Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

30.0k Excellent
  1. That's enlightening, and I just gave a little light bulb over it, but doesn't necessarily prove it being brought up now isn't a strategy. It's broken into the news cycle again, specifically with the hook about the bullying, and if reaction here is typical, it's brand new to a lot of people. That there's specifically a new biography, and that it's specifically now being sold to the public highlighting this story (and in this period) is the root of that admittedly cynical observation. It's not inherently "all about Meghan" either. It's just as much about bolstering Kate's popularity. Wit
  2. I feel for her, and totally believe it, but am cynical enough to not dismiss the possibility that this part of her biography is being emphasized now as a counter to Meghan's narrative. A kind of "see, others have gone through bullying yet remained steadfast" counter-narrative. I'm not even saying this is a move by Kate herself. Probably not. Heck, almost definitely not. But by "The Firm" as an entity, perhaps as personified by those men in grey suits (in other words, whoever controls their P. R. and image strategy)? Maybe. Again, this is not a dismissal of what she experienced.
  3. Mulaney is no Prince, but I do think we're not necessarily getting the whole story. His wife's statement is really weird. It feels like she's trying to publicly set herself up as the victim, whereas we don't really know all of the facts that led up to the split up. We don't know how long there have been problems, we don't know if they're one sided or mutual, we don't know squat. We just know that the sequence looks bad: that John had drug problems, went away, came back, and has a new relationship and isn't with his wife anymore. Ultimately, drug problems are complicated, but they very well co
  4. I guess she and JK Rowling have jointly helped remind us in recent years that authors are no more immune to being terrible people than any other kind of public figure.
  5. Oprah is responsible for the twin curses of Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, two enormous quacks who have also done enormous harm. The disgusting Antivaxer McCarthy on top of that is indeed enraging (although not as much as McCarthy being back on TV on a lucrative hit show and nobody seeming to care that she's not facing career consequences for her radical bullshit).
  6. Why should there have been a request to put it off? Harry’s appearance was linked to a specific project with a specific timeline. You're arbitrarily deciding that some vague notion of propriety, that doesn't even really fit because as several of us who actually listened all the way through have stated isn't even applicable because his family is barely mentioned, overrides Harry’s responsibilities to other people and entities. That does include responsibility to business partners. I know it's seen as acceptable these days to just slag that off as evil, but it's not really inherently so.
  7. In the pop up text there "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own". In other words, fair enough. It's an interesting piece, but it IS just an individual's opinion piece, not that of Forbes itself. There's a weird passive aggressive nature to the piece, for example interpreting a casual mention of an early meeting between Harry and Meghan as a complaint ("how hard it was for Harry and Meghan Markle to shop at Whole Foods") when that wasn't the point of that story at all, but mostly I admit I don't really get the point of the piece. The actual content of the piec
  8. Dax Shepard. He's a utility actor, tending towards comedy, not in anything all that special other than the TV version of Parenthood. More people know him from being Kristen Bell's husband. He's the Meghan and she's the Harry in their relationship, fame-wise. The biggest parallel with Harry and Meghan was their concern about their kids being photographed by paparazzi and action they took over that. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kristen-bell-and-dax-shepard-start-campagin-to-protect-children-from-paparazzi/ You really don't need to know anything else (or even care much ab
  9. Kromm

    What Did We Eat Today?

    I broke out the Immersion Circulator to try with Pork Chops (a pretty short cook compared to most sous vide, only about an hour). Finished on a cast iron skillet for just a minute or so per side. Pretty good results, but not as overwhelming a difference as doing a big thick piece of meat, like a Pork Shoulder or Brisket side. I almost grabbed a veal shoulder on sale instead, but that takes a LONG cook and I was impatient today.
  10. If they were really hiding money, I doubt they'd bank in Delaware (where virtually every corporation and non-profit does). They'd bank in Panama or The Caymans. The implication is that they inherently can't be trusted, but why is this true of them and not the charities controlled or chaired by the rest of the Royals? As for the Gates Foundation, I think I'd prefer to wait until whatever is being said goes beyond Facebook, an infamously bad source of news. I do accept the general premise that rich people's foundations can sometimes be tax shelters, but that's different from saying
  11. For those who love comedy panel gameshows (with Anglophiles, that's pretty likely, since it's such a British form), there are a number of podcasts in that genre. So it's not always just people jawing at each other.
  12. He talked about both parts of his life, and how both affected his mental health. This discussion wasn't about any shallow labels other people place on him, but overall issues like feeling a loss of control. I don't think staying power is his goal, rather than having people look at him as a real, complex person and not via a label. I didn't perceive any call for pity, but rather a very direct head on approach to his problems and him being willing to use his own example to destigmatize mental ane emotional tramau. As has been said by others ( and briefly me, elsewhere) he barely mentions
  13. I think the anti-audio people might consider waiting a few weeks and then Google searching something like "Harry Dax Transcript". I suggest this, because I just did so, and while no Transcript currently existed, I noticed some previous episodes of Dax Shepard's show had transcripts on a website called happyscribe.com - - including ones as recent as April. https://www.google.com/search?q=harry+dax+transcript+site:www.happyscribe.com&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new&espv=1&prmd=nisv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi22LPS5MzwAhXlFlkFHTv1Cs4QvbADegQIExAB&biw=360&bih=531&am
  14. I think that's quite a valid reason not to listen, certainly more than any vague "it's too soon" objection that's inherently a moving target, since there's always going to be some event (birthday, wedding, death, national holiday, etc) that can be held up as inappropriate to follow or precede. That said, one of the things Shepard pointed out (not Harry himself) was the assumption that privledge equals an absence of problems. Harry didn't sound like he was milking that point, but did agree with it. His main issue was a perceived lack of control, in his life, and in a sense of powerlessnes
  15. He didn't even ONCE call out any member of his family during that podcast. He barely mentioned them other than in the most oblique manner, other than his mother, who came up several times. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with the notion that he's obliged to be silent, just because of vague arguments about propriety. I mean that's what's being suggested, that the public thing he's decided he needs to be engaged in, speaking publicly about mental health, isn't allowable "now", whatever "now" is. Again, to my perception he pointed no fingers. So why's he obliged to stay silent? It's ju
  • Create New...

Customize font-size