Yeah. Police are investigating it as a crime. It's crazy, they're harmless.
Of all the weird fetishes out there furries are probably one of the most harmless ones. Most of the time they are in their huge suits so other than maybe suffering from some hairballs its a lot safer than a lot more widely accepted kinks.
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
Heisenburg's Encyclopedia says "daughter of Polish-born foreign policy expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Swiss-born sculptor Emilie Anna Benešová"
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
Heisenburg's Encyclopedia says "daughter of Polish-born foreign policy expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Swiss-born sculptor Emilie Anna Benešová"
For those of you who weren't watching the news in the 80s and 90s, Brzezinski was a constant presence on the news shows. Like, he was probably on some show commenting on something every day of the week. Doesn't surprise me that he built some contacts in all those appearances, or that he was able to work his phonebook to get his not-that-bright daughter a plum media gig.
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
Heisenburg's Encyclopedia says "daughter of Polish-born foreign policy expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Swiss-born sculptor Emilie Anna Benešová"
For those of you who weren't watching the news in the 80s and 90s, Brzezinski was a constant presence on the news shows. Like, he was probably on some show commenting on something every day of the week. Doesn't surprise me that he built some contacts in all those appearances, or that he was able to work his phonebook to get his not-that-bright daughter a plum media gig.
So like John McCain?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
Heisenburg's Encyclopedia says "daughter of Polish-born foreign policy expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Swiss-born sculptor Emilie Anna Benešová"
For those of you who weren't watching the news in the 80s and 90s, Brzezinski was a constant presence on the news shows. Like, he was probably on some show commenting on something every day of the week. Doesn't surprise me that he built some contacts in all those appearances, or that he was able to work his phonebook to get his not-that-bright daughter a plum media gig.
So like John McCain?
Yep and just like Mika his daughter is out there giving her opinion on things like it matters solely based on who her daddy is.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
Heisenburg's Encyclopedia says "daughter of Polish-born foreign policy expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Swiss-born sculptor Emilie Anna Benešová"
For those of you who weren't watching the news in the 80s and 90s, Brzezinski was a constant presence on the news shows. Like, he was probably on some show commenting on something every day of the week. Doesn't surprise me that he built some contacts in all those appearances, or that he was able to work his phonebook to get his not-that-bright daughter a plum media gig.
So like John McCain?
Yep and just like Mika his daughter is out there giving her opinion on things like it matters solely based on who her daddy is.
Edit: The school administration's justification for not dropping him like a hot potato is impressively goosey:
Having George Will speak at commencement does not mean I or Michigan State University agree with or endorse the statements he made in his June 6 column or any particular column he has written. It does not mean the university wishes to cause survivors of sexual assault distress. And it does not mean we are backing away from our commitment to continuously improving our response to sexual assault.
What it does mean is this: Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas, though that exchange may be uncomfortable and will sometimes challenge values and beliefs. There is no mandate to agree, only to serve society by allowing learning to take place. If universities do not hold onto this, we do not serve the greater good. Because next time it will be a different speaker and a different issue, and the dividing lines will not be the same.
Holding this value in no way diminishes the value we place on student safety or our commitment to continue our efforts against sexual assault on this campus. We will continue to bring the issue into the light. Nothing changes that.
Edit: The school administration's justification for not dropping him like a hot potato is impressively goosey:
Having George Will speak at commencement does not mean I or Michigan State University agree with or endorse the statements he made in his June 6 column or any particular column he has written. It does not mean the university wishes to cause survivors of sexual assault distress. And it does not mean we are backing away from our commitment to continuously improving our response to sexual assault.
What it does mean is this: Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas, though that exchange may be uncomfortable and will sometimes challenge values and beliefs. There is no mandate to agree, only to serve society by allowing learning to take place. If universities do not hold onto this, we do not serve the greater good. Because next time it will be a different speaker and a different issue, and the dividing lines will not be the same.
Holding this value in no way diminishes the value we place on student safety or our commitment to continue our efforts against sexual assault on this campus. We will continue to bring the issue into the light. Nothing changes that.
Cynical Translation: "We have paid his speaking fee and can't get a refund"
Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas, though that exchange may be uncomfortable and will sometimes challenge values and beliefs. There is no mandate to agree, only to serve society by allowing learning to take place. If universities do not hold onto this, we do not serve the greater good. Because next time it will be a different speaker and a different issue, and the dividing lines will not be the same.
You know you're probably in the wrong when you have to adopt part and parcel the exact same argument evolution deniers cling too. And even though I may ultimately agree with the college's statement here, this isn't George Will coming to campus to give an open speech that anyone can choose to attend or ignore. This is commencement, which doesn't leave someone who wants to attend their own graduation a whole lot of fucking options. I wonder what they'll write as an excuse when they book Bill Cosby. And it's the students who are paying for all this anyway, if they don't want the guy, they shouldn't have to sit through what I'm sure will be a deeply interesting rant about jeans.
Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas, though that exchange may be uncomfortable and will sometimes challenge values and beliefs. There is no mandate to agree, only to serve society by allowing learning to take place. If universities do not hold onto this, we do not serve the greater good. Because next time it will be a different speaker and a different issue, and the dividing lines will not be the same.
You know you're probably in the wrong when you have to adopt part and parcel the exact same argument evolution deniers cling too. And even though I may ultimately agree with the college's statement here, this isn't George Will coming to campus to give an open speech that anyone can choose to attend or ignore. This is commencement, which doesn't leave someone who wants to attend their own graduation a whole lot of fucking options. I wonder what they'll write as an excuse when they book Bill Cosby. And it's the students who are paying for all this anyway, if they don't want the guy, they shouldn't have to sit through what I'm sure will be a deeply interesting rant about jeans.
Or, as Scott Lemieux said a few months ago about a different terrible commencement speech:
But even if we want to pretend that a sternly-worded letter from some students with no decision-making authority represents such a coercive force as to reflect a de facto disinvitation, the argument still runs into the problem that it advances a theory of free speech based on the premise that well-connected people have an inalienable right to 1)say what they want wherever they want 2)to a captive audience 3)while receiving honors and 4)five-or-six figure paydays while the people whose debt peonage is funding these rewards have a solemn obligation to say nothing about it.
Indeed. And good heavens, universities don't invite people to be commencement speakers for intellectual debate, they're inviting them as an honor to show how much the university likes them. But somehow the students of the university objecting to that university honoring someone isn't speech. I bet that administrator's high school civics teacher is feeling mighty proud of their achievement.
Edit: The school administration's justification for not dropping him like a hot potato is impressively goosey:
Having George Will speak at commencement does not mean I or Michigan State University agree with or endorse the statements he made in his June 6 column or any particular column he has written. It does not mean the university wishes to cause survivors of sexual assault distress. And it does not mean we are backing away from our commitment to continuously improving our response to sexual assault.
What it does mean is this: Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas, though that exchange may be uncomfortable and will sometimes challenge values and beliefs. There is no mandate to agree, only to serve society by allowing learning to take place. If universities do not hold onto this, we do not serve the greater good. Because next time it will be a different speaker and a different issue, and the dividing lines will not be the same.
Holding this value in no way diminishes the value we place on student safety or our commitment to continue our efforts against sexual assault on this campus. We will continue to bring the issue into the light. Nothing changes that.
Cynical Translation: "We have paid his speaking fee and can't get a refund"
Extra Cynical Translation: "We agree with everything he says but are too cowardly to admit it in public."
+7
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
You've never seen her take it to Joe have you?
About once a month some story will come up that will turn Joe full retard and Mika rips him a new one. She's honestly not a vapid airhead.
Mika is attractive, but sort of vacant, she also takes stands on some things (like a paris hilton story) and yet lets Joe be a retard (because she's seen what happens to interns!). I also want to say she's a nepotism hire and her daddy was someone once upon a time.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
You've never seen her take it to Joe have you?
About once a month some story will come up that will turn Joe full retard and Mika rips him a new one. She's honestly not a vapid airhead.
Vapid airheads can be right every once and a while and still be vapid airheads. She's not the smart one in that duo.
I don't know who George Will is and I'm afraid to do a search to find out now.
I wouldn't be too afraid, Will has had a pretty storied career for the most part, but in the last few years he's been trying real hard to besmirch his legacy by being an out of touch, bitter old man.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't know who George Will is and I'm afraid to do a search to find out now.
I wouldn't be too afraid, Will has had a pretty storied career for the most part, but in the last few years he's been trying real hard to besmirch his legacy by being an out of touch, bitter old man.
I don't know who George Will is and I'm afraid to do a search to find out now.
I wouldn't be too afraid, Will has had a pretty storied career for the most part, but in the last few years he's been trying real hard to besmirch his legacy by being an out of touch, bitter old man.
He was pretty much always a bitter old man, but Ken Burns likes him a lot and allows him to appear reasonable.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Here's the most disturbing journalistic detail to emerge from the Post's reporting: In the Rolling Stone story, Erdely says that she contacted Randall, but he declined to be interviewed, “citing his loyalty to his own frat.” Randall told the Post he was never contacted by Erdely and would have been happy to be interviewed.
That could mean one of two things: Jackie could have given Erdely fake contact information for Randall and then posed as Randall herself, sending the reporter that email in which he supposedly declined to participate in the story. Erdely also could have lied about trying to contact Randall. Rolling Stone might have hinted at this possibility in its “Note to Our Readers” when it referred to a “friend of Jackie’s (who we were told would not speak to Rolling Stone)" but later spoke to the Washington Post. That would take Erdely a big step beyond just being gullible and failing to check her facts, moving this piece in the direction of active wrongdoing.
Of course, we're meant to ignore the possibility of option C: that he, you know, lied to the Post. And before people ask "why would he lie?", let me point out that the question he was asked had the unwritten follow up of "are you a horrible person who would sell out his friend for social approval?" - in other words, yes, he has a pretty good reason to lie.
God damn just when I think I have read the dumbest article yet on this shit.
Seriously there was a syndicated opinion piece the other day that journalists should name rape victims to empower them. I shit you fucking not.
Well, there's these twogems, which seem to be attempts to make out this whole dragging a woman through the mud because her account wasn't perfect into an exercise in journalistic ethics.
Is there anything that isn't really about ethics in journalism? Though I swear I've taken to writing someone off the second they say "social justice warrior" because seriously fuck those people.
I wish this forum had a thread for "wow this story was wow what the fuck?" Because Jezabell had a great story the other day about phantom pregnancies that's still with me.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
God damn just when I think I have read the dumbest article yet on this shit.
Seriously there was a syndicated opinion piece the other day that journalists should name rape victims to empower them. I shit you fucking not.
Well, there's these twogems, which seem to be attempts to make out this whole dragging a woman through the mud because her account wasn't perfect into an exercise in journalistic ethics.
I can't really blame the press too much in this case. Her story has become extremely problematic, and given the bombshell nature of the original allegations it's understandable people are going to dig, and then finding an absence of hard facts, start down the hypotheticals road, which obviously leads nowhere fucking good (and not so understandable anymore.) Erdely really dropped the ball here, that's for sure.
It's great that a likely rape victim gets to experience the full sexist assault on human decency that usually only gets this kind of serious when there's a lawsuit.
Soon we can just stop talking about rape in general, I guess, because even anonymous reports turn into witch hunts and shame games.
Fuck anybody involved with this mess who has taken 'minor discrepancies in memory of a traumatic event' to mean it's open season on this poor woman. It's horrifying and inhuman.
Just. Fuck everything everywhere always, I guess?
Edit: Rolling Stone in particular can go fuck themselves. They're handling of this has been incompetent to the point of cruelty, especially the mea culpa about journalism, "I didn't look hard enough to account for a hazy memory, which resulted in minor, meaningless discrepancies, so I guess she's a liar and we can all stop talking about how horrifying it can be for a woman on a college campus, which we almost did for a few months. It's alright guys, the frat told us they didn't actually rape anybody, retract the whole story!"
It's great that a likely rape victim gets to experience the full sexist assault on human decency that usually only gets this kind of serious when there's a lawsuit.
Soon we can just stop talking about rape in general, I guess, because even anonymous reports turn into witch hunts and shame games.
Fuck anybody involved with this mess who has taken 'minor discrepancies in memory of a traumatic event' to mean it's open season on this poor woman. It's horrifying and inhuman.
Just. Fuck everything everywhere always, I guess?
Only if its consensual.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's great that a likely rape victim gets to experience the full sexist assault on human decency that usually only gets this kind of serious when there's a lawsuit.
Soon we can just stop talking about rape in general, I guess, because even anonymous reports turn into witch hunts and shame games.
Fuck anybody involved with this mess who has taken 'minor discrepancies in memory of a traumatic event' to mean it's open season on this poor woman. It's horrifying and inhuman.
Just. Fuck everything everywhere always, I guess?
Edit: Rolling Stone in particular can go fuck themselves. They're handling of this has been incompetent to the point of cruelty, especially the mea culpa about journalism, "I didn't look hard enough to account for a hazy memory, which resulted in minor, meaningless discrepancies, so I guess she's a liar and we can all stop talking about how horrifying it can be for a woman on a college campus, which we almost did for a few months. It's alright guys, the frat told us they didn't actually rape anybody, retract the whole story!"
Fuck them.
Again, these are not minor discrepancies, frankly they're pretty major. Not a single piece of the story adds up, about the only common thread I can find in any of the statements so far is that both the roommate and Randall concur something serious happened to Jackie, but they don't know what. I guess playing devil's advocate a bit, my question is at what point is it ok to say something isn't kosher here and this victim is possibly not telling the truth? And should the press ignore the myriad problems with not only the reporting, but the bombshell story at its source in deference to the victim?
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the whole "first" BS in today's journalism is fucking appalling. I guess that's what we get with a business model that focuses on profits above all and deems the lowest common denominator to be the best thing to shoot for.
I wish I knew the best way to remedy some of the BS in the media because trust busting would only do so much. I kind of feel we should hold those claiming to be journalists to a higher standard, when they present news. I feel they should only be free from liability, outside of slander and libel, in events of misreporting, only if they publicly retract inaccuracies. AKA they have to do it in the front page or open broadcast in a very clear manner. None of this shit of sticking it in the back page or the bottom news-feed as a single sentence days later.
one thing that people don't get is they attribute all of this to ratings or competition and part of it is very definitely the public. For example, if there's a campus lockdown at a local highschool and you work at an outlet, expect a call or facebook blow-up from every. single. parent. They will call en masse for individual updates until you run something.
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
As a rape victim, I am completely and utterly SHOCKED that a rape victim would experience foggy memory and imperfect recall of circumstances, or that her story wouldn't line up with that of onlookers/the accused!!!!!!!!!!!!
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
This isn't like one or two details are hazy, though, right? The who, the where, and the when all seem to be not just unverifiable, but likely not correct. It's not like Randall saying "nope" is the first thing to pop up...
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope,
I really don't think it's appropriate to treat anyone who comes forward to report crimes as a liar by default, nor to specifically single out women or rape victims. But if you tell a story to a national publication, with specific check-able details, then ask the reporter to not check those details, I don't think it's terrible when people check. If people are looking into Jackie's entire personal life, that's wrong. But trying to see if a story about a horrifying crime is true or false seems desirable, if only to try to arrest, sue, or shun those responsible.
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
I read an article yesterday about a rape victim, where they discredited her by calling the accused and asking him if he remembered doing it.
This isn't like one or two details are hazy, though, right? The who, the where, and the when all seem to be not just unverifiable, but likely not correct. It's not like Randall saying "nope" is the first thing to pop up...
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope,
I really don't think it's appropriate to treat anyone who comes forward to report crimes as a liar by default, nor to specifically single out women or rape victims. But if you tell a story to a national publication, with specific check-able details, then ask the reporter to not check those details, I don't think it's terrible when people check. If people are looking into Jackie's entire personal life, that's wrong. But trying to see if a story about a horrifying crime is true or false seems desirable, if only to try to arrest, sue, or shun those responsible.
I have to agree, I think people are doing basic fact checking, like 'verify a party occurred that night or a night around it', 'find out when pledge season is' and 'visit the frat for interviews, look at he layout', isn't putting her life under a microscope.(I haven't followed the story in a while, but I think those were all issues) Putting her under public scrutiny would be, however the basic needs of this story to keep moving or drop it could be met without ever mentioning her name in the process. There would have been no story and no scrutiny if nothing lined up in the way it has so far.
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
Do we have a thread for this case? I have a ton of questions and aren't really sure where to talk about it.
That and the impending government shutdown/ridiculous bill the House passed last night are the two things I sort of keep meaning to make a thread about and then get depressed and don't.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That and the impending government shutdown/ridiculous bill the House passed last night are the two things I sort of keep meaning to make a thread about and then get depressed and don't.
I'ms rue the Dems will put up principled well thought out fight
Posts
Oh that's going in the top ten "Mika reacts to something" bits.
Mika gets a bad rap I think. But the woman has to sit next to Joe Scarborough every morning for three hours.
Of all the weird fetishes out there furries are probably one of the most harmless ones. Most of the time they are in their huge suits so other than maybe suffering from some hairballs its a lot safer than a lot more widely accepted kinks.
She's there by choice. I also don't want her on other MSNBC shows that are actually good at what they do.
But most people who watch morning joe aren't exactly brain surgeons to begin with.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Heisenburg's Encyclopedia says "daughter of Polish-born foreign policy expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Swiss-born sculptor Emilie Anna Benešová"
For those of you who weren't watching the news in the 80s and 90s, Brzezinski was a constant presence on the news shows. Like, he was probably on some show commenting on something every day of the week. Doesn't surprise me that he built some contacts in all those appearances, or that he was able to work his phonebook to get his not-that-bright daughter a plum media gig.
So like John McCain?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yep and just like Mika his daughter is out there giving her opinion on things like it matters solely based on who her daddy is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Meghan McCain is a treasure.
Sparty students have responded accordingly.
Edit: The school administration's justification for not dropping him like a hot potato is impressively goosey:
Cynical Translation: "We have paid his speaking fee and can't get a refund"
You know you're probably in the wrong when you have to adopt part and parcel the exact same argument evolution deniers cling too. And even though I may ultimately agree with the college's statement here, this isn't George Will coming to campus to give an open speech that anyone can choose to attend or ignore. This is commencement, which doesn't leave someone who wants to attend their own graduation a whole lot of fucking options. I wonder what they'll write as an excuse when they book Bill Cosby. And it's the students who are paying for all this anyway, if they don't want the guy, they shouldn't have to sit through what I'm sure will be a deeply interesting rant about jeans.
Seriously guys, you can do so much better.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Extra Cynical Translation: "We agree with everything he says but are too cowardly to admit it in public."
You've never seen her take it to Joe have you?
About once a month some story will come up that will turn Joe full retard and Mika rips him a new one. She's honestly not a vapid airhead.
Vapid airheads can be right every once and a while and still be vapid airheads. She's not the smart one in that duo.
I wouldn't be too afraid, Will has had a pretty storied career for the most part, but in the last few years he's been trying real hard to besmirch his legacy by being an out of touch, bitter old man.
He's no Bill Kristoll, but he wants to be.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He was pretty much always a bitter old man, but Ken Burns likes him a lot and allows him to appear reasonable.
Of course, we're meant to ignore the possibility of option C: that he, you know, lied to the Post. And before people ask "why would he lie?", let me point out that the question he was asked had the unwritten follow up of "are you a horrible person who would sell out his friend for social approval?" - in other words, yes, he has a pretty good reason to lie.
Seriously there was a syndicated opinion piece the other day that journalists should name rape victims to empower them. I shit you fucking not.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, there's these two gems, which seem to be attempts to make out this whole dragging a woman through the mud because her account wasn't perfect into an exercise in journalistic ethics.
I wish this forum had a thread for "wow this story was wow what the fuck?" Because Jezabell had a great story the other day about phantom pregnancies that's still with me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I can't really blame the press too much in this case. Her story has become extremely problematic, and given the bombshell nature of the original allegations it's understandable people are going to dig, and then finding an absence of hard facts, start down the hypotheticals road, which obviously leads nowhere fucking good (and not so understandable anymore.) Erdely really dropped the ball here, that's for sure.
Soon we can just stop talking about rape in general, I guess, because even anonymous reports turn into witch hunts and shame games.
Fuck anybody involved with this mess who has taken 'minor discrepancies in memory of a traumatic event' to mean it's open season on this poor woman. It's horrifying and inhuman.
Just. Fuck everything everywhere always, I guess?
Edit: Rolling Stone in particular can go fuck themselves. They're handling of this has been incompetent to the point of cruelty, especially the mea culpa about journalism, "I didn't look hard enough to account for a hazy memory, which resulted in minor, meaningless discrepancies, so I guess she's a liar and we can all stop talking about how horrifying it can be for a woman on a college campus, which we almost did for a few months. It's alright guys, the frat told us they didn't actually rape anybody, retract the whole story!"
Fuck them.
Only if its consensual.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Again, these are not minor discrepancies, frankly they're pretty major. Not a single piece of the story adds up, about the only common thread I can find in any of the statements so far is that both the roommate and Randall concur something serious happened to Jackie, but they don't know what. I guess playing devil's advocate a bit, my question is at what point is it ok to say something isn't kosher here and this victim is possibly not telling the truth? And should the press ignore the myriad problems with not only the reporting, but the bombshell story at its source in deference to the victim?
one thing that people don't get is they attribute all of this to ratings or competition and part of it is very definitely the public. For example, if there's a campus lockdown at a local highschool and you work at an outlet, expect a call or facebook blow-up from every. single. parent. They will call en masse for individual updates until you run something.
I host a podcast about movies.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
I really don't think it's appropriate to treat anyone who comes forward to report crimes as a liar by default, nor to specifically single out women or rape victims. But if you tell a story to a national publication, with specific check-able details, then ask the reporter to not check those details, I don't think it's terrible when people check. If people are looking into Jackie's entire personal life, that's wrong. But trying to see if a story about a horrifying crime is true or false seems desirable, if only to try to arrest, sue, or shun those responsible.
I read an article yesterday about a rape victim, where they discredited her by calling the accused and asking him if he remembered doing it.
Shockingly, he said no!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I have to agree, I think people are doing basic fact checking, like 'verify a party occurred that night or a night around it', 'find out when pledge season is' and 'visit the frat for interviews, look at he layout', isn't putting her life under a microscope.(I haven't followed the story in a while, but I think those were all issues) Putting her under public scrutiny would be, however the basic needs of this story to keep moving or drop it could be met without ever mentioning her name in the process. There would have been no story and no scrutiny if nothing lined up in the way it has so far.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
I'ms rue the Dems will put up principled well thought out fight
*cough*