There's a good chance he may have found one in the NY area around the time of this interview (Dec 2015) as there was a small resurgence of McRib with about 45% of stores serving them. But from what I've read, the McRib was only supported per franchise until inventory was used up so there would be cases where it would be on the menu but not available. This then caused many to use online blogs of McRib sightings with date and time stamps in order to utilize a social-driven database of where one can purchase a McRib. I'm doubting Mr. Kelly made any efforts after walking out of the interview to check online if NY McDonalds had McRib sightings. But I can imagine him sitting in a McDonalds high stool seating facing the city streets, eating his McRib through his lonely sobbing tears between sips of his large milkshake. At some point the future basketball playing would cross his mind, making him feel better, but down deep...he was keeping it real, McRib real.

This is coming from someone who doesn't eat meat, so I'm no expert, but when I did and porkbelly bahn mi was the shit, bacon was something I knew I'd miss, and most of McDonalds tasted good and I love the smell when I walk by, but the McRib always tasted like shit to me.

Yay! Thanks for the heads up!

Whoops actually liking Roman Polanski's movies would be a better example than Spector.

In R. Kelly's defense, this was a shitty interview from the very start.

In defense of the interviewer, that's exactly what made it work.

oz is right.

I dunno, I don't think what she did was any different from what Hannibal Burress did with Bill Cosby really. Kelly did face multiple charges, but nobody really cared and he'd just go on to sell out a show. This line of questioning, at the very least, will make fans wonder if their universal hate for Cosby isn't a little bit hypocritical when it's like "Oh that's just R Kelly being R Kelly.."

How do you figure??

How I figure is how I figure. Cosby's allegations were dismissed for years because he was Cosby. Kelly's were known by pretty much everybody but he gets a pass because his behaviour was the kind of thing that's just accepted I guess. But fucking kids is fucking kids, is fucking kids.

No, how does Anax figure that she's a terrible person, especially when she's sitting next to R Kelly?

I didn't see anything wrong with the interviewer, other than, she wasn't running her willowy, elegant hands over ears of wheat, in a open field brilliant with summer's light, only pausing to coyly look back at me to see if I was still following her, knowing that I would forever.

You're a fucking idiot if you think she did anything wrong. Go drink a cup of R Kelly's piss.

She reminds me of the plucky British news reporter in The Newsroom. I like her moxy!

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything wrong with Ms Modarressy-Tehrani. She took what would have otherwise been a vapid advertisement for a B-list celebrity's new album, and through her audacity and sheer force of will, made it into something beautiful.

I have no problem with her asking R. Kelly those questions. What I have a problem with is the weaselly way she went about it, coupled with her disingenuousness.

"Alright... so let's talk about your lyrics."

"OK... Ok... fine.... I just want to ask you about your album.

Hmmm.. special characters caused the site to eat the rest of my post. So here's that post, now with more better special characters:

"Alright... so let's talk about your lyrics."
--Proceeds to discuss the allegations against him, which are not "lyrics"--
"OK... Ok... fine.... I just want to ask you about your album.
--Proceeds to ask him about fans' reactions to the allegations against him. Just to be clear, "fan reactions to the allegations" are not "the album".--
Rinse, repeat for 10 minutes.

And of course:
"No, no, I'm not being negative. I'm just asking you questions."
Umm... questions can be positive or negative, lady. "Questions" and "Negative" are not mutually exclusive categories.


Don't get me wrong. It was fun to listen to, in the exact same way that it's fun to listen to Judge Judy's "logic" when she goes on a moralizing rant. In both cases, it's complete bullshit, but it's used against someone even more terrible than the interviewer.

You're worried about the rhetorical principles she broke while hammering on this piece of shit?

Rhetorical principles would be a thing here if we had something worthy of serious debate. Also, you've exaggerated what she's done on at least one front ("let's talk about your lyrics") in order to make your point so I guess you're a multiple-count pedophile.

"No, no, I'm not being negative. I'm just asking you questions." is her response to a bunch of pointless hand-waving that he does as if he's Mr.Sunshine, trying to spread good vibes around. Her response is her not speaking perfectly in a live interview. So what? "Postivity" vs "Negativity" had fucking nothing to do with it.

Here I'll be you for a second:
"I can't believe the police LIED to that rapist in order to catch him. Police are such lying sacks of shit, they bother me almost as much as rapists who at least don't always lie."

I generally approve of people playing the devil's advocate and making a good faith effort to both understand and to engage with a point of view that they feel unfamiliar wit - but I am not so sure you're taking your own effort here seriously, Mr That Guy.

Also, what kind of "LIES" are we talking about? Ethics is an extraordinarily important concept when we're talking about police behavior. We have laws about searches, entrapment, and proper interrogation procedures for a reason; if the police are carrying out their rape investigations in an unethical, possibly even illegal manner, then yes. Yes, the police *should* bother you almost as much as rapists...!

I didn't say "lied and swore they didn't violate the 4th amendment when they did" or "lied on the stand".

So what kind of lies are we talking about, then?

I know you're capable of imagining interrogation room lies, and I know what you're doing, EH.

What I'm "trying to do" is better understand your position, then give an honest assessment of it.

So you're talking about "interrogation room lies" - that's not a good thing! Contrary to memes propagated by police procedural shows, there are serious ethical and constitutional reasons why Americans have a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney. If police are tricking (psychologically coercing) confessions out of rape suspects while the suspects' lawyers are not present and advising them, then yes, that IS a problem. The fact that police can and will do this, leveraging the average citizen's desire to be helpful and ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, should *clearly* bother us.

Nope. Tricking suspects into thinking you have evidence on them, someone ratted on them, etc- is not a violation of someone's rights. There are other tricks that are dirty (jailhouse snitches, manufacturing evidence, forceful coercion, etc). Fooling suspects ain't dirty.

More importantly, using this tv interview to fuck with R Kelly is the right thing to do.

Just for the record I do not advocate an adult having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl even if she is a total slut

Rape is equatable to rape, yeah.

No, they're definitely not the same. My ex wife and I used to like to troll the Wisconsin Sex Offender list, since it's all public. One night he just went white because some guy living right above her was on there for sex with a minor, and I'd see him almost every day! Always seemed like a cool guy, carrying his bike up and down the stairs. I'm assuming that he was 18 and she was probably 16 or 17, something like that and not a little kid. Not defending him but most of us probably lost our virginity before 18, but that's all I think about now when I think about that guy.

But with Kelly it's different: imagine you're at a bar and it's full of underage girls and boys with fake IDs so they could get in. You might fuck up if you're drunk and take one of them home with you. If you're caught you made a big mistake, or if you were me you'd be more cautious in the future. Kelly continued to facilitate this well after it was known that he'd done this before.

What was perfectly acceptable in my country would have been rape over here in the USA. True story.

Coercive rape and statutory rape are not equatable, no. Had R Kelly been up to his mischief whilst living in a different country, or at any point in human history prior to the late Victorian era, society would have had no problems with what he did.

R Kelly definitely got off light thanks to the privilege his wealth brings him, and America is doubtlessly hypocritical about the way it treats Kelly versus the way it would treat an avowed creeper like my good friend Mr Oddeye. But the Cosby allegations - if true - are indisputably worse!

Clarification - society *might* have had problems (and he might have even been lynched), but the controversy would have been over race-mixing, or his disgusting, unnatural pee fetish.

Yeah, but only barely at this point. It's a pretty foggy memory but didn't he say that they weren't going to have sex and he was just doing it to boost her career? God, that was also the era of the countdown clocks for Britney Spears and The Olsen Twins to turn 18. I really miss nothing about those days.

I just remember that he claimed she wasn't underage at the time despite the fact that aging is a pretty predictable thing and everyone is able to do simple math.

Him and half of the classic rock vanguard.


He really takes it to another level, though.

A-Yup. Celebrities get away with this way, way too much.
At the very least, you'd think he'd be smart enough to stop fucking filming himself.

He gets away with the fucking cops looking at pictures of him litterally raping kids, why would he ever stop filming now?

Being urinated on usually is.