36 year-old grandmother vapes, feels up Democrat Shanah Tova! Russell Brand, who Moynihan wrote about in 2014, is accused of rape They are coming after the truth tellers, maaaaaannnnnn Revisiting Hunter’s indictment Breaking: Biden is confused and sleepy
Pony soldier is a Tyrone Powell movie from 1952 not a John Wayne movie in which members of the Royal Canadian police (mounties) are called pony soldiers. The actual line spoken in the movie is, "The pony soldier speaks with a tongue of the snake that rattles",
There is a spoken line, a voice-over, in the John Wayne movie She Wore A Yellow Ribbon (1949) that uses the term "dog-faced soldiers". He probably confused the two since he is 800 years old and crazy as a loon.
The information in this post was partially plagiarized in honor of the Big Guy himself.
Fun fact, when these films were released, Joe Biden was 10 and 7 years respectively. Though I'm not an expert, these seem like the absolute best years of one's life to watch westerns. Makes sense that he would remember those lines: he probably repeated them thousands of times running around Scranton playing cowboys and Indians with the other boys who have now been eligible to collect social security for two decades.
You should write into Commentary and tell them all of this--I think it's been driving JPod crazy not knowing where the dog-faced pony soldiers come from.
I do not listen to them (yet), so I give you permission to plagirize my comment and send their way. I'm a dog faced pony soldier evangelical/truther. When you know, you know.
Moynihan has mentioned a couple of times that he doesn’t read comments / feedback / Twitter as he’s rather sensitive about it. I assume that’s somewhat of an exaggeration, but it would explain why he rarely enters the comment section.
Sep 17, 2023·edited Sep 17, 2023Liked by Matt Welch
Throat clear - never watched a single Russel Brand movie, never read a thing he wrote, watched maybe 10 mins of a couple YouTube videos. I am generally repulsed by dumb, vulgar, narassistic assholes, who brag about having a Wilt Chamberlain level body count. Smart, narassistic assholes at least get NDA's.
The allegations about Brand are well researched and run the gambit from "controlling boy-friend" to "rapist". The former is a Yelp review the latter is an uncharged crime.
Regardless of a highly respected journalist swearing to MM the stories are100% true, there have been no criminal charges against Brand and NO due process.
If being a repugnant, dumb, mentally unstable, sex-seeking public person, was illegal there would be no entertainment, professional sports, literature, or music (except from Tata and Bey).
The allegations against Brand are horrific. But ALL allegations of sexual misconduct/assault require examination in an objective criminal court process before they can be accepted as true. It is not sufficient to merely make the allegations in the media. Perhaps we will see criminal charges, perhaps we will see due process take place, but until then one cannot say with any certainty that Brand has committed any sexual crimes.
Having watched the documentary, and read the first Sunday Times article (there's more to come), I'm pretty certain he did these things. "Innocent until proven guilty" only exists in terms of the law; I'm free to decide what I think based on the available evidence.
I think you think this is an argument in favor of Brand’s culpability, but it really works better as an argument in favor of voir dire and deliberate jury selection. If you think “documentary films and newspaper stories” are standards of evidence, then my name is Duke Lacrosse and I’d like you to meet my friend Steven Avery.
It literally *is* about Brand's culpability. Russell Brand is currently a free man, but I believe him to be guilty because a robust newspaper and TV investigation has provided me with compelling evidence. This guy doesn't believe it because he doesn't want to believe it, and won't say what would convince him. I'm literally talking about specifics, he's talking about abstract concepts, which is all well and good, but sort of falls down if you won't believe any evidence that has been presented.
The SR-71 "Blackbird" is a long-range, high altitude reconnaissance aircraft that entered service in 1966. the Blackbird could fly at Mach 3.2 (2,400 mph) at an altitude of 85,000 feet and could evade surface-to-air missiles by simply...going fast. The temperature of the exterior windscreen could reach 600 degrees Fahrenheit during a mission.
The Blackbird was used extensively in Vietnam and Laos, as well as in Sweden and Norway. So far as I've been able to determine from skimming a Wikipedia page, this plane was not known for its flying above Cuban airstrips.
Other fun facts: the SR-71 holds the speed record for flight over a recognized course, having flown from NYC to London in 1:54. The plane is estimated to cost $85,000 an hour to run, and can only be flown once a week.
Fun "fact": It's entirely possible that this plane was designed in part by Matt Welch's father, as he was some sort of plane engineer and lived north of LA near Palmsdale, California where the plane was designed.
Dude, we *all* know this - we don't need you to Blackbird-splain to us. The SR-71 is like, the Beatles of ultra high-altitude supersonic surveillance jets.
(I'm being facetious of course; I love this stuff and had no idea about the Welchian connection! That's really cool.)
I chose the SR-71 because it was in Neil's profile pic, or at least as far as I could tell. And even though there might not be a lot of public record of its flying above Cuban airstrips...well, isn't that just a sign that it was doing its job well?!
You're probably right, but at least I'm not a cunt using "omg, innocent until proven guilty" to defend a conspiracy crank rapist, so I've got that going for me.
You're seeing one side of the argument. You can make anybody look guilty when only one side is presented because often circumstances are unknown or even intentionally left out. Evidence can be faked or manufactured convincingly, human recollection is very fickle, and witnesses are not nearly as reliable as people believe they are. This is why prosecutions are so successful among grand juries. Personally, I'll be reserving my judgement until we learn more.
I watched a 90 minute documentary and read an extensive investigation in a newspaper, both of which are the result of a four years of work, in a country where libel laws are notoriously strict (libel tourism is literally a thing here). Four women, on two different continents, have accused Brand of sexual assault or rape. The documentary and newspaper article both contained text messages sent by Brand. When offered right of reply, his lawyers said there was evidence that contradicted these claims, but declined to provide it.
I'd be interested to know what evidence you'd like to see, beyond that which has already been set out, that would convince you Brand is innocent.
Why do you trust anything presented in the documentary? You saw the evidence as presented, who vetted that evidence? Why do you trust them? Do you believe the media has never run a smear compaign before? Why do you believe the women? Do you not believe they could have been incentivized to give testimony?
I'm just telling you that I've seen many, many cases that seem completely open and shut until it goes to a court of law and then you realize how much was left out of the narrative.
I actually don't even like Russell Brand, I find him to be an annoying, long-winded blow-hard with nothing particularly insightful to say. I'm not opposed to him being guilty, I think it sounds like he very well could be, I just have the same standard for everyone when it comes to these things. I don't implicitly trust a one-sided representation of the facts and the media has not been and will never be objective with these types of things.
Again, due to Britain's ridiculous libel laws, these claims will have been vetted by, at a minimum, the legal teams from Channel Four and The Sunday Times. If you have any record of Dispatches and The Sunday Times smearing someone jointly like this previously, please let me. Quite why they'd choose now to do it, not in 2008, when at least one senior BBC executive lost their job over something that happened on his radio show, or in 2015, when Brand was guest editing a serious magazine and courted by an alledgedly serious politician, I don't know.
For someone who doesn't like him, you seem very keen on beclowning yourself in his defence.
"Vetted by a legal team" just means they have believe they meet a certain standard where it's going to be difficult to sue them as a media outlet. I know that Britain has strict libel laws, it doesn't mean I trust everything presented by British media implicitly. Like I said, my policy is my policy with these types of things. I don't implicitly trust any media outlet, and I don't know or trust anyone involved. So, my default position is to reserve judgement. If reserving judgement is "beclowning myself", then so be it.
Moving on to a more amusing subject, dude was drunk and high for a decade?
I am guessing with a 4 figure body count, the over/under on how much dick slipped in (not that there is anything wrong with that) has to be at least 25.
I mean, he might have thought it was a finger, butt....
I streamed the podcast through my hearing aids, which most people don't notice on me. I don't recall what my paid subscription level cost is, but it was worth every penny for forcing me to literally face a display of old, discounted baked goods in the far corner of a small grocery store, laughing so hard I'm crying.
IDK if Brand is guilty but I believe in due process so it’s up to the accusers to prove it. I dislike this thing on social media where VERY SMART PEOPLE decide they are judge, jury and executioner based on some news stories. Maybe it’s all true, but I’m skeptical of any news org based on the last 5-6 years
I immediately fade any accusation, criticism, etc. that revolves around how "dumb" the accused is. "Dumb" is dumb shorthand for "I disagree with." Moynihan does this a lot and it is annoying as fuck.
In a tidal wave of hot takes on the Russell Brand story, here is former Fifth guest Brendan O'Neill making the only point (albeit an obvious one) worth making at this stage...
I see that Kmele is back in Marin County. I don't know if Kmele ever reads these boards, but I could go on at length about Marin, having grown up around Mill Valley and Sausalito (though I'm now an Oaklander - Marin was too just expensive once I let go of my house there). If Kmele ever wants any local tips or backstory about Marin history and culture, it's a subject I know back and forth.
I was just there today, as a matter of fact. Went shopping at the Marin Farmer's Market, which is truly one of the best in the Bay Area. Then had lunch at Sol Food, Marin-style Puerto Rican food, basically, and is actually pretty fantastic. Then a chill afternoon in San Anselmo where I watched a bit of summertime Shakespeare in the park in some perfect weather. It's a very nice place, all in all, especially if you have money enough that the cost of living there isn't too punishing.
Marin had its 15 minutes of fame in the larger American culture in the late 70s as the symbol of all things new-agey and hedonic. Cyra McFadden's book "The Serial" captures that era well. (It was also made into a really bad Martin Mull film.) There's also the notoriously sensationalist documentary "I Want It All Now" about Marin which is worth watching for 70s kitsch value, if nothing else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFpMoEttjvA
As someone who grew up in public housing, 36 is amateur hour. I have known families where the grandma is 29 and she already has 3 grandkids.
We used to call them “little families”, when you see the two HS dropouts walking down the street with their three brats who will probably all end up in prison or as Walmart clerks.
Her new podcast is called On My Mind and it’s a weekly show instead of daily. DR got me into podcasts so if there’s any slander (haven’t listened yet) we ride at dawn!
I haven't kept up. I would have thought she'd have hung up her spurs by now, but who knows. Just the thought of a conversation between those two is amazing.
Russell Brand screams post-drug-use effects mixed with an overflow of money. His discussions about how now that he's sober he really "gets it" are right up there with the "now that I've found Jesus" narrative. Literally nothing surprising about these allegations.
FWIW, this is the ONLY podcast or substack I give my money to.
Pony soldier is a Tyrone Powell movie from 1952 not a John Wayne movie in which members of the Royal Canadian police (mounties) are called pony soldiers. The actual line spoken in the movie is, "The pony soldier speaks with a tongue of the snake that rattles",
There is a spoken line, a voice-over, in the John Wayne movie She Wore A Yellow Ribbon (1949) that uses the term "dog-faced soldiers". He probably confused the two since he is 800 years old and crazy as a loon.
The information in this post was partially plagiarized in honor of the Big Guy himself.
Fun fact, when these films were released, Joe Biden was 10 and 7 years respectively. Though I'm not an expert, these seem like the absolute best years of one's life to watch westerns. Makes sense that he would remember those lines: he probably repeated them thousands of times running around Scranton playing cowboys and Indians with the other boys who have now been eligible to collect social security for two decades.
You should write into Commentary and tell them all of this--I think it's been driving JPod crazy not knowing where the dog-faced pony soldiers come from.
I do not listen to them (yet), so I give you permission to plagirize my comment and send their way. I'm a dog faced pony soldier evangelical/truther. When you know, you know.
Of course you knew that! Awesome TNB!
How come Matt seems to be the only one who reads and "likes" comments?
I once got a like off Kmele and a comment from Michael. TFC equivalent of Wonka's golden ticket.
I’ve been working my way back through all the old patreon episodes and have come to the conclusion Matt is my favorite
The other two don't love us.
Exactly. Hell, we're all giving them $10 bucks per month... 10 BUCKS!
MM only responds to negging. Kmele only responds to n*gging.
I'm not sure Moynihan knows how to use a computer.
Moynihan has mentioned a couple of times that he doesn’t read comments / feedback / Twitter as he’s rather sensitive about it. I assume that’s somewhat of an exaggeration, but it would explain why he rarely enters the comment section.
I assume Kmele is too busy for such nonsense.
Then they're not earning our 10 BUCKS!
Why isn’t there a: “Not liked by Matt Welch”. Is it because he likes certain comments and is indifferent to all the others? He must not like some.
Throat clear - never watched a single Russel Brand movie, never read a thing he wrote, watched maybe 10 mins of a couple YouTube videos. I am generally repulsed by dumb, vulgar, narassistic assholes, who brag about having a Wilt Chamberlain level body count. Smart, narassistic assholes at least get NDA's.
The allegations about Brand are well researched and run the gambit from "controlling boy-friend" to "rapist". The former is a Yelp review the latter is an uncharged crime.
Regardless of a highly respected journalist swearing to MM the stories are100% true, there have been no criminal charges against Brand and NO due process.
If being a repugnant, dumb, mentally unstable, sex-seeking public person, was illegal there would be no entertainment, professional sports, literature, or music (except from Tata and Bey).
The allegations against Brand are horrific. But ALL allegations of sexual misconduct/assault require examination in an objective criminal court process before they can be accepted as true. It is not sufficient to merely make the allegations in the media. Perhaps we will see criminal charges, perhaps we will see due process take place, but until then one cannot say with any certainty that Brand has committed any sexual crimes.
Having watched the documentary, and read the first Sunday Times article (there's more to come), I'm pretty certain he did these things. "Innocent until proven guilty" only exists in terms of the law; I'm free to decide what I think based on the available evidence.
I think you think this is an argument in favor of Brand’s culpability, but it really works better as an argument in favor of voir dire and deliberate jury selection. If you think “documentary films and newspaper stories” are standards of evidence, then my name is Duke Lacrosse and I’d like you to meet my friend Steven Avery.
It literally *is* about Brand's culpability. Russell Brand is currently a free man, but I believe him to be guilty because a robust newspaper and TV investigation has provided me with compelling evidence. This guy doesn't believe it because he doesn't want to believe it, and won't say what would convince him. I'm literally talking about specifics, he's talking about abstract concepts, which is all well and good, but sort of falls down if you won't believe any evidence that has been presented.
My point is sailing miles and miles over your head, like an SR-71 above a hastily constructed Cuban airstrip.
Learning break!! 🥸
The SR-71 "Blackbird" is a long-range, high altitude reconnaissance aircraft that entered service in 1966. the Blackbird could fly at Mach 3.2 (2,400 mph) at an altitude of 85,000 feet and could evade surface-to-air missiles by simply...going fast. The temperature of the exterior windscreen could reach 600 degrees Fahrenheit during a mission.
The Blackbird was used extensively in Vietnam and Laos, as well as in Sweden and Norway. So far as I've been able to determine from skimming a Wikipedia page, this plane was not known for its flying above Cuban airstrips.
Other fun facts: the SR-71 holds the speed record for flight over a recognized course, having flown from NYC to London in 1:54. The plane is estimated to cost $85,000 an hour to run, and can only be flown once a week.
Fun "fact": It's entirely possible that this plane was designed in part by Matt Welch's father, as he was some sort of plane engineer and lived north of LA near Palmsdale, California where the plane was designed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
Dude, we *all* know this - we don't need you to Blackbird-splain to us. The SR-71 is like, the Beatles of ultra high-altitude supersonic surveillance jets.
(I'm being facetious of course; I love this stuff and had no idea about the Welchian connection! That's really cool.)
I chose the SR-71 because it was in Neil's profile pic, or at least as far as I could tell. And even though there might not be a lot of public record of its flying above Cuban airstrips...well, isn't that just a sign that it was doing its job well?!
You're probably right, but at least I'm not a cunt using "omg, innocent until proven guilty" to defend a conspiracy crank rapist, so I've got that going for me.
The right to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty is not just Russell Brand's right; those are *your* rights too. Shape rotation's hard, I know.
You're seeing one side of the argument. You can make anybody look guilty when only one side is presented because often circumstances are unknown or even intentionally left out. Evidence can be faked or manufactured convincingly, human recollection is very fickle, and witnesses are not nearly as reliable as people believe they are. This is why prosecutions are so successful among grand juries. Personally, I'll be reserving my judgement until we learn more.
I watched a 90 minute documentary and read an extensive investigation in a newspaper, both of which are the result of a four years of work, in a country where libel laws are notoriously strict (libel tourism is literally a thing here). Four women, on two different continents, have accused Brand of sexual assault or rape. The documentary and newspaper article both contained text messages sent by Brand. When offered right of reply, his lawyers said there was evidence that contradicted these claims, but declined to provide it.
I'd be interested to know what evidence you'd like to see, beyond that which has already been set out, that would convince you Brand is innocent.
Why do you trust anything presented in the documentary? You saw the evidence as presented, who vetted that evidence? Why do you trust them? Do you believe the media has never run a smear compaign before? Why do you believe the women? Do you not believe they could have been incentivized to give testimony?
I'm just telling you that I've seen many, many cases that seem completely open and shut until it goes to a court of law and then you realize how much was left out of the narrative.
I actually don't even like Russell Brand, I find him to be an annoying, long-winded blow-hard with nothing particularly insightful to say. I'm not opposed to him being guilty, I think it sounds like he very well could be, I just have the same standard for everyone when it comes to these things. I don't implicitly trust a one-sided representation of the facts and the media has not been and will never be objective with these types of things.
Again, due to Britain's ridiculous libel laws, these claims will have been vetted by, at a minimum, the legal teams from Channel Four and The Sunday Times. If you have any record of Dispatches and The Sunday Times smearing someone jointly like this previously, please let me. Quite why they'd choose now to do it, not in 2008, when at least one senior BBC executive lost their job over something that happened on his radio show, or in 2015, when Brand was guest editing a serious magazine and courted by an alledgedly serious politician, I don't know.
For someone who doesn't like him, you seem very keen on beclowning yourself in his defence.
"Vetted by a legal team" just means they have believe they meet a certain standard where it's going to be difficult to sue them as a media outlet. I know that Britain has strict libel laws, it doesn't mean I trust everything presented by British media implicitly. Like I said, my policy is my policy with these types of things. I don't implicitly trust any media outlet, and I don't know or trust anyone involved. So, my default position is to reserve judgement. If reserving judgement is "beclowning myself", then so be it.
Moving on to a more amusing subject, dude was drunk and high for a decade?
I am guessing with a 4 figure body count, the over/under on how much dick slipped in (not that there is anything wrong with that) has to be at least 25.
I mean, he might have thought it was a finger, butt....
I streamed the podcast through my hearing aids, which most people don't notice on me. I don't recall what my paid subscription level cost is, but it was worth every penny for forcing me to literally face a display of old, discounted baked goods in the far corner of a small grocery store, laughing so hard I'm crying.
It's always such a good idea to listen while grocery shopping. The boys liven up the most mundane activities in my view.
Well I didn’t make it to church today but this was some A+ Sunday morning content. Plus I do tithe to you guys, so it’s kinda the same thing.
Sounds to me that you did make it to church if you caught the good word of the 5th
Our comrades, who art on Substack,
hallowed be thy names;
thy content come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our (almost) weekly pod .
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we jest at those who trespass against us.
And lead us all into temptation;
but deliver us from the rage.
For thine is the kingdom,
of columns five,
for ever and ever. Amen.
You may now consume a non-ethnically specific cracker and Flavor Aid.
Hosana. Pass the Christ cookie and wine.
Amen
They are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of podcasting.
IDK if Brand is guilty but I believe in due process so it’s up to the accusers to prove it. I dislike this thing on social media where VERY SMART PEOPLE decide they are judge, jury and executioner based on some news stories. Maybe it’s all true, but I’m skeptical of any news org based on the last 5-6 years
I immediately fade any accusation, criticism, etc. that revolves around how "dumb" the accused is. "Dumb" is dumb shorthand for "I disagree with." Moynihan does this a lot and it is annoying as fuck.
I have watched some of his stuff, it's ok, I don't think I would call it dumb but I am pretty sure Michael has never watched any of it either.
In a tidal wave of hot takes on the Russell Brand story, here is former Fifth guest Brendan O'Neill making the only point (albeit an obvious one) worth making at this stage...
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/17/russell-brand-and-the-crisis-of-scepticism/
Great article! Thanks heaps.
Excellent link, thanks for sharing!
I see that Kmele is back in Marin County. I don't know if Kmele ever reads these boards, but I could go on at length about Marin, having grown up around Mill Valley and Sausalito (though I'm now an Oaklander - Marin was too just expensive once I let go of my house there). If Kmele ever wants any local tips or backstory about Marin history and culture, it's a subject I know back and forth.
I was just there today, as a matter of fact. Went shopping at the Marin Farmer's Market, which is truly one of the best in the Bay Area. Then had lunch at Sol Food, Marin-style Puerto Rican food, basically, and is actually pretty fantastic. Then a chill afternoon in San Anselmo where I watched a bit of summertime Shakespeare in the park in some perfect weather. It's a very nice place, all in all, especially if you have money enough that the cost of living there isn't too punishing.
Marin had its 15 minutes of fame in the larger American culture in the late 70s as the symbol of all things new-agey and hedonic. Cyra McFadden's book "The Serial" captures that era well. (It was also made into a really bad Martin Mull film.) There's also the notoriously sensationalist documentary "I Want It All Now" about Marin which is worth watching for 70s kitsch value, if nothing else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFpMoEttjvA
We should lobby for a Bay Area FC meetup.
Moynihan, I’m much better looking than Boebertjuice.
I’m ten minutes into this podcast and it’s wonderfully off the rails... 😂.
“Public service” 💀
Im at the 10 minute mark now, and wanted to say I would have been satisfied if it ended there. Lol
You guys are absolutely out of control and I love it. Thanks for getting me through cooking dinner.
Also, I had a barely 40 year old Grandma, I didn’t realize they could come any younger, dang.
As someone who grew up in public housing, 36 is amateur hour. I have known families where the grandma is 29 and she already has 3 grandkids.
We used to call them “little families”, when you see the two HS dropouts walking down the street with their three brats who will probably all end up in prison or as Walmart clerks.
So Lauren Boebert CAN multi-task...
Diane Rehm and RFK Jr. Holy shit.
She’s not on NPR anymore. Does she do her own thing?
Her new podcast is called On My Mind and it’s a weekly show instead of daily. DR got me into podcasts so if there’s any slander (haven’t listened yet) we ride at dawn!
I haven't kept up. I would have thought she'd have hung up her spurs by now, but who knows. Just the thought of a conversation between those two is amazing.
Very funny episode. I will never see Biden walk off the stage again without hearing the Benny Hill music thanks to Moynihan.
Russell Brand screams post-drug-use effects mixed with an overflow of money. His discussions about how now that he's sober he really "gets it" are right up there with the "now that I've found Jesus" narrative. Literally nothing surprising about these allegations.
FWIW, this is the ONLY podcast or substack I give my money to.
Best episode! And that mezuzah nonsense was a whole mess. The Jews were definitely texting each other.