Why in 2014 was Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, a reasonably good-looking 50-year-old guy who was making approaching a million dollars per year as a Century City lawyer, available to marry his 50-year old coeval Kamala Harris?
A wag observed in the 90s that "PBS doesn't want socialism anymore, it wants America to adopt the English class system". Abortion is a great example of this, keep some loser from trying to marry above their station by aborting the brat. Honestly expect we'll get talk of a Seduction Act if abortions are ever truly restricted.
Normally British tabloids are constrained in their reporting by notoriously strict libel laws, as well as legally enforceable restrictions on the reporting of active court cases. Because of this you often get US papers like the National Enquirer or the New York Post publishing stories of great interest to UK readers while our own papers can only print innuendo hinting to readers about what their missing.
This is a good example of the less commonly seen reverse, where a British paper (Daily Mail) has an story both interesting enough to warrant reporting and controversial enough that US media is uncomfortable relaying all details to their readers. Normally what happens with this is that a mainstream respectable publication will find an angle which makes this sort of gossip fair game to discuss, at which point a respectability cascade occurs and all outlets publish all gory details they can find. Perhaps abortion policy will be the angle that allows this.
The truth by definition can never be libel. The British tabloids don't have to make up stuff because the truth is already so interesting.
American newspapers are politicized to the extent that they will not publish interesting but true stuff because if it doesn't help the Democrats. The Washington Post has a double digit decline in readership and lost $77 million last year. If it broke the Emhoff scandal it would have made some money. But they are partisan; they are more interested in helping the Democrats than in being interesting.
NC's fat black Republican Lt Gov., running for Gov against the Jewish state AG, has been hit for a while about his strong anti-a stance (we now have a 12 week law)--"Keep your skirt down." The ads leave out "or your pants up." Friday, he started running ads about his wife's abortion 30 years ago, before they married, but it was apparently his child. I can't find a neutral article about it, for some reason.
For months, the AG has been running ads touting clearing the backlog of rape kit processing by the State--THREE years after he took office, which a counter-ad points out. Our current governor was the State AG who finally ended the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, when he could no longer avoid offending Durham voters.
Doug Emhoff seems to be Andrew Meyer from Veep made flesh.
The nanny who may have had an abortion looks very sad in photos, but abortion has hardly enabled male behavior that did not previously exist. Knocking up the help is time honored rich asshole behaviour. If you read about the actual lives of infants and children from the past there were simply tons of deaths from neglect, squalid urchins, widows and orphans in freezing garrets where the widow was not so much a widow as a single mom with the only acceptable cover story. Oliver Twist did not spring wholly from Dickens’ fertile imagination. It does not get cheerier from there in the pre Victorian era.
The pictures in the Daily Mail article show his daughter Ella when she looked like a normal person. This reminded me of the discourse on Twitter over the last week or so where instead of arguing against Republican policy positions directly, the left is merely referring to Trump and Vance as "weird".
The right has correctly pointed out that judging by the appearance of Ella Emhoff and various other leftists, to call Trump and Vance weird is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The left's counter response to that is pretty much to say that it's ok when we're weird, but it's not ok when you're weird. It shouldn't surprise anyone on this blog that the left's argument devolves into feelings and double standards rather than anything objective, as to be a leftist is to not have objective standards being applied to you.
One nasty thing or another. What difference, at this point, does it make?
Kamala and Emhoff could have kidnapped the nanny, hoiked the offending tot out with fireplace tongs and barbecued it. The Ork hoard wouldn’t bat an eye.
There is one thing that leaves a mark on Harris; her one job; Border Czar.
If someone, say Elon Musk wanted to have some fun, he could dedicate next year’s Halloween costume budget to running video of millions of GuataMexiDorians marching across the border, interspersed with reports of the murders and rapes they’ve been committing 24/7.
I will admit to mixed feelings about abortion. I oppose it if for no other reason than the supporters of a woman's right to kill her unborn child are all pretty careful to get themselves born first. On the other hand, it's a much cheaper and quicker way to deal with a "problem" pregnancy than adoption and much cheaper than choosing to raise the child. I think my biggest issue with abortion on demand is its effects on the living. Not only is human life devalued to an inconvenient clump of cells as if it were a tumor but the relations between the sexes have cratered as well. The worst aspect of men in male-female interaction is their tendency towards irresponsible promiscuity and the worst aspect of women is their tendency to convince themselves that whoever they are having sex with is worth having for a mate long-term. Abortion has allowed both of these tendencies to increase considerably in both sexes to the detriment of the society they share.
What do you think about the last two years after Dobbs? If your theory were true, why didn't banning abortion in all those states have any impact on the so-called "irresponsible promiscuity" in those areas?
Two years as opposed to almost two generations? And abortion on demand is still available to most of those that want it. I haven't heard of any state banning the practice completely. I personally don't believe that 12-16 week limits have ANY effect on the culture at large when the Abortion-Industrial tries to make people believe that late-term abortions are too rare to even count.
"I haven't heard of any state banning the practice completely. I personally don't believe that 12-16 week limits have ANY effect on the culture at large when the Abortion-Industrial tries to make people believe that late-term abortions are too rare to even count."
Many states ban it from the moment of conception and only have exceptions for the life of the mother. How could you not have heard about that?
"Many states ban it" Really? Please name two. And an exception for the health of the mother is not a ban especially if the mother's mental health is a consideration.
“My impression is that the median American voter finds abortion grotesque, and would like the government to derogate other people being so sloppy as to be getting abortions. On the other hand, the median voter would, now that they think about it (which they’ve been thinking about it since the Republican Supreme Court overturned Roe), like abortion to be legal just in case, God forbid, their daughter happens to get impregnated by that loser boyfriend of hers.”
Fully agree. There are people who think in binary terms on both sides: Ireland inserted a constitutional prohibition on abortion in the 1980s and France recently inserted a constitutional clause to allow it. Activists on both sides really are the worst. They can’t seem to balance the two sentiments that abortion is simultaneously both awful and necessary.
Eventually it should only come down to when and what circumstances abortion is allowed. This stuff is best done by consensus in parliamentary committees, not by judges or people with megaphones.
"Why in 2014 was Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, a reasonably good-looking 50-year-old guy who was making approaching a million dollars per year as a Century City lawyer, available to marry his 50-year old coeval Kamala Harris? ..."
Okay, okay, that explains his divorce from his hot Nordid Hollywood insider super wife.
But what explains his attraction to a wrinkly old Shudra Brown-discard roundheel?
As a corollary, PeterIke posits "two step daughters, one of whom is obviously an emotionally damaged wreck".
In fact it is one daughter and one son. The daughter may not be so much "an emotionally damaged wreck" as simply suffering from the cognitive dissonance of being an unattractive "model" whose absurd pretensions the modelling agencies have to humor out of fear of offending her influential parents.
In 50+ years of experience in the 'pro-life movement' (everyone who is alive, generally speaking is pro-their-life, so I guess we need this distinction) abortion is apparently driven by the desire to wipe out the memory of the (especially in the early years) unseen new human life within. Present technology appears to have affected the choices made (for the life of the child, to the better).
So, experience (all anecdotal) supports the abortion selection. Would that it were not. May God save us from ourselves.
Journalism is hard! Or maybe the hard work would tell us what they already know but don't want us to know?
The Daily Mail as usual pretty much does know and says so too.
Interesting...no way of finding out what happened to the impregnated teacher?
Eventually, the answer will turn up, but probably not first in the New York Times.
From the picture, she got really fat. Otherwise, he's a chubby-chaser--his ex-wife is rail thin.
The nanny was thin at the time; you can't hold her current appearance against him
A wag observed in the 90s that "PBS doesn't want socialism anymore, it wants America to adopt the English class system". Abortion is a great example of this, keep some loser from trying to marry above their station by aborting the brat. Honestly expect we'll get talk of a Seduction Act if abortions are ever truly restricted.
Normally British tabloids are constrained in their reporting by notoriously strict libel laws, as well as legally enforceable restrictions on the reporting of active court cases. Because of this you often get US papers like the National Enquirer or the New York Post publishing stories of great interest to UK readers while our own papers can only print innuendo hinting to readers about what their missing.
This is a good example of the less commonly seen reverse, where a British paper (Daily Mail) has an story both interesting enough to warrant reporting and controversial enough that US media is uncomfortable relaying all details to their readers. Normally what happens with this is that a mainstream respectable publication will find an angle which makes this sort of gossip fair game to discuss, at which point a respectability cascade occurs and all outlets publish all gory details they can find. Perhaps abortion policy will be the angle that allows this.
The truth by definition can never be libel. The British tabloids don't have to make up stuff because the truth is already so interesting.
American newspapers are politicized to the extent that they will not publish interesting but true stuff because if it doesn't help the Democrats. The Washington Post has a double digit decline in readership and lost $77 million last year. If it broke the Emhoff scandal it would have made some money. But they are partisan; they are more interested in helping the Democrats than in being interesting.
NC's fat black Republican Lt Gov., running for Gov against the Jewish state AG, has been hit for a while about his strong anti-a stance (we now have a 12 week law)--"Keep your skirt down." The ads leave out "or your pants up." Friday, he started running ads about his wife's abortion 30 years ago, before they married, but it was apparently his child. I can't find a neutral article about it, for some reason.
For months, the AG has been running ads touting clearing the backlog of rape kit processing by the State--THREE years after he took office, which a counter-ad points out. Our current governor was the State AG who finally ended the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, when he could no longer avoid offending Durham voters.
You sound mad, bro. You mad, bro? Hey bro, maybe you should move back to New Jersey, bro. Bro, was New Jersey that bad, bro?
How about the pizza, right? You’re not running *away* from scary, fat, black Republicans, you’re running *back* to delicious pizza bro!
Safe travels.
He's fat and he's black, and I'll happily vote for him. We've had a Dem governor for 8 years, thanks to an early skirmish of World War T.
All my ancestors were in NC or southern VA before the Revolution.
> The NYT’s 10 million paying subscribers don’t read the NYT because it’s interesting
You could leave off the last three words and that statement would still be true
Make that the last 5 words
Doug Emhoff seems to be Andrew Meyer from Veep made flesh.
The nanny who may have had an abortion looks very sad in photos, but abortion has hardly enabled male behavior that did not previously exist. Knocking up the help is time honored rich asshole behaviour. If you read about the actual lives of infants and children from the past there were simply tons of deaths from neglect, squalid urchins, widows and orphans in freezing garrets where the widow was not so much a widow as a single mom with the only acceptable cover story. Oliver Twist did not spring wholly from Dickens’ fertile imagination. It does not get cheerier from there in the pre Victorian era.
> Well, you gotta admit that’s worth talking about.
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence
The pictures in the Daily Mail article show his daughter Ella when she looked like a normal person. This reminded me of the discourse on Twitter over the last week or so where instead of arguing against Republican policy positions directly, the left is merely referring to Trump and Vance as "weird".
The right has correctly pointed out that judging by the appearance of Ella Emhoff and various other leftists, to call Trump and Vance weird is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The left's counter response to that is pretty much to say that it's ok when we're weird, but it's not ok when you're weird. It shouldn't surprise anyone on this blog that the left's argument devolves into feelings and double standards rather than anything objective, as to be a leftist is to not have objective standards being applied to you.
One nasty thing or another. What difference, at this point, does it make?
Kamala and Emhoff could have kidnapped the nanny, hoiked the offending tot out with fireplace tongs and barbecued it. The Ork hoard wouldn’t bat an eye.
There is one thing that leaves a mark on Harris; her one job; Border Czar.
If someone, say Elon Musk wanted to have some fun, he could dedicate next year’s Halloween costume budget to running video of millions of GuataMexiDorians marching across the border, interspersed with reports of the murders and rapes they’ve been committing 24/7.
I will admit to mixed feelings about abortion. I oppose it if for no other reason than the supporters of a woman's right to kill her unborn child are all pretty careful to get themselves born first. On the other hand, it's a much cheaper and quicker way to deal with a "problem" pregnancy than adoption and much cheaper than choosing to raise the child. I think my biggest issue with abortion on demand is its effects on the living. Not only is human life devalued to an inconvenient clump of cells as if it were a tumor but the relations between the sexes have cratered as well. The worst aspect of men in male-female interaction is their tendency towards irresponsible promiscuity and the worst aspect of women is their tendency to convince themselves that whoever they are having sex with is worth having for a mate long-term. Abortion has allowed both of these tendencies to increase considerably in both sexes to the detriment of the society they share.
Good points.
What do you think about the last two years after Dobbs? If your theory were true, why didn't banning abortion in all those states have any impact on the so-called "irresponsible promiscuity" in those areas?
Two years as opposed to almost two generations? And abortion on demand is still available to most of those that want it. I haven't heard of any state banning the practice completely. I personally don't believe that 12-16 week limits have ANY effect on the culture at large when the Abortion-Industrial tries to make people believe that late-term abortions are too rare to even count.
"I haven't heard of any state banning the practice completely. I personally don't believe that 12-16 week limits have ANY effect on the culture at large when the Abortion-Industrial tries to make people believe that late-term abortions are too rare to even count."
Many states ban it from the moment of conception and only have exceptions for the life of the mother. How could you not have heard about that?
"Many states ban it" Really? Please name two. And an exception for the health of the mother is not a ban especially if the mother's mental health is a consideration.
who gives a hoot? This pales in comparison to the orange turd.
“My impression is that the median American voter finds abortion grotesque, and would like the government to derogate other people being so sloppy as to be getting abortions. On the other hand, the median voter would, now that they think about it (which they’ve been thinking about it since the Republican Supreme Court overturned Roe), like abortion to be legal just in case, God forbid, their daughter happens to get impregnated by that loser boyfriend of hers.”
Fully agree. There are people who think in binary terms on both sides: Ireland inserted a constitutional prohibition on abortion in the 1980s and France recently inserted a constitutional clause to allow it. Activists on both sides really are the worst. They can’t seem to balance the two sentiments that abortion is simultaneously both awful and necessary.
Eventually it should only come down to when and what circumstances abortion is allowed. This stuff is best done by consensus in parliamentary committees, not by judges or people with megaphones.
The pregnant nanny narrative makes it hard for me to deploy my "Homewrecker Harris" epithet.
"Why in 2014 was Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, a reasonably good-looking 50-year-old guy who was making approaching a million dollars per year as a Century City lawyer, available to marry his 50-year old coeval Kamala Harris? ..."
Okay, okay, that explains his divorce from his hot Nordid Hollywood insider super wife.
But what explains his attraction to a wrinkly old Shudra Brown-discard roundheel?
THAT is the real mystery.
There's got to be a political angle to the 2014 marriage; related to Kamala's then-rising political career.
OTOH, it could just be the PeterIke thesis (#75): https://www.unz.com/isteve/vp/#comment-6675802
As a corollary, PeterIke posits "two step daughters, one of whom is obviously an emotionally damaged wreck".
In fact it is one daughter and one son. The daughter may not be so much "an emotionally damaged wreck" as simply suffering from the cognitive dissonance of being an unattractive "model" whose absurd pretensions the modelling agencies have to humor out of fear of offending her influential parents.
In 50+ years of experience in the 'pro-life movement' (everyone who is alive, generally speaking is pro-their-life, so I guess we need this distinction) abortion is apparently driven by the desire to wipe out the memory of the (especially in the early years) unseen new human life within. Present technology appears to have affected the choices made (for the life of the child, to the better).
So, experience (all anecdotal) supports the abortion selection. Would that it were not. May God save us from ourselves.