Eddie Albert being in his late forties when he made Roman Holiday is the precise inverse of all of those “look at these middle-aged-ass teenagers from the olden days” threads.
Also, apparently the guy who played the barber was fucking the pope? Like, in real life?
(He wasn’t the pope yet, to be clear. But the actor who played the barber who cut all of Audrey Hepburn’s hair off was apparently in a long term relationship with the Archbishop of Milan, who went on to become Pope Paul VI.)
He was super charming, by the way. You can definitely see why the pope was fucking him.
I regret to inform you that the princess did not get to fuck Gregory Peck. Four stars.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This entire thread is bullshit, but this tweet in particular is specifically bullshit. When I donate to a campaign, I'm giving money not just to win a specific election, but to build power for progressive politics more generally. And paying staffers well is a part of doing that.
I donated to the Democratic candidate for the US Senate in IDAHO last cycle. Why? Because I wanted to support grassroots progressive politics in the state where my grandfather was a progressive activist. (Also she had a cool tee shirt. But mostly the other thing.)
I was adding my drop to the bucket so she could hire good staff and pay union vendors and distribute lit and provide opportunities for young volunteers. And I don't think I'm all that unusual for having done so.
Everyone's dunking on Nate Silver today, but I'm not seeing a lot of people flagging his claim that when "one side" of a FACTUAL DISPUTE "is excessively concerned with policing the discourse…that side is more likely than not to be wrong."
I mean, let's start with how he puts his thumb on the scale with "excessively." Is "policing the discourse" evidence that you're in the wrong in a factual dispute? No, because of one side of the dispute is obviously incorrect, they're going to get yelled at more.
So the "excessively" isn't a rhetorical flourish. It's central to his argument. But how can "excessively policing the discourse" be measured? What does it refer to, other than someone's gut feeling that one group of people are yelling at another group of people for bad reasons?
The whole lab-leak controversy strikes me, more than anything else, as a reflection of the corrosive effects of Trumpism.
When Trump and his cronies said something—anything—that was at odds with what was broadly understood to be true, to treat it as presumptively false was treated as not just wise, but necessary. And that was the right approach, broadly!
Tom Cotton was happy to insinuate that Covid was a Chinese bioweapon, and we've all spent five years learning that to respond to such bullshit with a textured, nuanced, ambiguous rebuttal is to saunter into a trap.
"It's an eyesore!"
"It's going to cast our neighborhood into shadow!"
"It's a playground for rich people!"
"It's going to make the subways more crowded!"
Dude, do you even go here?
I fucking LOVE the stupid giant spindly rich-people apartment buildings they keep putting up at the south end of Central Park. Love love love them. They make me feel like I'm living in a sci-fi movie about New York City in the 21st century. They're great.
Some folks (just a few, and no journalists, but still) have asked how I see the ethics of sharing those DMs from Chris Cuomo that I tweeted yesterday. A couple thoughts on that.
I've always believed that emails and DMs should generally be treated as presumptively private, ethically. But that's a heuristic, not a rule, and there are exceptions.
In this case, the DMs were (1) unsolicited, (2) menacing, and (3) from a powerful, prominent public figure. They contained no personal or private information, and I neither violated confidences nor took advantage of a power disparity by posting the screenshots.