9thdoctor

This calls to mind Leonard Bernstein being buried with his score of the Mahler 5th. He performed the Adagietto at the memorial service for Bobby Kennedy in 1968, here's that recording:

Someone has uploaded it to YouTube. I doubt it will stay up for long, this channel is chock full of copyrighted material, and hasn't been around long yet. I've set it up so it should start at the beginning of Honeysuckle Cottage.

I was a little concerned the Bond reference was too obscure. After all, that one became the movie with George Lazenby. Yes, indeed, Annie must die. Mwah ha ha! That Hunter may live. And kill. It was meant to be a positive review! Now looking at it again, whew, referring to Barbara Cartland, that was pretty harsh. BTW, since you're both looking for something else to plow into, the Wodehouse references in the review came from the short story Honeysuckle Cottage, which you'll find as the final chapter here: https://www.audible.com/pd/Classics/Meet-Mr-Mulliner-Audiobook/B00668IPXE?ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1&pf_rd_p=e81b7c27-6880-467a-b5a7-13cef5d729fe&pf_rd_r=9KGYJ47CX1W9T28WY7JE& This volume, full to the brim with masterpieces, also includes Portrait of a Disciplinarian. Within which occurs the immortal line "Can you produce the peke?"

I just submitted an Audible.com review of Robert's latest. It hasn't posted yet, I don't know how long that takes. Under the headline "Hunter's bodycount migrates ever northward" If you liked the prior two in the series, you’ll like Winner Takes All. Starkly anti-Left politics, fight scenes matching Lee Child’s best, logical plot progression. There’s a nice homage to that supreme masterpiece of the thriller genre, The Day of the Jackal. A worthy sequel. IMO you need to have gone through the prior two first, this book doesn’t stand on its own. Most of the great thriller series (Jack Reacher, Travis McGee, Matt Helm, James Bond) hit a reset button at the beginning of each installment. New love interest, and little or no carryover of plot strands. Not here. And the length keeps increasing (Hunter 12 hours, Bad Deeds 15, now 18 for Winner Takes All). I think something will have to give if this series is to stay on track. My main criticism is well stated by the (fictional) thriller writer James Rodman: “an artist with a true reverence for his craft should not descend to gooey love stories, but should stick austerely to revolvers, cries in the night, missing papers, mysterious Chinamen, and dead bodies — with or without gash in throat.” We’re now on a third installment with Hunter and Annie together, and there’s not much room left for relationship progression. Their conflict is now about whether/when Hunter is going to inform Annie’s father that they’re engaged. Sorry, but this is fit for Barbara Cartland, alternately P.G. Wodehouse, depending on whether the treatment is one of forthright glutinous sentimentality or (preferably) something gently satirical and humorous. It’s just not thriller material. So by the end of Winner Takes All I found myself hoping that the author’s next homage would be to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Specifically its final chapter. The reader is excellent.

I did a quick skim and yeah, both come across as non-collegial in their interactions with each other. Putting it mildly. Reminds me of some online O-land wars I've witnessed. George Smith vs. Shayne Wissler. George Smith vs. Dragonfly. Lindsay Perigo and James Valliant trying to tag-team you. Oh well, that's the internet.

She's known to have attended a Russian Orthodox parochial school (or gymnasium as they called it). Evidently a prestigious one, where Nikolai Lossky was an administrator. This was through the age of 12, after which the family fled to the Crimea in the wake of the October revolution. I think it's safe to say she was exposed to Judaism and Christianity, and we can take her word that she became an atheist early (I forget, I think she said age 13). Her ethical theory is about as original as they come. Bob promises ("one day") to produce an essay making his case. He hasn't made it yet. We're waiting.

Heh. I see you've encountered him before. But his potty mouth is not evident between the covers of the books I'm recommending. He makes the strongest case I know of. And the methodology is interesting, independent of the subject matter.

Neil, have you looked into the work of Richard Carrier? I find it stimulating and valuable. I wrote about it a little here: Even if you end up disagreeing with him, I think you'll find the bible scholarship worth your time.

Rem acu tetigisti

Evidently this should be regarded as vapor-ware until further notice. http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/31/zach-snyder-hopes-to-film-ayn-rands-foun

That's what it says at the top of the page. Your point? It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos. Yet.

That's a fun old thread. But reading it again I'm a bit embarrassed to find on page 3 that I wrote "recidivus" when I certainly meant "redivivus".

This article lists a few of her prior outrages against PC-dom: http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/29/roseanne-barr-valerie-jarrett-cancelled Plus, I remember her national anthem performance from way back when. The apology and now this excuse-making strike me as being out of character.

Perhaps. And perhaps those votes will come at the expense of other votes, such as Jewish ones. Trump doesn't get much support from either demographic, so I suppose it can only be a net plus for him, however it shakes out.

This is pretty close to getting an endorsement from David Duke. I wouldn't foresee anything good coming from it.

You're thinking of the film Striptease with Demi Moore. I can't find a YouTube clip of the scene.

Isn't the line supposed to be: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him"? And Julius Caesar? No, no, no, wrong hairdo. How about another Gaius? Still not quite the right hue. P.G. Wodehouse said it best, describing the cat Percy: Orange of body and inky black of soul.

Duchamp's urinal is an example of Kant's Sublime? OMG. Did you actually read any of the material at the Tate site you linked to? Are you actually trying to make a cogent argument about Kant's views? There are chimpanzees at typewriters hoping to reproduce Shakespeare. Try and catch up.

Going forward they will up their game. It's like an arms race.

Given that the Wikileaks emails made it out, I have to disagree about their ability to cover their tracks. I suspect you're not giving due weight to one fact that is incontrovertibly in evidence: Puello is a con-artist. A fairly skilled one. Though not too skilled, after all he's been busted multiple times (bank fraud, then sex trafficking, then this (posing as a lawyer)). Concerning kidnapping, I lived through another episode in my backyard: There were endless arguments about the welfare of the child...whether it outweighed parental rights and so on. A very emotional topic. So I can see religiously inspired types going to Haiti to try to save children from starvation/disease, and acting without due respect for the legalities. And I see that as more probable (much more) than them going there to find fresh meat for a pedophile network.

Whoa, calm down my friend. I read the Daily Bastardette articles yesterday, among other things. And between then and this morning, when I wrote my post, I got Puello’s name messed up. Nothing nefarious about that. You didn’t write any of the innuendo-laden pieces, you merely linked to one. So I wasn’t accusing you of Michael Moore’s practices. At worst, of having fallen for them in this case. Concerning “going into the middle of chaos in another country in order to kidnap a bunch of little children”, note that I haven’t defended that. I’ve been focused on the likely motives of the Idaho 10, especially how plausible it is that they were connected to a pedophile network. None of the material you shared in your latest post added any relevant information. No prior relationship has been established between Puello and the Idaho 10, Daily Bastardette is clear on that (BTW, I don’t detect slant in the coverage there). Nor has a relationship been established with the Clintons. The way I see the relationship being established (most probably) is that the Idaho 10 were arrested, they became a news item in the Dominican press, they were sitting in jail, and this man, posing as an attorney, came to them. They didn’t know better, and lacked the resources to research him. He started off saying he’d represent them for free, then switched to demanding lots of money. Rather like a con-artist. They got rid of him within two weeks, by which time the Clintons had gotten involved. Alternately, there was a prior relationship, so their first phone call from behind bars went to Puello. Who they may or may not have known was a sex trafficker. We don’t know. Hence, probabilities. If they had the prior relationship and knew he was a sex trafficker, well, obviously that clinches it. But those two elements are not in evidence. Have I denied the possibility that Silsby was “involved in sex trafficking, either as active participant or patsy”? Nope. But I do assign it a very low probability. And with more facts, that would be subject to change.

You're pivoting. I don't dispute that the Clintons used the Haitian disaster for their own ends. I'm focusing on the Silsby case. I'm asking, given that we don't have full knowledge, what probabilities you assign to the two proffered explanations: pedophilia vs. religious zeal? The way I see this case: religious zeal led these people (Idaho 10) to break the law, a pedophile attorney (Cuello) offered them his services, initially for free (so we're told), he was unmasked within a week or two, then the Clintons got involved to get the Idaho 10 off the hook. What's not clear is whether the Idaho 10 had a prior relationship with Cuello. If so, that would increase the probability that they were agents hunting for fresh meat to feed some evil network of pedophiles. Increase from vanishingly small to, let's say, 10% max. Nothing I've read points to this. Also, I've found no connection between Cuello and the Clintons. They're now being subject to guilt by association, and that association is non-existent. There's plenty to vilify them for, how about sticking to the solid cases? This is innuendo-mongering worthy of a Michael Moore film. PS I tried looking up the walnut sauce reference, and...say what? I found pages of lunatic material, but I gather it goes back to what looks like a truly innocuous exchange: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43113

So, two weeks after the Haitian earthquake a religious group tried to move 33 children to the Dominican Republic, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons. However, since they were initially defended by an attorney who was subsequently busted for child sex trafficking (only later were they defended by the Clintons), the probability that this episode was also about child sex trafficking is now what? 100%? With 33 children? They were going to hold them in an "orphanage" where pedophiles could come to have their fun, with lots of choices at hand? How far-fetched does that sound to you? How about estimating a probability distribution? First, that they were acting from excessive religious zeal to save some children from starvation/disease following a devastating natural disaster. Second, that they were trying to procure sex slaves, for themselves or third parties. 50-50, 90-10, 10-90? And feel free to add more options.

I witnessed this from my own backyard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria Janet Reno vs. Satanists. A real witch hunt. A great career stepping stone for her. And it was utter BS. So it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me.

How does this guy fit in? http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/386454-former-kentucky-judge-given-20-years-in-prison-for-human-trafficking Planted on the other side by the Clintons?