House of Cards

By DeusExMacintosh







Stay tuned…

16 Comments

  1. Posted July 30, 2011 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Thanks I needed that, off the chair, literally.

    Can we extrapolate from the third frame that Elisabeth Murdoch inherits? Not really, but.. She’s the chip off the old block, self-made. Sorta.

    Lachlan’s mediocre and James is a technocrat. And ol’ Rupe don’t look happy. Bit late to tend to the soul old bean but have a go.

  2. Posted July 30, 2011 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Hugh Grant as morals campaigner was the highlight for me 🙂

    [email protected] Heard a great story years ago of Rupert telling one of his senior execs that he was thinking of becoming a Catholic. The exec apparently replied “come off it Rupert, you could not stand not being Pope”.

  3. Posted July 30, 2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Dear DEM, you really had her claws out this time! Love it.

  4. kvd
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Great work, again, DEM. But shouldn’t that end with “to be discontinued”?

  5. Posted July 30, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] – on Murdoch not being Pope.

    The Borgias managed it. Whereas a Borgia pope could screw mother and daughter in the same bed, Murdoch could screw both sides of politics.

    Perhaps, compared to the average Pope of all time, Murdoch would be by comparison a moral giant, his reporters less biased than Vatican TV.

  6. Posted July 30, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Just trying to get my head around the thought of Pope Rupert…

  7. Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    [email protected]: well, expertise at issuing bull? threatening to cast out, or annoint, those with temporal power? Rupe’s got pretty much all the bases covered!

  8. Posted July 31, 2011 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    Great work, again, DEM. But shouldn’t that end with “to be discontinued”?

    You wish. See Part Two… 😉

  9. Posted July 31, 2011 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    The dialogue between Hugh Grant and Max Mosley is absolutely bloody inspired. Mind you, to appreciate the joke fully, one ought to read the judgment in Mosley v News Group

  10. Posted July 31, 2011 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Heard a great story years ago of Rupert telling one of his senior execs that he was thinking of becoming a Catholic. The exec apparently replied “come off it Rupert, you could not stand not being Pope”.

    I thought he was the Pope. As the source of unquestionable moral authority he beats the Pope.

    The Pope’s like the Royal Family, kinda antique showbusiness backed up by a network of inbred evil secret-society freaks.

  11. Posted July 31, 2011 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    [email protected]

    kinda antique showbusiness backed up by a network of inbred evil secret-society freaks.

    ROFL

  12. Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    I’ve gotta admit Dame E has my sympathies … Note that one of the Murdoch daughters seems to have been both pushed away by the majority of the family somewhat, and also might even have qualities the rest (other than Dame E) lack.

    I’m guessing any ethics genes aren’t classical Mendelian x-linked recessives!

    Oh, and while we are on papal analogues … indulgences!

  13. Posted July 31, 2011 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Oh the bottom shaving. With attendant laughter. As Eady J said, seems dangerous.

    Yes, human sexuality is one of those “you really had to be there” kind of things. External scrutiny just makes it seem risible.

  14. Philip Legge
    Posted August 11, 2011 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Oh, this is marvellous (and I love the reference to the House of Cards trilogy). For those of us who haven’t read the judgement in Mosley v News Group, is there a convenient précis somewhere?

    I must thank skepticlawyer for writing a very good article on the two cultures (redux) which brought me here. However, I will pedantically point out that in picture number 4, the second text frame has the word “reponsible”. Feel free to complain that you can’t do anything worthwhile without someone coming along and nit-picking at the spelling. 🙂

  15. Posted August 11, 2011 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    Philip, I can go one better — here’s the judgment:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1777.html

    It is long, and you can skip the legalese (it’s reasonably obvious when a judge is going to engage in a lengthy discussion of precedent), but the non-legalese bits are fascinating and eye-popping in a way that, I dunno, some of the better descriptions of Roman orgies are fascinating and eye-popping…

    Paragraph 53 of the judgment will flesh out our discussion above, however.

    Do check out DEM’s sequel, too (link in comment 8). It gets better, I think.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*