The second and third single from this album are relative flops. Are she and Def Jam betting that this collaboration will deliver one more top ten single from this album? Is that even a wise bet?
But those of us who make it will be in 2062 fifty years from now. I'm worried about your relationship to the langoliers in 2061.
I have the 1989 footage of Romanian orphanages implanted in my memory. Hundreds of toddlers with frighteningly small bodies and over-sized heads crying incessantly, in part because they never learned to speak or had anything other than a series of overwhelmed bureaucrats as primary caregiver. Ceaușescu's insane fixation on demographic growth at any cost had some truly ghastly consequences.
I felt this way about Rubicon on AMC. I stuck with it because some later episodes were better than earlier ones. And I loved the mood of it, but there was no moment when the story seemed to propel itself forward effortlessly. It just prodded along somewhat efficiently.
I was a little sad it wasn't renewed for a second season, but only a little.
With a judgment rendered in 2009, no less. Perhaps next year Men Without Hats will be sued by Scouts Canada?
He provided PR for Gbagbo. There's a pretty solid argument that Davis was providing PR services while Gbagbo was committing (or attempting to cover up) his various crimes against humanity. We'll have to wait for the IGC to sort that out. But in any event, Lanny Davis is a hideous hack.
If Penn State is serious about cleaning up its public image, jumping in the sewer with Lanny Davis probably isn't the best way to go about it.
If Penn State is serious about cleaning up its public image, jumping in the sewer with Lanny Davis probably isn't the best way to go about it.
Good lord. Is this accurate? Morning television is one of the few things NBC does both well and profitably. I think they'd put that all at risk by having Seacrest replace Matt Lauer.
Assuming they believe the report is accurate, I suspect all the other networks (and ABC in particular) can't quite believe their luck.
Assuming they believe the report is accurate, I suspect all the other networks (and ABC in particular) can't quite believe their luck.
I can't imagine anyone who has heard the voicemail he left for his daughter has any doubt that he had (or has) an anger management issue.
On a related point, does anyone doubt that you deserve a star for your handle alone?
On a related point, does anyone doubt that you deserve a star for your handle alone?
There's something very mid-aughts Myspace, very "thanks for the add" about all this.
I guess just to suggest that while we disagree on some technical points we may not disagree on the larger issues. It wasn't meant to annoy you.
If we're criticizing media coverage of Tyler's suicide, then how many people watched and what they actually saw matters. Particularly because the media's narrative, in part, suggests that a requisite number of viewers or a certain type of content could drive someone to take their own life.
If one is more focused on Ravi's prosecution for invasion of privacy, then I don't think how many people watched or what they saw matters as much. (Edit: Ha! I guess on reflection this conflicts with how anal I was about whether it was two or six viewers. I'll chalk that up to my unquenchable desire to know the facts, which I think are unknowable in this case because Wei and Tyler's accounts differ. But I do think even one viewer is enough for this to have been a potentially criminal invasion of privacy. Can't remember if I said that in the course of my ramblings above.)
I think your original comment was more focused on the former and I'm commenting with a greater interest in the latter.
If we're criticizing media coverage of Tyler's suicide, then how many people watched and what they actually saw matters. Particularly because the media's narrative, in part, suggests that a requisite number of viewers or a certain type of content could drive someone to take their own life.
If one is more focused on Ravi's prosecution for invasion of privacy, then I don't think how many people watched or what they saw matters as much. (Edit: Ha! I guess on reflection this conflicts with how anal I was about whether it was two or six viewers. I'll chalk that up to my unquenchable desire to know the facts, which I think are unknowable in this case because Wei and Tyler's accounts differ. But I do think even one viewer is enough for this to have been a potentially criminal invasion of privacy. Can't remember if I said that in the course of my ramblings above.)
I think your original comment was more focused on the former and I'm commenting with a greater interest in the latter.
I disagree that it's conclusively only two viewers of the kiss or that the six saw nothing. I think Wei's statement muddies the waters.
At worst, six people saw Clementi kiss a dude when he wasn't expecting them to (and when a roommate had to proactively and deceptively make such viewing possible). To a 19 year old slowly making his way out of the closet, I think that's a significant worst. Bad enough for the media to run with a narrative painting Ravi as the sole or most relevant reason for Tyler's suicide? Probably not. But certainly worst enough for Ravi to be publicly shamed and tried for invasion of privacy (and obstruction of justice). Admittedly, you've never disagreed with the foregoing sentence.
At worst, six people saw Clementi kiss a dude when he wasn't expecting them to (and when a roommate had to proactively and deceptively make such viewing possible). To a 19 year old slowly making his way out of the closet, I think that's a significant worst. Bad enough for the media to run with a narrative painting Ravi as the sole or most relevant reason for Tyler's suicide? Probably not. But certainly worst enough for Ravi to be publicly shamed and tried for invasion of privacy (and obstruction of justice). Admittedly, you've never disagreed with the foregoing sentence.
Fair point on the sensationalism charge. But ultimately we're all a bit in the dark.
And I actually got it wrong. Court documents suggest that SIX PEOPLE watched via one connection. Initially only Ravi and Wei watched, but Ravi and Wei later turned the web cam back on with four additional people in the room.
Wei has provided a statement that they turned the computer off after seeing Clementi kissing the stranger. It's not clear whether they did so after the two-person or six-person viewing. In any event, at a minimum, Ravi and Wei saw something intimate. Not sex, but something they weren't supposed to be seeing. Four others may have seen it.
([www.nj.com]) - 5th bullet point.
After reading the linked article, I do think the story has been selectively reported. Though I'm not sure I'd volunteer to be the asshole assigned to ask Mrs. Clementi whether she rejected her dead gay son in the months preceding his suicide.
But we'll have to agree to disagree that there was no broadcast here. It may not have been widely broadcast, but events in Tyler and Ravi's room occurring while Tyler had a reasonable expectation of their privacy were broadcast via webcam to offsite viewers. The scope and content of the broadcast may have been exaggerated by the media, but one did happen.
And I actually got it wrong. Court documents suggest that SIX PEOPLE watched via one connection. Initially only Ravi and Wei watched, but Ravi and Wei later turned the web cam back on with four additional people in the room.
Wei has provided a statement that they turned the computer off after seeing Clementi kissing the stranger. It's not clear whether they did so after the two-person or six-person viewing. In any event, at a minimum, Ravi and Wei saw something intimate. Not sex, but something they weren't supposed to be seeing. Four others may have seen it.
([www.nj.com]) - 5th bullet point.
After reading the linked article, I do think the story has been selectively reported. Though I'm not sure I'd volunteer to be the asshole assigned to ask Mrs. Clementi whether she rejected her dead gay son in the months preceding his suicide.
But we'll have to agree to disagree that there was no broadcast here. It may not have been widely broadcast, but events in Tyler and Ravi's room occurring while Tyler had a reasonable expectation of their privacy were broadcast via webcam to offsite viewers. The scope and content of the broadcast may have been exaggerated by the media, but one did happen.
Though at least four people watched Tyler without his consent in the privacy of his own dorm room via a webcam rigged by Ravi. And does it really matter that they were only kissing while shirtless and not having sex?
Well, I guess your point is a media criticism, so it does matter because sex is more sensational than mere kissing. But as to the ethics of Ravi's actions, I'm not sure it matters.
In any event, Ravi attempted a larger broadcast. Whether four people watching constitutes a "broadcast" is semantics, but I should hope everyone can agree that an audience of one in this context is a pretty egregious violation of one's right to privacy.
If only Ravi could have seen that spying on one's roommate via webcam might be somehow newsworthy. If so, he might have stopped to think that future media broadcasts regarding his attempted broadcasts would probably portray him as a villain.
Well, I guess your point is a media criticism, so it does matter because sex is more sensational than mere kissing. But as to the ethics of Ravi's actions, I'm not sure it matters.
In any event, Ravi attempted a larger broadcast. Whether four people watching constitutes a "broadcast" is semantics, but I should hope everyone can agree that an audience of one in this context is a pretty egregious violation of one's right to privacy.
If only Ravi could have seen that spying on one's roommate via webcam might be somehow newsworthy. If so, he might have stopped to think that future media broadcasts regarding his attempted broadcasts would probably portray him as a villain.
But the reason the media has given more weight to Ravi's actions is included in your comment on its face.
There is no question of Ravi's actions. We know Ravi actually spied on Tyler and that Ravi attempted to broadcast subsequent spying.
We don't know whether Tyler's mother actually rejected him because of his sexual orientation.
The media has its narrative. Ravi is at its mercy, but he also helped create it.
There is no question of Ravi's actions. We know Ravi actually spied on Tyler and that Ravi attempted to broadcast subsequent spying.
We don't know whether Tyler's mother actually rejected him because of his sexual orientation.
The media has its narrative. Ravi is at its mercy, but he also helped create it.
Brilliant. The mascot even looks a bit like the odious Dan Snyder.
Yes, that's important to note.
And I agree with the Overbite. I also think the mascot should be cradling his belly with one arm while rubbing it with the hand on the other. This has the added benefit of providing a replacement for the Tomahawk Chop.
And I agree with the Overbite. I also think the mascot should be cradling his belly with one arm while rubbing it with the hand on the other. This has the added benefit of providing a replacement for the Tomahawk Chop.
I wish some tribe flush with their gambling cash would buy the Redskins, Chiefs, Indians, Braves or Blackhawks and then promptly rename them something brilliant like, the MIDDLE CLASS or the FAT CAUCASIANS and put some cartoonish beer bellied Homer Simpson look-a-like on their helmets, hats and/or uniforms, as applicable.
"The Fat Caucasian defense is getting tired. They're really getting pushed around at the line of scrimmage."
"The Fat Caucasian defense is getting tired. They're really getting pushed around at the line of scrimmage."
In the Daily Mail article, I like how the dishy comment about Edward's pompous nature is immediately followed by the heading "Out of the closet". It pains me give credit to a Daily Mail staffer, but alas, it is amusing.
It is...the Mustache of Understanding.
"Is Colin Farrell A-list?"
I'd say there was a sixth month window several years ago during which an argument was made that he was. I don't think he ever qualified. And after this weekend, is he even B-list? Poor thing.
I'd say there was a sixth month window several years ago during which an argument was made that he was. I don't think he ever qualified. And after this weekend, is he even B-list? Poor thing.
