UPDATE. Taranato thinks I have a reading comprehension problem. I guess I'm supposed to pay closer attention to his more-in-sorrow-than-anger, both-sides-do-it tone than to his argument, such as it is:
The difference is that whereas the Fox joke [Fallows fell for] could easily be confirmed as a joke merely by checking out the Zombie Rainbow page that was its source, the "Friends of Hamas" joke [Shapiro fell for] came from a reporter for a major newspaper--that is, somebody whose job involves trading on his own reputation for credibility.Except Shapiro himself disputes this in his bizarre, belligerent response to being caught out, in which he claims his real source says he has other sources for the story besides the reporter ("Our Senate source denies that Friedman is the source of this information. 'I have received this information from three separate sources, none of whom was Friedman,' the source said"). Talk about an uncooperative client!
Taranto spends the rest of his item explaining that, while Mistakes Were Made, Shapiro made a harmless slip that merely led to the uncorrected smearing of Hagel, whereas Fallows thought a joke about Fox News was real, which is why such errors will henceforth be known by people who talk rightwing code to one another as "the Fallows Principle." What am I missing?
"Last night on Twitter, we put forth what we now christen the Fallows Principle: You can publish any falsehood you want with the disclaimer "Is it 'true'? I don't know.""
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't it be called the Noonan Principle, or the Ol' Perfesser Principle? Disturbing if true, irresponsible not to speculate.
But . . . but . . . it sounded so truthy!
ReplyDeleteYou know, that's really funny coming from a Fox Noise guy.
ReplyDeleteWe could call it the Goldberg Principle, but I'm way too swamped in deadlines to get into the weeds of that right now.
ReplyDeleteY'know, the less time I spend contemplating Taranto's mental gymnastics (imagine Lardass Limbaugh on the uneven bars), the better off I am.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Taranto defending Ben Shapiro is like John Wayne Gacy defending clowns. Ultimately self-defeating, but entirely expected.
As a sociological experiment, I propose we outfit a number of journalists, an equal number of liberals and conservatives, with shock collars that would go off when they lie, take something out of context, leave out relevant information, or passive-aggressively muse about how something 'isn't technically true, but the fact that it sounds plausible makes you think, doesn't it?' My hypothesis would be that, after a week, the liberals' necks would be slightly charred and red, while the conservatives' necks would look like a stack of used briquettes. Pity that sort of stuff is seen as 'unethical' nowadays, no?
ReplyDeleteOh, I thought you meant "trust the shorter" in the "don't get out of the boat, it's deep and dark and crazy" sense, not "because it's an ocean of stagnant NyQuil."
ReplyDeleteAt least with Taranto, unlike his propagandist bretheren, I think we can safely say that he is not boring and unfunny because he is a propagandist; he is first of all things boring and unfunny, and merely happens to be a propagandist.
The North Korean government paid me $200,000 to call it the Ted Cruz Principle.
ReplyDeleteI would propose that the device be fastened around the crotch instead of the neck, in order that pants would literally be set on fire.
ReplyDeleteClowns would know better than to accept Gacy's help. That's where the analogy breaks down.
ReplyDeleteHaving read the original posts, it's pretty obvious that Fallows was availing himself of the blogger's prerogative to put up stuff that amused him. Shorter me: Taranto is an idiot.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that Fallows' piece was light, he acknowledged the Fox pic might be fake, and its authenticity or lack thereof didn't change his main point – Fox News sucks, and will attack Obama over absolutely anything. Shapiro was making a serious accusation – didn't care if it was true, because he's a political hack – and is now lying, unconvincingly, rather than 'fessing up.
ReplyDeleteWhat's next, Fox News hosts arguing that Germany gets more sunlight than the U.S.? Or a SOTU response that simultaneously demonizes government intervention but praises student loans and Medicare? Or a National Review writer claiming that, when Obama expressed sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust, he mischaracterized those sensible Nazis?
Liberal laughter is the Kristallnacht of Liberal Fascism.
Taranto and Shapiro are living, breathing examples of what Quayle said to the UNCF: "... what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
ReplyDelete"its authenticity or lack thereof didn't change his main point"...
ReplyDeleteshorter version: "fake but accurate"
The problem with calling it the Kaus Principle is the danger of goat-related issues damaging Kaus' reputation when the truth emerges.
ReplyDeleteYou left out "concern among Fox contributors that Al Jazeera news reports could be skewed by its foreign owners imposing their editorial preferences".
ReplyDelete"Is there really no way to transfer my VC and Wii - Ware games from my Wii to another. You will eventually run into the Download Location menu with two options: Wii System Menu and SD Card. The player guides Phen through 10 levels of dungeon gameplay, finding a whole host of weapons and other items as well.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my weblog: https://cryptoparty.org/
Тhe vеry next time I reаd
ReplyDeletea blog, Hopefully it does not ԁisappoint mе just as
much аs this one. After all, Ӏ know it was my
choiсe to гead, nonetheless I аctually believed you would probably have sοmething uѕeful to
talκ about. All I hear is a bunch of complaining about sοmething that you could fix if you were not too
busy looking for аttention.
My pаge ... fast payday loans
Winnie Mandela disagrees.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't Goldberg be the vent?
ReplyDeleteGoldberg has a deadline coming up and doesn't have time to join hack-voltron, but he has some thought about the project that he'd like to share.
ReplyDeleteDoris Day was really a virgin, though, right?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of the old fuddy-duddy expression "venting one's spleen," last in favor during the administration of Charles II, but Goldberg-as-orifice also works.
ReplyDeleteNo, the argument is whether there's a DISTINCTION between (a) posting something that is obviously false, for which the poster has questions, with a disclaimer that you don't know if it is true, and (b) posting something that is false that you believe to be true but should have discovered is false with a reasonable amount of diligence. And yes, there is undoubtedly a distinction between those things and all attempts here to evade that argument and inescapable truth are without merit. Shapiro may have been lazy or dumb or both, but Fallows was recycling a blatant lie with the disclaimer: "is it true? I don't know" which is arguably not ethical.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want to talk about the context and results of the lies so badly? I think it's because you can't refute the truthfulness of Taranto's point.
No, Taranto's criticism of Breitbart.com is NOT limited to that one article. You're just not familiar with is daily column I guess. If you read Taranto's older stuff on Breitbart.com, he makes the argument that Breitbart.com is essentially a political operation and not a journalistic one, and therefore should not be held to the same standards as a journalistic one. And I think that makes sense, at the end of the day we don't hold The National Enquirer to the same standards. So I think Taranto would say he holds Fallows (journalist) to a higher standard than Shapiro (political operative), hence creating a principle for Fallows and not Shapiro. In other words, Taranto would to some extent expect Shapiro to do what he's done, but not Fallows, and Fallows, by virtue of being a true journalist who trades on his credibility, ought not post blatant falsehoods with the disclaimer: "is it true? I don't know."
ReplyDeleteIt's because the French are unAmerican.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're just not familiar with Taranto's position concerning breitbart.com. He views it as a political operation, not a journalistic one, to which different ethical standards apply. You'd have to follow him regularly to know that and the author of this piece hasn't educated you for obvious reasons.
ReplyDeleteBecause one is a journalist and one is a political operative. See other posts for details. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to be generous enough to think that he was attempting irony, but I'm not.
ReplyDeleteThe best part is where Taranto admits that the way you tell that a batshit-insane headline did not really appear on Fox News is not because it's batshit-insane, but because the pranksters used the wrong FONT:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want to talk about the context and results of the lies so badly? I think it's because you can't refute the truthfulness of Taranto's point.
ReplyDeleteWell.. fucking duh, if Taranto gets to game the facts to remove everything inconvenient to his point, then it has a better chance of standing up. It also makes his point worthless outside of the hypothetical reality he's built for himself.
It's not that we "badly want" to include context, it's that this is a basic prerequisite for talking about something, and the fact that you're so shameless about refusing to display a basic level of competence is a perfect crystallization of the jaw-dropping inanity you've managed to develop a reputation for in such a short period of time.
He either wanted it to be true, or he was lying. How hard is it to put "Friends of Hamas" into a search engine?
ReplyDeleteFallows was recycling a blatant lie with the disclaimer: "is it true? I don't know" which is arguably not ethical.
ReplyDeleteSo Fallows recycles a blatant falsehood with a disclaimer, and Shapiro recycles a blatant lie without a disclaimer? Distinction without a difference, frankly, except maybe in court. At any rate, the point many are raising and you're ignoring is why call it the Fallows Principle, and make Fallows the lede, in the first place? Shapiro's was first, and Taranto's the one that links them, calling Shapiro's article an example of the principle. Why not call it the Shapiro Principle and give Fallows as a secondary example?
Ah, I see. Special pleading, in other words.
ReplyDeleteSo, we're abandoning the pretext that breitbart.com is engaged in bold citizen journalism, then? It's just Pravda
ReplyDeletefor the wingnut set?
Because Shapiro is a political operative, and Fallows is a reputable journalist. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BREITBART.COM!!! This seems to be lost on everybody. It's like me crying in my soup because Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly twisted something to fit their agenda. OF COURSE THEY DO THAT. But reputable JOURNALISTS are not supposed to. I would not expect Tom Brokaw to give me some twisted shit, but I would expect Shapiro too. Shapiro is not a reputable journalist; Fallows is.
ReplyDeletehahaha -- you are equating Breitbart.com and Fallows. Read my post above this one and let it sink in.
ReplyDeleteDoes society really hold Shapiro and Fallows in the same regard? The problem for Fallows is his position of authority. He's a reputable journalist. Shapiro is not and we expect him to be loose with the facts. Remember, we are talking about breitbart.com, not the ordinary location for gather your unbiased facts. Fallows on the other hand...
ReplyDeleteyou are equating Breitbart.com and Fallows.
ReplyDeleteI cannot fathom what you mean by this, because you remain as opaque and evasive as ever, but repeated readings have not managed to extract meaning from your huffy diaryscrawl, sorry.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703958904575387310483001330.html
ReplyDeleteThere you go, whether you agree or not.
The breitbrats do in fact like to pretend they're engaged in the practice of journalism, but I fully encourage them to try the 'it doesn't counts as libel because we were only pretending to be professionals' defense in court.
ReplyDeleteHoly shit. You're actually James Taranto, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteSo your point is "ignore the context that Fallows's post was virtually meaningless and Shapiro's was damaging, but be very very sure to include the context that Shapiro is a propagandist."
ReplyDeleteYes, by that logic your point is unassailable, perhaps because it has been shrunk to the size of invisibility. Can't hit what you can't see!
This is so much bending over backwards to redeem the guys whose politics you sympathize with. Let's hold everyone who writes about politics to one basic, minimal set of ethics. Otherwise we get you and Taranto checking in to say, essentially, "Lying is bad... unless it's your job! Then it's ethical!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm not sure what the fact that Taranto's has invented a distinction that has no root in anything except his own fever dreams is supposed to prove except that James Taranto is a hack's hack.
ReplyDeleteI hear that nononono is the CEO of "Friends of Taranto." Roy: run with it.
ReplyDeletehaha -- no. but i do find the debate interesting and i think he's spot on. and i figured i share that so you'd have more context since you guys are so focused on context
ReplyDeleteIt's not actually a 'debate' when a dweeby propagandist uses his editorial space to score rhetorical points for team wingnut. I believe the technical term is 'public masturbation.'
ReplyDeleteAnd you need learn the difference between 'facts that provide context' and 'bullshit you (James Taranto, who I still believe you are, because nobody else could be that invested in defending him) made up.' This is not hard, a dude who is pretending to be interested in debate so he can sockpuppet for his shitty column should know these things.
Nah, you just write stuff like that because your argument is weak. Had you had a strong argument, you would have eloquently laid it out. But you don't and nor do others here, hence the "public masturbation" by you and others here. It's fine if you want to stroke each other, but to pretend that Shapiro and Fallows are in any way similar or hold similar positions of authority is obtuse and intellectually dishonest. And to pretend that posting a blatantly false post is somehow similar to a guy (according to the posters here) being too stupid to know it's false is also intellectually dishonest. You know that. I know that. And everyone else here knows that. Now run along and carry water for Fallows or whomever you choose.
ReplyDeleteIf you wouldn't expect Tom Brokaw to give you some twisted shit, then you are a weapons grade moe-ron.
ReplyDeleteGlen Beck Raped and Murdered a Girl In 1992?
ReplyDeleteThe National Enquirer exists to entertain. No one cites it as they go to the polls. "I can't support Hillary in 2016. She covered up the brutal murder of Bat Boy and is secretly on her seventh bigamist Illuminati marriage -- this one to a reptoid from the hollow moon!" You (and Taranto) can't excuse Breitbart unless you genuinely believe no one takes Breitbart seriously.
ReplyDeleteBut people DO take Breitbart seriously, and it coarsens and endumbens our national discourse -- our ability to address problems -- and our potential to get along with each other.
You're right, I don't read Taranto regularly. The one column was enough to give me the gist of how the rest go -- working overtime to justify every conservative foul-up and sling mud on everyone not conservative, with an occasional "but of course conservatives aren't perfect" aside so his readers (all of them very conservative) can congratulate themselves on being fair-minded souls who read a thinking man, indeed, a man almost unfortunately balanced in his politics. Bah. Life's too short to follow this Bat Boy.
So you're going with 'I know you are but what am I?'
ReplyDelete...okay...
No, my point is I would expect the National Enquirer to post something not true but not Tom Brokaw. And to sit here up in arms about one guy calling out Tom Brokaw for doing just that and not the National Enquirer is ridiculous. And to add insult to injury, it would be even more twisted if Tom Brokaw was the one who posted the blatant falsehood when the guy from the National Enquirer believed his false story. Those are very dissimilar.
ReplyDeleteWell and that's a fair point. Shapiro SHOULD have done more as Taranto says and failed. But that does not mean that Fallows does not owe a greater obligation to the public. He does, just as the New York Times owes a greater obligation than the National Enquirer. It's not that what they did was so different, is that's they are themselves so different. One is in a position of authority as a trusted journalist. the other is a political operative.
ReplyDeleteto pretend that Shapiro and Fallows are in any way similar or hold similar positions of authority is obtuse and intellectually dishonest
ReplyDeleteDude, NO ONE IS DOING THAT. The point is that if shallow hacks like Shapiro (who may not be "similar" to Fallows or have as much "authority" but who is clearly read by a lot of people, perhaps more than Fallows) were held to remotely the same standard--especially by people who have an ethical duty to know better, like Taranto--maybe the world would be a slightly better place. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT NORMATIVE ETHICS.
Also: constantly changing your argument and then crowing "I haven't been refuted yet!" is not winning. It's fleeing.
"Shapiro called a White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, seeking comment. Schultz hung up after hearing the question, and did not answer subsequent calls. The story ran under the headline "Secret Hagel Donor? White House Spox Ducks Question on Friends Of Hamas."
ReplyDeleteOk... it's clear now that Little Ben tried to confirm the story, and that the misunderstanding is all the fault of spokesman Eric Schultz. If Shultz had only given Ben the answer he deserved, something along the lines of "Shapiro, you moron, are you really THAT fucking stupid?", instead of just hanging up on Ben as though he were a teenage prank caller instead of a serious journalist, this whole unfortunate incident could have been avoided.
to pretend that Shapiro and Fallows are in any way similar or hold
ReplyDeletesimilar positions of authority is obtuse and intellectually dishonest
Forgive me, but wasn't Taranto the one who decided that the two were sufficiently similar to use Fallows as a Tu quoque excuse for Shapiro's antics?
Are not Republican spokespeople treating Shapiro as the more authoritative source?
So again, why call it the Fallows Principle? Call it the Shapiro Principle to make perfectly clear just how shoddy you think the practice is, that's it's at the level you'd expect for a propagandist, not a real journalist. I'm wondering if you read the same article I did, though; the one I read never once questions Shapiro's ethics except to say his are not as bad as Friedman's.
ReplyDeleteWell no, people are up in arms because Taranto didn't call it the Shapiro principle instead of the Fallows principle. It would make no sense that way. People don't walk around talking about how Maddow or O'Reilly lied like they did when Rather did. That's the difference, some are held to a higher standard and to pretend that Shapiro is in a similar category to Fallows is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWell... they might now given Fallows gross infidelity to the truth.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's no change in the argument: (1) Fallows owes a higher standard of care, and (2) Fallows mistake was categorically worse IF (and it's a big if) we trust that Shapiro actually believed his story.
ReplyDeleteI should note that whether Shapiro is an idiot or not is a separate issue.
I agree, the Friends of Hamas gag could easily have been confirmed as not being true; whereas the Fox News gag is conceivably something that was true because Fox News has been in the habit over the years of printing ridiculous claims in their chyron, only to add a question mark at the end of it, like that absolves them from pushing that view.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that would make sense. For example, if you were going to create a name for a principle related to news hosts lying, no one would want to call it the "Maddow Principle" or the "O'Reilly Principle." You'd call it the "Rather Principle" way before those others because of viewers' expectations, i.e., that Maddow and O'Reilly are EXPECTED to be fast and loose with the facts.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about the ethics specifically, I lumped in Taranto saying Shapiro should issue a correction as an ethical issue, but I note that Taranto did not characterize it as such. I would disagree with Taranto on that characterization, it seems to me to be unethical for Shapiro to not issue a correction.
This is the 2013 version of "Check the kerning, sheeple!!11!!"
ReplyDeleteNo, you're the one who's not following, because you're being deliberately obtuse. Taranto treats Breitbart.com as a political organization when it suits him and a journalistic organization when it suits him. He doesn't hold them to any kind of a standard because if he did, he'd have to disavow the 99 percent of their stories that are bullsh*t - and then he wouldn't be able to use them do the same kind of gossipy hit pieces he is accusing Fallows of doing here.
ReplyDeleteWith Breitbart Taranto gets to have his cake and eat it too: he gets to engage in the tabloid style journalism that he'd like to do with the Wall Street Journal but isn't able to because of the damage it would do to its reputation. So instead he has Breitbart do the dirty work and then he flogs and flogs and flogs these bullsh*t Breitbart.com stories that are nothing but smears and at best always only sort of half dismisses them, allowing the innuendo to do its work. At worst, as David Frum of all people has pointed out, he gleefully exults in the political effectiveness of their patent falsehoods.
In short, Taranto loves the fact that the Breitbarters are such good fucking liars. Are they journalists? Or are they vicious, unprincipled professional smear artists? Why they're both and neither, depending on how far over the ethical and legal line they've stepped in any given instance to determine whether that means using their story at face value to advance Taranto's own political agenda, using the tactic of admiring their viciousness to push the smear in order to advance Taranto's own agenda, or using the so-called "Fallows Principle" ("is it true?") to advance Taranto's conservative agenda, because yes - it's ALWAYS projection with conservatives.
So let's get real: this is a hit piece on James Fallows for a journalistic peccadillo written specifically for the purpose of exonerating unpardonable behavior on the part of lying gutter-scum Ben Shapiro. Oh sure, it's clever and nuanced in a lawyerly way as if to appear principled, but it's not. Essentially Taranto is saying to the judge, "Sure, your honor, my client may have murdered the victim - but he did so based on gossip he was forced to consider unimpeachable because it suited his motives; investigating it may have debunked the gossip and precluded the need for the fun, fun murder altogether. And who among us can't sympathize with that?"
"The plaintiff, however, murdered a reputation, which is far worse, and did so casually and half-heartedly without any of the admirable passion or righteous hatred my client possessed towards his victim."
Thrity-six comments in a single thread from a six-hour-old disqus pseudonym as of 5:22 Eastern Time. Who on earth could be so interested in defending Mr. Taranto?
ReplyDeleteNon cockney sed Cockaigne
ReplyDeleteYou're reading into it, though, that he considers Fallows more of a real journo than he does Shapiro. He may have said something in another article to lead you to conclude that, but he doesn't here. In this article he treats them as equal, giving Shapiro's pre-existent flub as an equivalent example of the principle.
ReplyDeleteI guess impersonating a President is a felony or something? Harrison Ford and Bill Pullman must have gotten waivers.
ReplyDeleteI'm not "up in arms" about it, I just think it shows that Taranto is being disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteI thought I read and upvoted this comment last night. Oh well, whatevs, it's worth upvoting again.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll bet the White House has learned it's lesson. The next time a crack journalist from Breitbart.com calls to ask if they have Prince Albert in a can, the spokesman fielding the call better damn well take them seriously...
ReplyDeleteI think Homer Simpson needs to be credited with the argument adduced here "Its not lying if you believe it."
ReplyDeleteI'll agree that Travolta has definitely got some acting chops. In the movie Face Off, he and Nicholas Cage basically switched identities through some scifi super-duper plastic surgery. So, the two actors spent the rest of the film doing impressions of each other. Travolta did a way better impression of Cage than vice versa.
ReplyDeleteAnd even further OT: Travolta, unlike Denzel Washington, does have a commercial pilot's license. Iirc, he won some kind of pilot's award several years ago for a particularly daring emergency landing in his private jet.
He does strike me as a bit of an asshole. Is he still a scientologist?
Actually, that would be George Costanza, as in "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the best analyses of the way of the wurlitzer I've ever read. See also "I was just joking, can't you guys take a joke?" As evidenced in years of Rush Limbaugh's assholery.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Taranto get to "hold" anyone to any kind of standard? By your lights he's a propagandist posing as a journalist so: who cares what he thinks?
ReplyDeleteOh zuzu, zuzu, zuzu of course she was, right up until the end.
ReplyDeleteSo good I'd like to playact at being this comment's doppleganger.
ReplyDeleteStill a Scientologist and still 137% straight and still ready to sue you if say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're just not familiar with Taranto's position... Isn't it time someone pointed out that we are familiar with all internet traditions? I mean come on people. Start paying attention.
ReplyDeleteI'm still pissed at my mom for letting you get that for a quarter, too.
ReplyDeleteRats, foiled again. Maybe I was thinking of this:
ReplyDelete"It takes two to lie.One to lie and one to listen."
-- Homer J. Simpson
"Gross infidelity to the truth"? Now who is hanging his hat on context. You can't get to "gross infidelity" until you examine both context and result and also history. One might argue, and i would, that someone like Fallows, who has a sterling track record, is permitted to make a mistake and apologize for it more than someone like the Breitbarts who have yet to produce any story, of any kind, that has a smitch of the truth to it--from their attacks on Shirely Sherrod to Acorn and their fostering of a cult of sexism and rape (the rape boat incident) they have a much higher hill to climb to be read at all by decent people.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure this guy is yanking our chain. Floyd Alvis Cooper, is that you?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct again: Taranto did not say that in his recent post but he has for a long time now argued that breitbart.com is not a real journalistic publication. He views it more as a political operation and takes the position that people should be skeptical of it. Taranto's "Best of the Web" column is a daily article and if you don't tune in regularly you're liable to get lost.
ReplyDeleteHere's what he had to say about breitbart.com back in 2010, and I don't think it's flattering to breitbart.com: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703958904575387310483001330.html
Well... they might now given Fallows gross infidelity to the truth.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you noticed this, but what Fallows posted was a JOKE. On the other hand, Shapiro IS a joke. Totally different.
Might be Lee Siegel.
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeleteSphinctron?
ReplyDeleteI can't say about the coke.... but womanizer? :/
ReplyDeleteWow, 207 comments! That usually only happens if there's an infestation of - ....oh.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but the thread is amusing so long as you skip no-no's blibber-blabber. (Blibber blabber = word salad that almost makes sense)
ReplyDeleteOh yes, I would not impugn the regulars.
ReplyDeleteUnless they asked me to.
Just you wyte, 'Enry 'Iggins, just you wyte! You'll be sorry when he thinks you would laugh at his jokes!
ReplyDeleteI feel the need to put this here:
ReplyDeleteDaddy bought me a rubber blubber whale (2x)
How I love my rubber blubber rubber blubber rubber blubber
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale blubber whale
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale
Sister she wanted my rubber blubber whale (2x)
You know I really lub her but she cannot have my rubbber blubber
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale blubber whale
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale
So Mama went and bought another rubber blubber whale (2x)
How I love my rubber blubber rubber blubber rubber blubber
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale blubber whale
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale
I took a bath with my rubber blubber whale
It went splish splash with its rubber blubber tail
How I love my rubber blubber rubber blubber rubber blubber
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale blubber whale
Rubber blubber rubber blubber whale
You tease.
ReplyDeleteObligatory.
ReplyDeleteAnother cheesy-but-beloved science fiction television program is Doctor Who.
ReplyDeleteI dare you to say that at LGM. Double-dare you.
I commented once on one of SEK's posts, wondering whether the Dr Who production crew really put as much effort into the scene-by-scene visual rhetoric and the production standards as SEK was getting out of it. He was not happy.
LePantloadomaine would make a fine robot cloaca. He's been training his whole life for it.
ReplyDeleteWell, she'd still be a virgin in the end, wouldn't she?
ReplyDeleteI thought the WSJ was supposed to be one of the big names in reporting, at least in the business field.
ReplyDeleteThey are, but they stay that way but keeping far, far away from the op-ed page people.
Actually, the Enquirer, after getting hit with a number of libel suits and losing, has done a pretty good job of vetting its stuff before it goes out, even if it means that it's all "a friend says" or "sources close to."
ReplyDeleteBut you don't and nor do others here, hence the "public masturbation" by
ReplyDeleteyou and others here. It's fine if you want to stroke each other
You keep using that word, "masturbation." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hey, now, he can't help it if he's chock full of gay Thetans.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... Gay Thetans would be a hell of a band name.
So THAT's why James Taranto hacked my foot off at the ankle. I thought it was just a right-wing thing.
ReplyDeleteHe may even know the real reason--which is that everyone in the past, from French peasants to ancient Romans, spoke English and had British accents. Except for Middle Eastern types, who all sounded like Anthony Quinn sounding like a Middle Eastern type.
ReplyDeleteEx-President Aristide would like to give this comment a necklace.
ReplyDeleteI know this thread is dead but still, that "Rather lied" thing is a tell, and a big one. Rather's error, if he committed one, was attempting to track down a true story and being suckered by potentially false data. Except in the fever swamps most people can't remember who Rather is, much less what his sin was. That's partly because people who remember Bush as who he really was know that of course he skyved off on his National Guard duties and relied on contacts and privilige to get him off.
ReplyDeleteThere's no "Rather principle" other than try to be more careful when uncovering the secrets of powerful people.
Holy misdirection, Batman. I finally got around to looking at the offending Blog Post by Fallowes and christ on toast points but Taranto's point is lame, lamer, lamest. I do fault Fallowes for not spending time to find an even better parody on the real Fox because on the few times I've stopped by there they have actually accused the President of pretty much farther out things than aiming the asteroid at us. And, of course, this rumor and others like it are rife on the right side of the aisle. Anybody who reads commentary on right wing blogs (that is, actual comments) realizes that accusing Obama of causing global warming, causing benghazi, causing (faking) Newtowne are just the tip of the iceberg for what Fox watchers believe. If Fox hasn't put it on a crawl with the infamous cavuto remark that would actually be more noteable.
ReplyDeleteI can't blab such blibber blubber!
ReplyDeleteMy tongue isn't made of rubber.
They say it's as big as four cats and it's got a retractable leg so's it can leap up at you better. And you know what, Ted, it lights up at night and it's got four ears, two of them are for listening and the other two are kind of back-up ears. Its claws are as big as cups and for some reason, it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! Mrs Doyle was telling me that it's got magnets on its tail, so's if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you and instead of a mouth, it's got four arses!
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit like "The October Surprise story was debunked!" Actually, it wasn't; there was just enough right-wing media backlash to make Congress back off the investigation.
ReplyDeleteThere are many other such examples. This is what happens when we let the loudest wear us down.
I hope the words nono typed to save Taranto were worthy of the sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteAh, another win-win. If anyone takes Shapiro seriously, then it's absurd because he's not a journalist and no one takes him seriously. If anyone doesn't take him seriously, it's awful that the liberal media won't take seriously a journalist who takes a principled position outside of their narrow, blinkered, PC Political Correctness.
ReplyDeleteAnd Berbers, who sound like Sean Connery playing Mulai "Jimmy" Ahmed er Raisuni.
ReplyDeleteOr the Fox Principal, or the O'Riley principal. "We lie, you believe".
ReplyDeleteTaranto . . . gets to engage in the
ReplyDeletetabloid style journalism that he'd like to do with the Wall Street
Journal but isn't able to because of the damage it would do to its
"reputation" Fixed.
Badgers? Episcopilians? Othe types of alians? Red headed step-children? Help me out here Zecky.
ReplyDeleteThere should be an official Whitehouse Wedgie Tsar for just these types of situations.
ReplyDeleteHas Beck ever denied those rumors? No? Hmm, interesting.
ReplyDeleteOn Fake Fox, Fake Hannity is smarter.
ReplyDeleteTaranto: "Chappelle, who is black, played the fictional black president, although as he was born in 1973, he wasn't old enough to hold that office at the time."
ReplyDeleteThe office of the fictional black president also requires a birth certificate.
Taranto's idea that political organisations be cut more slack because they are not held to the same standards is interesting. Does this explain the GOP's more "colourful" statements?
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of shite. Particularly as Shapiro's scribbling is treated and presented as journalism.
Fallows posted a photo montage for its comedic value, and disavowed any knowledge of its accuracy, even stating it could be a photoshop.
ReplyDeleteThe Virgin Ben claimed to have recieved a statement of fact from an anonymous (source, or three sources, depending on the version of his lie) and published it without addressing its accuracy.
Even leaving aside the importance of the respective topics, only one of these acts is worthy of contempt, and it's not Fallows'.
I think they show up as badgers at Sadly, No! - where it used to be that the only threads with over 100 comments had a Troofie the Troll infestation. That was the sort of thing I was thinking of.
ReplyDeleteOr a coffee: Chock Full of Gay Thetans.
ReplyDeleteAlso known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
ReplyDeleteMore likely it's Mary Rosh.
ReplyDeleteWell, let's face it, how could it be otherwise?
ReplyDeleteHubba bubba, here comes the rubbah!
ReplyDeleteYeah, the joke works regardless of whether Fox actually had a headline like that because it is completely plausible that they would. That he was wrong was a mistake, but it pales in comparison to the Shapiro smear which was specifically designed to inject a meme into the debate over Hagel. Comparing the two is just Taranto's attempt to justify it.
ReplyDelete"What am I missing?"
ReplyDeleteThere's a Taranto Hole in your life the magnitude of at least two hours. There are no available treatments.
better than Nicholas Cage isn't the highest bar one will ever have to get over
ReplyDeleteSeveral Cavѕ plaуers and mеmbers of business the Ιmaginе Studios team.
ReplyDeleteThеsе are business the courses thаt аѕk you tо remove it if іt's less than savory. Good advertisements always work in your house? No 2: Advertising another people's offers toο оften.
Tien-Τsіn Ηuang - JPM orgаn I got you.
My blog ... internet marketing agency
Children with ADHD tend to become highly focused no
ReplyDeletethe activity to the point where they generate billions of dollars in sales annually.
You'd be surprised at how fun Nascar 2010 Video Game can be used to successfully improve overall health and fitness. I won't ruin all of the
functions and gives a closer look at the effects of nascar 2010 video game on children.
Here is my webpage; sport video games