for that. That's roughly the position men are in today, of course, which is one reason it's an important discussion--right now the "bodily integrity" argument is (understandably) a trump card to any discussions about the ethics of abortion as they relate to the law. Absent that card...well then it seems like women would be in the same position as men are today, and it's abundantly clear that we have no problem "forcing" men to be responsible for the cost of raising a child (whether they want that responsibility or not). Why should things be any different for women?
I have no idea why this sprang to mind:
Lt. Greenwald: Doctor. You have testified that the following symptoms exist in Lieutenant-Commander Queeg's behavior. Rigidity of personality, feelings of persecution, unreasonable suspicion, a mania for perfection, and a neurotic certainty that he is always in the right. Doctor isn't there one psychiatric term for this illness?
The Caine Mutiny (1954)
HACKED: TOP SUPER SECRET EMAIL TO (REDACTED)
PROFESSOR (REDACTED) I HAVE SAID IT AND I HAVE SAID IT AND I HAVE REPEATED IT AND I HAVE REPEATED IT AGAIN. I WILL NOT LET THIS GO AWAY. YOU ARE EITHER WITH ME OR AGAINST ME. YES I AM PUTTING MY FOOT DOWN, MAN-STYLE. I AM A MAN.
EITHER YOUR HEAVING BREASTS ARE PUSHED UP AGAINST MY CHEST AS I HOLD YOU SAFELY FROM THE HORDES AND ASS-CLOWNS, OR YOU ARE WITH THE ASS-CLOWNS, DRINKING GUTTER WATER AND DRESSED IN RAGS. THERE IS NO RIVER IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS RIVER, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THE WATER ONLY FLOWS ONE WAY, PROFESSOR (REDACTED): I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT.
AWAITING YOUR REPLY,
(REDACTED).
I am Laslo.
FullMoon said...
[It's] Not a lie if you believe it.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
...
[evidence that a show taped in an NPR studio by a performer who said "this is NPR" and whose show is carried by NPR affiliates had no relation to NPR and anyway the interview itself was not spiked, nor even temporarily delayed...]
You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject.
The Milo interview was recorded at the WNPR studio in Connecticut. Not in "an NPR studio." Okay, sport? Can we just pause while I shove that one down your throat?
Milo was sitting in the (rented) NPR studio in New York City; so he didn't have to drive up to Connecticut to WNPR. He spoke into a rented mic there, and he was linked to WNPR. That's the story. I understand the story. This is not my problem. You seem to not get it.
Colin McEnroe said "this is NPR" in a casual, and I submit, careless fashion. They were talking about the fact that it was public radio, not a National Public Radio program. It was not a station break or a program announcement. It was banter, as part of the interview. They were talking about public radio programming and audiences.
And no; because the interview was broadcast/posted on July 24, it was not "delayed." It was certainly not spiked.
As far as I know, the Colin McEnroe show is carried on the handful of Connecticut Public Radio stations. And that it is not syndicated to any other NPR member stations. And you know, I explained "NPR Member" affiliations in that other thread. Thank you very little.
I applaud Chuck for sticking to his guns. It would be easy to backtrack, quit listening to that little voice demanding he soldier on, give up on his fellow citizens, many whom having been duped are so defensive so as to be seemingly beyond all ability to understand what is being said, and why and in what ways, but that, you see, is simply not Chuck.
No, Chuck doesn't back down in the face of some name-calling and obviously envious satire-artists (x-rated only though) doing their thing, Chuck grows stronger, more deeply committed to Truth the American Way, to steeling of his and others' resolves.
Bravo! More American than the American!
More exclamation points than Jackson jay!
Hooray!!
You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject.
Wrong.
Colin McEnroe said "this is NPR" in a casual, and I submit, careless fashion.
Casual and careless! It's a different story if he said it in a formal and careful fashion, but casual and careless...it doesn't count.
It's like objecting in court, you see: if you just object it doesn't count, but if you strenuously object that's a different story.
You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject.
The Milo interview was recorded at the WNPR studio in Connecticut. Not in "an NPR studio." Okay, sport?
http://wnpr.org/
WNPR radio & WNPR News online are Connecticut's public-media source for NPR"
It is a NPR affiliate, therefore, obviously, their studio is an NPR studio.
Colin McEnroe said "this is NPR" in a casual, and I submit, careless fashion.
Objection! Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial !
Is this thread for real or am I having flashbacks?
FullMoon said...
You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject.
The Milo interview was recorded at the WNPR studio in Connecticut. Not in "an NPR studio." Okay, sport?
http://wnpr.org/
WNPR radio & WNPR News online are Connecticut's public-media source for NPR"
It is a NPR affiliate, therefore, obviously, their studio is an NPR studio.
Not only is that not "obvious"; it's wrong.
WNPR is "Connecticut's public media source for NPR," because WNPR broadcasts some of the NPR-produced news shows like All Things Considered and Morning Edition.
"NPR" is not "WNPR." "WNPR" is not "NPR."
Connecticut Public Radio:
http://wnpr.org/
National Public Radio:
http://www.npr.org/
There are several people on this blog I'd like to meet in their analog format, but none more than Laslo. Swish, swish. Audi.
Sebastian, I wasn't quite complete when I talked about Utah's state constitution forbidding amendment on polygamy. It CAN be amended... by joint action of the US Congress and also Utah. I don't actually know of any other state/federal power sharing that requires both sides to consent. The US Congress has waived its power to override Utah's constitution unilaterally, and Utah cannot do it either.
Judicial action is not available here to override Utah's constitution, I think. There was complete unanimity against Polygamy: all three branches of the federal government as well as the Utah government.
The US Supreme Court would have to override most of the religious liberty cases in the country to legalize polygamy. Once it does that... the state can ban polygamy, and what religious liberty is left?
I think it would be a fascinating article by the Professor. Unlike gay marriage, where there hadn't been dozens of Supreme Court cases saying stuff like "Civilization demands polygamy be restricted", some snotty federal judge from Hawaii or California couldn't legalize it--they can't overturn Reynolds v. US, can they?
No doubt they might try, but overturning the foundational religious liberty case in the law? Thats.... unlikely to happen. Might as well overturn Marbury v. Madison.
--Vance
Ladies and gentlemen, please meet Chuck (D-NPR).
You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject.
You fucking jackass, I think you will.
I liked the Tower Records doc and it was done by Colin Hanks...
Just cogitate in your cogitators what goes on. I know I speak not only for myself when I say "we have high hopes" for all of you.
This is such an entertaining thread!
FullMoon said...Objection! Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial !
Jackie Chiles: I am shocked and chagrined! Mortified and stupefied!
Jackie Chiles: It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous!
For a LifeLong friend: This is a public humiliation!
Was General Jack D Ripper a "Life Long Republican?"
"Milo was being provocative."
"Milo was being accusatory."
Both can be present in the same statement.
The commonly cited example of both -
J'Accuse - Emile Zola
https://www.marxists.org/archive/zola/1898/jaccuse.htm
Rather lengthy and very inside-baseball wrt to the controversy and French systems of the day, but still worth a skim.
Zola certainly provoked a reaction, on several fronts, and he was obliged to reside in London for a time.
LLR said... Okay, sport?
You think this is all a big joke, don'tcha? Let me tell you something funnyboy...Let me give you a hint, junior...I got a flash for you joy-boy.
"You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject."
Want. To. Bet?
Note, lost before the Chuckery, there is another Laslo pony-tail girl.
"You fucking jackass. I won't be mocked by you on this subject."
Nevertheless, he persisted.
"Suppose we get 'Star Trek' technology quicker than we expected, and now have the ability to teleport.
With this, we now have the ability to teleport the fetus from the womb of one woman into the womb of another.
Does a woman have the right to demand abortion rather than have the fetus painlessly whisked away to a welcoming mother?
One argument I heard: the mother could experience emotional pain for giving up her child, without the closure that abortion would bring."
Being an extremely technical minded fellow, I think that such a procedure would cause much more than emotional pain for woman #2, as the uterus takes some time to be reorganized, and grow, to each stage in the pregnancy. The biology of the whole process is very complex. The teleportation will present some minor problems also of course.
More likely and less science-fictional probably is that an unwanted fetus could be removed alive at a fairly early stage, very much as in an abortion, and placed in an artificial womb. The real problem with working out the practical aspects of this, all those minor tweaks (like how much of what hormones to inject at stage #4567 and how to know when to do it.) that are going to be essential to get this working will take a huge amount of experimentation, unfortunately of the Dr. Mengele variety.
I'm not sure Laslo could handle all of the beers that all of the Althouse commenters would be willing to buy.
This is way more important than the repeated violence and free speech violations from the left.
Wayyyy more.
Alan Dershowitz produced an (law review?) article about the abortion and advanced technology issue.
You all might like to read it.
I cannot find it using a bing search.
@Vance: "some snotty federal judge from Hawaii or California couldn't legalize it--they can't overturn Reynolds v. US, can they No doubt they might try, but overturning the foundational religious liberty case in the law? Thats.... unlikely to happen."
Not really arguing with you, you understand -- but: yes, yes they can. Who and what will stop them? Those polygamy cases, and all that BS about civilization, just cry out for overturning, at long last. Unlikely, sure. But a generation ago who would have said that SSM would have been enshrined as required by the 14th? In fact, O himself said at the Saddleback debate, as I recall, a mere 10 years ago, that there was nothing to worry about for conservatives, since marriage was obviously not a constitutional issue. Sure, he was a lying bullshitter--an oxymoronic category not covered by Harry Frankfurt--but it was the conventional understanding he exploited.
"I can't accept that. I have many ancestors who ran from the federales who were hunting them down for trying to follow their beliefs.
There is no way this country can justify allowing Muslims polygamy without confronting the entire last part of the 1800's. "
Much more profound matters have been overturned than this one. I don't see the history and precedents as precluding such changes.
Your real problem is the lack of expertise in inter-cultural mediation. In the old days this was the bread-and-butter of the colonial administrators and the related private/commercial and military milieu, that multinational crew that made the exotically diverse third world hum.
I am one of the last brought up in this tradition, and I am out of practice, and I'm retiring soon anyway. But I still have my pith helmet, and am willing to give it a try for you imperial Americans. But best to start soon on the polygamy and etc.
The answer, I believe, buwaya, is to tell those other cultures to pound sand on any issue that American culture doesn't prefer. We should recognize that our understanding of tolerance and multi-ethnic culture is itself a received Western tradition (and other cultures have theirs in equal measure) such that we cannot escape our Western traditions either by including or including other cultural norms.
So the question becomes one of utility. And it is easiest and best administered to have a common standard that we determine.
But that's just the conservative in me.
The libertarian says who cares? Let everybody do what they want, man! Far out.
And the libertarian is mugged by reality in short order.
"So the question becomes one of utility. And it is easiest and best administered to have a common standard that we determine.
But that's just the conservative in me."
But that is not necessarily conservative, not of the old school. Conservatism has never discounted diversity. This was the case in all the old European empires. Before the 19th century there wasn't much thought given to cultural unity. That was a radical, novel idea. It was typical to have distinct peoples living side by side even in the same town, each with their own laws and languages.
Russell Kirk struggled with a lot of "conservative" thought, and he did come up with various principles that define a conservative - and these do conflict.
So consider his fifth principle.
"conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. "
What a dump.
Two points.
Laslo,
Unless you drink a megabrew Anhauser Busch or Miller owned product, there is not enough beer or ale brewed of your favorite brand to buy what we all owe you. Well done, Sir!
I thought it was impossible, but I actually feel a little sick watching Chuck self destruct today. Look! Other than our avatars and comments none of us know anything about the demons, disabilities, defects, drunkenness, loneliness, homeboundness, whatever of any of the other of us have in our lives. I think we've crossed the line into bullying. For all we know Chuck may really have Asperger's or whatever makes him gnaw a bone like an old dog. We need to let him have his initial say, Laugh if we must, and move on.
I just reread my post about the Milo interview. There is absolutely nothing to correct. I was scrupulous about only saying what was known. That's what I do.
If you pay me $1,000 I'll read this comment thread instead of glancing at it.
Ann Althouse said...
I just reread my post about the Milo interview. There is absolutely nothing to correct. I was scrupulous about only saying what was known. That's what I do.
First, I don't recall pointing to any inaccuracies in your post. It wasn't much of a post. You put forth the Milo version of the story. Which was garbage.
Milo had no proof that "NPR" in any way "spiked" his story and he still doesn't. Milo mixed up "NPR" and "WNPR" and seems to never have understood the difference.
What I complained about to you, Professor, was the need for a corrective, as much as any correction.
But here's the gist of what you wrote, as opposed to linking what Milo posted:
On whether they are silencing Milo, they are silencing themselves. That gives free rein to all who want to say NPR was flummoxed by the troll who wouldn't troll on cue but spoke rationally about the value of a troll.
So it seems that even though you aren't to blame for Milo's lies, you bought into them. "NPR" didn't silence anybody. "NPR" had no more role in any air-time decision than you did, Althouse. Goddamnit, I don't understand why you can't admit that NPR is not WNPR. (Because, let's face it, the point of the story was to broadly assail NPR, known widely as a liberal bastion. Milo's picking on little Connecticut Public Radio wouldn't be anywhere near as compelling as a Breitbart attack on "NPR."
I suggested to you a second post. A post that would have pointed out three basic things.
1) Milo was wrong; "NPR" had no role whatsoever in the story.
2) WNPR really did air the interview, and posted the complete interview to Soundcloud, on Monday.
3) Snopes looked into the sequence of events; asked Milo's camp for comment; asked WNPR for comment; reviewed the emails. Snopes answered Althouse's question about wanting to know more before judging the story. Snopes:
" It is within the realm of possibility that WNPR have been delaying broadcasting the interview because, as Yiannopoulos claims, they were disappointed by how “provocative, intelligent, fabulous but eminently reasonable” he appeared. However, representatives for Yiannopoulos did not provide any evidence showing that this was the motivation behind the two delays that had taken place before he made the claim of suppression.
"In fact, e-mails provided by his representatives show that one producer explained at the time that the first delay was caused by the fact that WNPR had brought forward the expected interview date to accommodate Yiannopoulos’ travel plans. The show’s presenter Colin McEnroe also gave us a second reason for that delay. On the whole, the pattern of delays is entirely consistent with standard broadcasting practice."
http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/19/milo-yiannopoulos-npr/
Althouse, your blog helped "broadcast" a story that Milo invented, and which was bullshit.
(redacted) 4:03: "...Colin McEnroe said "this is NPR" in a casual, and I submit, careless fashion..."
(redacted) 8:46: "...Goddamnit, I don't understand why you can't admit that NPR is not WNPR...."
Oh, the casual carelessness, it's so... so... carelessly casual.
I am Laslo.
Those mouse turds aren't going to pole vault themselves.
Althouse, your blog helped "broadcast" a story that Milo invented, and which was bullshit.
The blogress stands by her post.
Like collusion? Like "Comey never told Trump he wasn't under investigation?" Like ten thousand other lies about President Trump you've been battening on since last year?
Here, you want a corrective correction correctol or something. Instead of copulating this particular chicken, though...how about if she writes you a nice expose on...Barron Trump?! Only a grand, which should be chump change for a successful Michigan election lawyer.
Does anyone remember in Roger Corman's "Galaxy of Terror" when Erin Moran's head blew up?
It did. Joanie Cunningham's head blew up, right on camera. Google doesn't have any decent stills of it, but the scene is on YouTube if you seek verification.
Not as good as "Scanners", but still: Erin Moran's head blew up.
Of course, if you HAVE seen "Galaxy of Terror" you might not remember it because: 1) it was only Erin Moran, and 2) you probably only remember the scene when the hot female astronaut is sexually assaulted by the tentacle monster.
Again: YouTube will verify.
The latter scene had to be trimmed slightly to avoid an 'X' rating: not because of nudity, but because the hot female astronaut comes (ha) to enjoy it, and dies from pleasure.
Really.
Anyway.
This thread got me to think of exploding heads.
So I Googled and ended up here: "The Best and Messiest Exploding Head Scenes - Dread Central
Sure enough, Erin Moran is in there.
Like I said: this thread got me to think of exploding heads.
I am Laslo.
Unbelievably, our LLR amigo has reached the point of Absolute Non-Parody-ness.
Try as one might, our "Inspector Javert" exceeds any and all attempts.
Can you imagine what will happen if/when Kid Rock secures the Republican nomination for Senator from MI?
Chuck will be binge watching Maddow and foaming at the mouth.
"Terribly awesome !"
It took me much of what they call the thinking.
It wasn't anything I would consider, or say I could consider now, a thing other folks talk about they like as if they really do.
I don't have any knowledge or special words that do special things, neither do others, though we all figured a while ago the righteous, like Mr.Gram Parse no or Mr. "big wheels keep on turning, carry me home to see my kin.
Sing songs of the Southland, Miss Alabama, I' think it's a sin.
Sweet Home Alabama,
Where the skies are so blue.
Sweet home Alabama, Lord I'm comng home to you.
Oops, I just did me a Kid Rock.
Anthony Scaramucci needs to listen t Gram Parsons.
Add an o if it helps whatever.
"Still feeling blue" or "Hickory Wind" or Wild Horses the only way history reconciles or loves hurtings penumbras.
Feste yoy still win. My awareness isn't/wouldn't merit... I agree.
You are right.
Come on over to Dayton and see us on Sunday. http://livingwaterlutheran.us
She
She came from the land of the cotton,
She,
She,
She worked and she slaved so hard, a big old field was her back yard,
Oh, and she sure could sing.
Post a Comment