I was Googling that after reading the comments on "Podcaster Joe Rogan and NYT writer Bari Weiss talk about the Covington Catholic school boys." Walter wrote:
Oh look: A Saturday Night Live comedy writer responded to the media’s false story about the Covington High kids by offering oral sex to anyone who punches them in the face.I wanted to check to see if she really wrote that. But I'm distracted from any outrage I might have experienced because I am overwhelmed by the utter silliness of Google.
“I will blow whoever manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,” tweeted Sarah Beattie.
1. Anyone writing something that crude isn't likely to think about whether "whoever" or "whomever" is correct.
2. When you're writing in such crude sex-and-violence terms, you shouldn't want to use "whomever" even when it is correct.
3. "Whomever" is not correct!
Damn, Google, if you're going to be a busybody grammar nerd, at least get the grammar rules right.
पोस्ट्स
१४७ टिप्पण्या:
They succeeded in distracting you, though, didn't they?
I wanted to check to see if she really wrote that. But I'm distracted from any outrage I might have experienced because I am overwhelmed by the utter silliness of Google.
Well it's nice to see that you have your priorities straight.....
The ghost of Nina Burleigh...
Based on the first 2 comments... we really are in The Era of That's Not Funny.
Who whom.
Siri? Whom should I punch?
Did you mean blow?
Who knows the answer?
4. By the time it sends you the prompt to "correct" your search, it has already found the search results that are an exact match, word-for-word, in the correct order, recently added, on numerous sites. From this it should have been able to conclude that you searched for what you wanted to search for.
Remember, according to Inga and LLR Chuck, its only conservatives making a big deal out of all this.
Why, if I had a nickel for everytime a major comedy show writer offered oral sex for someone, say, like a LLR Chuck-type, to punch an innocent conservative high school student.......
The basic rule is you use "whomever" wherever you would use "him, her, them" (object pronouns) and whoever where you could use "he, she, and they" (subject pronouns)
So which seems correct?
“I will blow he who manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,”
“I will blow him who manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,”
I guess the subject is the person to be blown, the object is the MAGA kid?
"Remember, according to Inga and LLR Chuck, its only conservatives making a big deal out of all this."
I wouldn't be surprise if Inga (the State's handmaiden) offers to blow any lawmaker who raises taxes.
Whomever she is, she's one classy lady.
As has been pointed out before, a few of the students from Covington were wearing MAGA hats. A likely explanation is that, visiting DC for their school outing, they purchased the hats as souvenirs.
Is it just me or do others find her offer sexist? I mean, what about the ladies? Why assume only a male could punch that kid?
Bill Clinton is polishing his boxing gloves.
Althouse, did you click on the "whomever" prompt? If you do you'll find that the quote in question all but disappears from the front page of links.
I'm sure that wasn't their intent!
Professor-
TRY THE OTHER SEARCH! Follow the first link in the search results. Seriously, you won't be disappointed. Seren-google-dipity.
Based on the first 2 comments... we really are in The Era of That's Not Funny.
Forgive me..I missed the joke. Was I supposed to feel that a woman offering a blow job to anyone who punched a teenaged boy funny? Was I supposed to find you apparent disbelief the offer was made funny? Was I supposed to find Google's attempt to change the search terms funny? Was I supposed to find your distraction from a grave offense to meaningless errata funny?
Seriously..where was the joke?
Blogger Henry said...
Siri? Whom should I punch?
Did you mean blow?
The answer is blowing in the wind.
I thought it was hilarious. Especially with the pretentious "over-correction". (I think that's what you call that sort of thing.)
I watched a bit of SNL this past Saturday. Boy did that show blow.
"An honorable task for any soyboy under the feminazi boot to take up. For any nice, open-minded fellow willing to accept that all radical left wingers want are peace, love, and harmony; you might want to re-think that considering they’ve evolved into a group of people that daydream about hitting kids."
-newsbuster writer. Heh.
Who are all these unfunny pedants who prefer nitpicky grammar applications to blow jobs?
Get your priorities straight!
It's weird that she sees herself as too feminine and weak to simply do it herself. She has to use her feminine wiles to get a man to do it.
That is especially weird because dozens of movies and TV shows have assured me for the last 25 years that women have no problem with punching men effectively.
Were they all lying? Or is this woman some sort of Phyllis Schlafly-like holdover from the Betty Crocker/Tupperware Party 1950's? Why isn't she FIERCE like all her Sisters?
I will perform cunnilingus on the first woman to punch out that SNL writer. Some restrictions apply.
Some things are not funny in any era.
Punching people in the face - Funny!
Blowjobs - Not Funny!
I'm trying to remember a blowjob I've received - any blowjob - where she was laughing. Blowjobs are pretty serious affairs come to think of it. I would not like to receive one from someone who wasn't taking it pretty seriously. Like any skill it takes concentration, and the ones I receive I would always want to be done well.
Yep, blowjobs aren't funny.
It's rather sexist, don't you think to assume that the person doing the punching might be "blowable." Also, is the writer relying on toxic masculinity to accomplish the desired activity?
These new cultural rules are confusing me.
Presumably, she's not offering sex to minors, so she must want an adult to punch him. At his age, I would have punched myself for a blow job.
Curious George said...
Is it just me or do others find her offer sexist? I mean, what about the ladies? Why assume only a male could punch that kid?
how about?
“I will gladly go down on anyone who manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,”
Straightforward, And Polite! Two things that are important when conspiring to commit a felony
I remember visiting the US for the first time many years ago (from Canada, if it matters) and noticing in an official Interstate rest stop a sign in the parking lot saying "Park Diagonal." My first thought was, don't they teach grammar any more?
"Althouse, did you click on the "whomever" prompt?"
Of course not.
1. The answer to the question asked was obviously no.
2. I could immediately see the articles that verified the quote, which is all I wanted.
3. I thought it was very silly for the reasons stated in the post and immediately diverted my energy into making a screen shot and this blog post.
3.
Stop lying about me, Achilles.
I should delete your posts like that because you are spreading a defamation about me and I don't need to be your platform for that.
I invite you to correct your misstatements and to apologize and I am warning you that I may start deleting that.
On second though, I deleted Achilles.
I'm not going to allow thread hijacks for the purpose of lying about me about things that have already been discussed in other posts. Get your own blog and stop wasting my time.
If she takes my advice and engages in a group session with Banging Drum and the Black Hebrew Israelites, Beattie will definitely be the busybody.
(And then the newly bonded band should release an album with her on the cover)
“I will blow whoever manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,” tweeted Sarah Beattie.
That would be an offer for unilateral contract, but not enforceable because of the illegal consideration going both ways (e.g., battery and meretricious services).
Do any in the press or show biz understand how deeply offensive their coverage and response to this incident has been? That Indian activist has told beaucoup lies and still gets referred to respectfully. Those poor kids continue to get dumped on. Apparently one of the kids performed a tomahawk chop. They're down to that, and they're making it out to be some ikind of intolerable act. The school colors are black. Some of the kids paint themselves black at the games. This is said to be blackface......The news media and show biz people should take up a collection and pay for the tuition of these kids through high school, college, and post grad studies,
Gilbar said, "I will gladly go down on...."
I have always disliked this polite euphemism. It's not specific enough. Go down? To where? my belly button? My toes? Really? My toes? That's your thing huh? You're going to 'go down on me' to my toes....if I knew that I would've never punched that kid.
I would've much preferred the funny-sucky-blowjob. What a gyp.
Blowjobs. Still not funny.
People wonder how Harvey Weinstein flourished for so long.
Though..Madonna may seek an injunction for trademark infringement...
She did write it. She's pretty hot too, so there might be takers.
Imagine proving how morally superior you are by bribing people to punch children.
What if the puncher was a woman? Would the same offer of oral sex hold?
I'm trying to remember a blowjob I've received - any blowjob - where she was laughing. Blowjobs are pretty serious affairs come to think of it.
It's all fun and games until somebody loses and eye...
Has she apologized for this yet? Maybe this could be another Davidson moment. He can come on the show, deliver a few funny lines, and she can apologize. Should be a weekly feature when you stop to think about it.....,Here's my suggestion. The kid slaps himself in the face and then tells her "Start gobbling, turkey." Comedy gold.
"come to think of it."
And vice versa
Last night on NBC news I saw a piece about this imbroglio, and NBC had as their anti-Covington talking head some Amerindian activist (ethnic-group activist: that's somewhere near "community organizer" on the Prestige Scale) who maintained that the Smirking Kid had clearly done wrong and was now trying to do damage control. I only saw part of the story, and I suspect that "clearly" does not mean what this woman thinks it means; but did anyone see the story and see where the kid "clearly" did something wrong to the "Vietnam War vet"?
Send not to know for whom Sarah blows.
She blows for thee.
Apparently one of the kids performed a tomahawk chop. They're down to that, and they're making it out to be some ikind of intolerable act.
The absurdities these nutters convince themselves are important. Note Howard has nothing to say about this though: only about people opposing blacklisting and death threats. It's a strange priority set which can only be explained by blind partisanship.
Anyway, my point is the kid's act isn't necessarily a tomahawk chop. The motion could just be leading the chant so they all sing together.
If anyone lays a hand on Sandmann, I will anally rape Sarah Beattie.
“I will blow whoever manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,”
Facecrime?
Char Char Binks said...
If anyone lays a hand on Sandmann, I will anally rape Sarah Beattie.
Bro, Not Cool. Not Cool.
I'm a bit of a grammar snob myself, but what struck me about the remark was that 1) it was an incitement to violence, 2) it was rank bigotry based, at best, on unsupported assumptions, 3) it was vulgar and 4) it was a look-at-me moment for someone so proud of herself for 1),2), and 3) that she put it out for the whole world to see and admire.
In this case, grammar takes a backseat.
The best thing that could happen is for people to stop paying attention to her -- to stop following her on social media, to stop watching her television show and to stop asking for her opinions. Let her marinate alone in her own little stew of smuggery and ignorance.
Some people are not worth the time.
It should be amazing that with that many kids being exposed to such weirdness, it was so reasonably tolerated. Even if a single kid made a tomahawk chop in that mess, give me a break.
Now..if you are a different non-MAGA sort, engaging in the "knock out game" is a relative nothing-burger.
Hilarious post.
A point of etymology. "Blow" and "job". You really don't want any "blowing" going on, but the word choice is more understandable in the context of 'doing something with the mouth'.
"Job". I think we can all agree effort is involved, but is it really 'work'? Probably for some recipients more than others, and let's put the whole 'compensatory' aspect to the side....no need to get that involved.
I'm going to run with the 'job' aspect of this. It takes skill. Effort. Maybe even a bit of professionalism. It is work. Just like making a good cocktail.
Next time I receive a good one I'll make sure to let her know that she did a good job. I'm appreciative.
Blowjobs. Still not funny.
Go to Google News and search for Covington. Mine shows nothing about the events of the weekend.
Poof, it has all disappeared. Nothing happened.
The human got the nominative vs accusative thing correct, anyway.
I'd question her standards, though (lower than Mae West's? Sylvia Krystel/Emmanuelle's?).
Ann:
When your were grading law school exams, same attitude?
This grammatical problem does not happen in Slavic languages. The Slavic-language construction is essentially:
----------------
I will blow the person who manages to punch
.... togo, kto ...
----------------
In Slavic languages you must use two words to join the clauses. The preceding clause governs the first joining word's case, and the following clause governs the second joining word's case.
The problem in English is that we have this one word whoever/whomever that is ambiguous. It's reasonable that either the preceding clause or the following clause determine's the one joining word's case.
I have a good understanding of English grammar, and I have tried to master this grammatical rule, but I continue to be confused whenever I have to apply the rule in conversation. If I have to write such a sentence, then I rewrite the entire paragraph to avoid the problem.
so this is they up and coming tina fey or kate mackinnon
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/01/22/finally-joy-behar-admits-the-truth-about-media-and-lefts-snap-judgments-on-covington-video/
"I have a good understanding of English grammar, and I have tried to master this grammatical rule, but I continue to be confused whenever I have to apply the rule in conversation. If I have to write such a sentence, then I rewrite the entire paragraph to avoid the problem."
Here's a shortcut. Unless you know the rule and are sure you are right, NEVER choose "whom." It just sounds colloquial to say "who" even when it's technically wrong, but if you miscorrect to "whom," you really look foolish.
I recommend diagramming sentences. If you do that, you can clearly see when "whom" is wrong.
Nonapod: The basic rule is you use "whomever" wherever you would use "him, her, them" (object pronouns) and whoever where you could use "he, she, and they" (subject pronouns)
So which seems correct?
“I will blow he who manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,”
“I will blow him who manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,”
I guess the subject is the person to be blown, the object is the MAGA kid?
There's more than one verb, so there's going to be more than one subject (and object)
"He who" is the subject of the compund verb "manages to punch".
"That MAGA kid" is the object of the compound verb "manages to punch".
"I" is the subject of the verb "will blow".
The entire clause "he who manages to..." is the object of the verb "blow".
"Whoever" is correct, not "whomever", because it is not an object, but merely part of an object clause - it's a subject within that clause.
"When your were grading law school exams, same attitude?"
Not sure what that refers to, but I know you mean "you're."
When students were writing under time pressure, they weren't really expected to do the kind of proofreading you'd do handing in a paper. It's very easy to make homophone errors like "your" for "you're." As for "whom" ... I don't think anyone worried about that under time pressure. The important thing was to write sentences that I could understand and to make good points in all of your sentences. But I don't think I ever subtracted points for bad writing alone, only bad writing that was part of bad understanding and bad communication. It was all about answering the question asked. That was enough.
SeanF wrote a nicely clear explanation!
"Bro, Not Cool. Not Cool."
Sorry, I should have said, "If anyone lays a hand on Sandmann, Sarah Beattie is the one whom I will anally rape."
"Damn, Google, if you're going to be a busybody grammar nerd, at least get the grammar rules right."
Thank you for responding, but the larger question which you don't consider in that response is whether or not the prompt from Google which directed searches away from the embarrassing Tweet was an intentional effort.
I'm not sure, but the fact that the grammar correction was oddly and blatantly incorrect and that it was effective if clicked are worth review.
Let me add that for me the prompt sent me to a search of the "whom" statement without quote marks.
In the English language, the words whom and whomever are disappearing.
Those two words are being replaced by who and whoever, because this simpler syntax causes practically no misunderstandings.
I'm fascinated by fellatio. There are almost as many euphemisms and innuendo associated with it has sex itself, or sexual body parts. Sucking. Getting a hummer. Giving brain. Playing the skin flute. The Lewinsky. Cleveland Steamer. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Also, her offer - as originally intended - reveals that there are also award aspects to the humble BJ. As in one has to have and achieve a certain aspiration to be worthy of receiving one. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I look at a BJ very much as something that should be de-facto included as a baseline in any relationship, and that sex should have the aforementioned role - it is somewhat considerably more involved. I wonder if this doesn't have something to do with the ease with which the lowly BJ can be administered, and that - if we're being truly honest - if men could just get blowjobs we'd probably all be perfectly fine with that, meaning womens' efforts to enforce their honey-do-lists would be moot.
If the BJ can only be given for doing well, then the BJ itself must be of commensurate quality. If I slap the kid I'd expect a pretty crappy performance on her part. But what if I break his jaw and send him to the hospital? Well then I'd expect - as would most of us - a transcendental experience backed up with dirty talking played to Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture.
One good job deserves another.
Blowjobs. Still not funny.
SeanF,
She should blow you for that excellent explanation and grammatical defense of her tweet.
@ narciso
Good clip. Behar spoke the truth, but still didn't get it. For her it was a legitimate reason, an understandable justification. She still had no shame and no sense of responsibility. Like Flip Wilson and the Devil, Trump made them all do it.
"Based on the first 2 comments... we really are in The Era of That's Not Funny."
Coming on the heels of Hitler dying in a bikini on a mountaintop, I am not so sure.
Fuck off, mccullough.
I just did a quick google test - searching for simply "I will verb whoever" (without the quotation marks), trying various different verbs.
"Blow" appears to be the only verb that prompts Google to ask if I meant "whomever".
1. Anyone writing something that crude isn't likely to think about whether "whoever" or "whomever" is correct.
Blow jobs are mainstream talk, reflecting a growing interest in making use of the just word.
Twitter in the era of Shakespeare:
"Whosoever deigns to pummel the visage of the young man, bedecked in the Rouge MAGA hat, shall be properly rewarded with an elegant hummer."
Explains how she got the gig to begin with.
I look at a BJ very much as something that should be de-facto included as a baseline in any relationship
I am deeply disturbed regarding your relationship with your mother. And your father...
It's whoever because "whoever" is grammatically "he who" or "him who."
It would be I will blow him who punches the kid: "him" is the object of "blow" and "who" is the subject of "punches." So one objective and one nominative.
Unfortunately the joined word "whoever" can't go both ways, so the rule is that the "who" part dominates. It's the subject of "punches" and so nominative case.
The rule always use "who" is good except after fronted prepositions. For whom the bell tolls.
I have always disliked this polite euphemism. It's not specific enough. Go down? To where? my belly button? My toes?
In 1976, I was on a sales team that had one female member. In a weekly meeting she was defending a lost sale by saying, "What did you want me to do? I practically kissed his feet".
All six of us guys instantly said, "You were three feet too low".
Hey....it was the Seventies.
You say Who, I say whomever.
Lets call the whole thing off.
who vs. whom. A distinction without a difference.
Lets just solve the problem by deleting the word "Whomever" forever.
Limbaugh has a terrible heading for one of his segments:
SNL Writer Promises Lewinsky for Violence Against MAGA Kid
I was like, what? Why would a SNL Writer promise Monica Lewinsky anything?
Then I started reading and it made sense. But is should have been written:
SNL Writer [OFFERS A] Lewinsky for Violence Against MAGA Kid
rhhardin: It's whoever because "whoever" is grammatically "he who" or "him who."
It would be I will blow him who punches the kid: "him" is the object of "blow" and "who" is the subject of "punches." So one objective and one nominative.
I'm going to disagree. If she was referring to a specific person, she could use "him, who...", but referring to anyone who fits the criteria, it's "he who".
"He who" is the subject of "punches", and "he who punches" is the object of "blow".
"Elegant Hummer" - Receiving head from the female-lead Flutist of the Paris Philharmonic while reading Proust. Successful completion is verbally acknowledge by her utterance Fin De Siecle le hummer.
le Cummum de l'élégance
Blowjobs. Increasingly funny.
Wow, liberal woman sure are pond scum.
Amoral sluts with brains.
Cognitive dissonance would be if Chris Brown took her up on the offer.
Perhaps AOC's train running comment deserves an Altparse. Butt I think we all know who would be on the receiving end.
Or maybe its just women who get hired by the "Entertainment Industry".
Maybe you can't get a job in the "Industry" without putting out for the Harvey Wein-pigs and showing your "I hate Trump" card.
When SNL hires attractive, humorless, young SJW women, it's not for their comedy skills.
I think a lot closeted Gays visit Porn sites. I always laugh when I see how popular the "Blow Job" and "Anal Sex" videos are.
Based on the first 2 comments... we really are in The Era of That's Not Funny.
I thought the first comment was making a humorous joke about the claim that Mr. Phillips successfully distracted people from a physical altercation.
But maybe that humor is merely in the eye of the beholder. (Just don't look a gift beholder in the eye.)
I recommend diagramming sentences.
Very few people under the age of 40 know how to diagram a sentence anymore. It's simply not taught. At my high school only one of the English teachers knows how.
Althouse now is second in the Google search results for those who take the whomever correction. See what she did there!
Apparently, she only blows assholes, but needs to advertise on twitter to get one who's willing. The ad is under cum dumpsters.
"Very few people under the age of 40 know how to diagram a sentence anymore."
That's about the age where I forgot how.
When I was a 16 year old boy in a Catholic school, I would've totally punched myself in the face for a blow job. Nowadays, he can even record it on his cellphone if she needs verification.
And as for Ann's reaction to Google's grammar fail: everyone knows the proper word they're looking for is "whomsoever" (i.e., pretentious case).
Which is worse grammar:
"I will blow whomever manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face."
or:
"Straight news reporters like the Wall Street Journal’s Byron Tau turned the subtext into text, asking whomst among us hasn’t participated in a racially-charged frenzy of barely-restrained violence that they wish hadn’t been become an instantly iconic representation of what America has been historically and what it is now:"
--Lauren Wagner, Deadspin
"Whomst"! I love it!
even her grammar sucks
I never heard of her before, but now we all know what she's famous for and how she got a job in entertainment - the most woke of all industries and home of the casting couch or floor if its a writer gig.
Maybe grammatically correct comedy is the next genre.
“Hey, come on down. Tuesday is GC comedy night at the Funnybone. “
That’s not funny. Whomever.
Two thoughts: 1) it's interesting that we have disputes over "subjective" and "objective" in disparate fields like grammar, journalism, and philosophy. 2) In grammar I prefer to use Latin terms---nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative---to intimidate the opposition (there's a risk, however, because if anyone probed me about the ablative they would find out quickly that I didn't know what I was talking about).
somewhere, Hugh Hefner and William Safire are smiling
Garbage in, garbage out.
The question is, who won't she blow?
One of the classmates should claim to have hit the kid, so we can discuss how many years the SNL writer should get for soliciting sex with a minor and violence against a minor. Then we can sit back and listen to the claims of hypocrisy of not getting the joke about sex and violence, followed up by claims that we support toxic masculinity.
“Whomst” is humorous. It’s a meme too.
whores with bad grammar. Ewwww!
who knows what ill-formed sentences those lips have uttered!?!
"A point of etymology. 'Blow' and 'job'. You really don't want any 'blowing' going on.... "
You're looking at this the wrong way.
"who immediately thought of Bill Clinton's syntax after reading that?"
Ann: "
I'm not going to allow thread hijacks for the purpose of lying about me about things that have already been discussed in other posts. Get your own blog and stop wasting my time"
Muh Principles.
Seen on twitter:
'Respect the Parkland Kids, they're minors"
Also:
"Let's kill this kid, punch him in the face, put him through a wood chipper, doxx his family and make death threats to his school"
And we can add to that "Lets solicit punching a teenager in the face by offering blow jobs" Stay classy liberals, stay classy.
You don't search, you Google. Andrea, Alphabet, Google's virtual ego, also has a habit of autocorrect. That said, who is worse at rapping little girls' knuckles, Andrea, Alexa, or Siri?
"Here's a shortcut. Unless you know the rule and are sure you are right, NEVER choose "whom." It just sounds colloquial to say "who" even when it's technically wrong, but if you miscorrect to "whom," you really look foolish."
This is true. I've never used "whom" and have never gotten in trouble.
And I've still managed all manner of ways to look foolish.
But I would never censor a "defamatory" comment on my blog while withholding that service to guests in my house. That would be vain and violate conlaw principles like Equal Protection.
But I guess some of us are special and some of us are not. The Blogess can frontpage a commenter as a "homophobe" for expressing boredom with the constant focus on homosexual issue. THAT kind of attack stays up forever, despite 99% of the commentariot declaring it a cheap shot. But the reverse? Gets deleted. Because "muh principles".
Interesting double standard.
Deplatformed by Twitter? Get your own internet! Muh Principles.
‘You Send Me to Whore School!’
...and now they want proper grammar. sigh.
"I recommend diagramming sentences."
Um. No. I can think of more fun things to do. Like convincing her that you really had punched the kid in the face when you haven't really and claiming your prize. That would be a funny BJ.
The boys should stand in line and puncb eacb other, Then remain so SNL Tart can more easily work her end of the bargain.
But they are nice boys so they won't.
if, instead of oral sex, she had offered written sex,
her grammatical error may not have been so obvious
The latest wisdom on Covington Catholic only swaps one neatly spun narrative for another.
The first version was concocted by progressives of influence, perhaps with the help of some inauthentic Internet actors, and amplified by news outlets that aired that initial damning video. The second comes from a fancy PR firm with Republican links that was hired to defend the Covington crew. This version, too, has been catapulted to prominence by some of those same outlets, eager to correct what the country suddenly sees as a massive mistake.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/22/covington-fracas-is-mess-let-it-be/?utm_term=.57938b50a77e
HT, I almost checked your link. But then I realized it was the lying liars at the WaPo.
The media may have a much bigger problem than looking bad or poor grammar. I heard the KY county prosecutor,Rob Sanders, say ominously that while investigation will take time we should expect indictments for terroristic threats under Kentucky law. He also tweeted Curious, I looked up the statute. There are three degrees of terroristic threat, and second degree states that:
A person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the second degree when . . . he or she intentionally:
(a) With respect to a school function, threatens to commit any act likely to result in death or serious physical injury to any [persons associated with] . . . a school, . . A threat directed at a person or persons or at a school does not need to identify a specific person or persons or school in order for a violation of this section to occur;
The specific statute is Section 508.078 Terroristic threatening in the second degree. It is a felony. Third degree is even lower standard and is a Class A misdemeanor.
My impression is that the prosecutor is serious as a heart attack )read his Twitter feed). There is no shortage of idiots, including in the national press, whose activities fit this to a tee.
My goodness, then why in the world do you come HERE to Althouse? She's always dragging things in from the Post.
The latest wisdom on Covington Catholic only swaps one neatly spun narrative for another.
Yes, one narrative supported by a tightly framed shot and a still photo and another supported by 2 hours of video of before, during, and after the incident. Which do you think the WaPo supports?
Disney´s "Beauty and the Beast" producer Jack Morrissey has now issued a public apology for writing a grotesque tweet over the weekend wishing the Covington Catholic schoolboys would be thrown "into the woodchipper." "#MAGAkids go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper," Morrissey tweeted over the weekend alongside a photo from the movie "Fargo" featuring a body being shoved into the woodchipper. - Neatly Spun Narrative
Which do you think the WaPo supports?
_____________________________________
I really don't know.
Megan McCurdle says:
"But then, they are children. The charges against them are now downgraded to “not knowing the proper response when a Native American activist bangs a drum in your face.” And how many teenagers can be expected to have mastered that particular point of etiquette?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/adults-are-doing-the-covington-kids-a-terrible-disservice/2019/01/22/9495ea60-1e95-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.57ad22d16b09
Anyway, my point is the kid's act isn't necessarily a tomahawk chop. The motion could just be leading the chant so they all sing together.
***************
So what, if it is?
You could see the KC chief fans making such gestures by the thousands just the other night.
You know, for the "chiefs"?
Get it? GET IT?
he second comes from a fancy PR firm with Republican links that was hired to defend the Covington crew. This version, too, has been catapulted to prominence by some of those same outlets, eager to correct what the country suddenly sees as a massive mistake.
Two Washington Posts in one! They used loaded language to make the actual story that has now emerged with the flood of. further evidence sound concocted to fix what people “see as a mistake.” Not to fix a mistake. I don’t go to WaPo too often because I am limited to six reads a month there, and nine times out of ten it’s a waste of a click. They think that a MAGA hat is the same as a KKK sheet. This is utter bullshit. This is brownshirt thinking. “Let’s go to the opponent’s rally and create violence and blame it on them!” You know, AntiFa type stuff, when you try to forbid opposing speech.
The Native American Activist has been totally busted for claiming, disingenuously, that he was a "Vietnam Times" vet, and a member of a Marine Recon Ranger unit.
He was stateside, working as an electrician and refrigerator mechanic. Discharged as a private after four years. No promotions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIXIzvyAlLA&feature=youtu.be
He's a fucking LIAR.
Yet Chuck, PPPT and Inga will defend him to the hilt.
Even if a HS kid is doing a chop, so fucking what? The guy comes steaming into their group hot, check the video. He assumed wrongly that the HS kids. were harassing the Black Hebrew Israelites when it was the other way around simply because of the MAGA hats. He imagines that drumming in their face and singing to them in a language they don’t know is supposed to calm the waters.
What really angers liberals is that one of their religious icons, a “tribal elder” did not create shock and awe in the kids.
Best comment I've seen on the "Native American": "He's not an Indian, he's a Brit---just look at those teeth!"
If the SNL chick said to a specific person that she would blow him if he punched the Covington kid in the face, would she not be liable to be charged for assault and battery, under the theory of agency, if that person did as she requested ?
Just as husbands who put out contracts on their wives are? (and vice versa)
So...if she just puts out an offer to the public, and the kid gets punched or worse, is she in the clear?
Don't think so.
He assumed wrongly that the HS kids. were harassing the Black Hebrew Israelites
Rabid diversity or color judgment.
" The charges against them are now downgraded to “not knowing the proper response when a Native American activist bangs a drum in your face.” And how many teenagers can be expected to have mastered that particular point of etiquette?""
I'd say they acted perfectly. What would be a better response, hand him a dollar?
“It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ ” Phillips recalled. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.”. - Phillips quoted in the WaPo
Of course video shows that none of this happened, that the above was another of his lies. This reminds me of those old Mr Magoo cartoons where the Magoo narrated one line of action where he was the hero, but he was so blind that he didn’t know that he was doing something completely different where he was just a doddering fool.
Giving blowjobs to get something you want — isn’t that perilously close to endorsing the Harvey Weinstein approach to movie casting?
I never miss an opportunity to quote James Thurber:
"The number of people who use ‘whom’ and ‘who’ wrongly is appalling. The problem is a difficult one and it is complicated by the importance of tone, or taste. Take the common expression, ‘Whom are you, anyways?’ That is of course, strictly speaking, correct -- and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is ‘Who are you, anyways?’ ‘Whom’ should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a ‘Whom are you, anyways?’ rather than a ‘Who are you, anyways?’ -- always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a ‘Whom are you?’ is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. ‘How are you?’ is a much kindlier salutation."
Chief Sitting Bullshit just attempted to disrupt Mass at the National Basilica. Somebody needs to shove that stupid tom tom up his fucking ass. Fake Vietnam Veteran attacks Church, I'm sure the worthless cunts of the left will be cheerleading this too.
The Native American angle is merely covenient. It's all about participating in the March for Life.
As Bay Area Guy said, it--most prolly intentionally -- harkens back to Nina Burleigh: "happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. "
Perilously close doesn't matter in more and bailey.
Motte and bailey
Giving blowjobs to get something you want
Friendship with "benefits".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621279/Covington-Catholic-boy-center-Native-American-uproar-speaks-out.html
There are a few videos here. One of them at the 50 second mark shows the kid walking away and Phillips proceeding up to the Memorial as he had been doing.
It would have been cool if he was an Army Ranger deployed to “Indian Country” as they used to call it, as a scout, rather than a refrigerator repairman. That’s how a novelist would have written it.
Grammar Nazis gotta grammar Nazi.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
Presumably, she's not offering sex to minors, so she must want an adult to punch him.
Or, perhaps she is a high school teacher, and age is just a number.
He was stateside, working as an electrician and refrigerator mechanic. Discharged as a private after four years. No promotions.
this clarifies EVERYTHING.
He was a Recoil Ranger. You know, those brave men that renovate the condensers on the back of the fridges </sarc
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा