Academy Awards Condemns Will Smith and Begins Formal Review (VIDEO)

This is the obligatory Will Smith Slaps Chris Rock at the Academy Awards Show post. 

I can't add much to all the commentary that's already been delivered, and I'm sure there's more to come. 

I wrote this last night after Will Smith accepted his Best Actor award for "King Richard," in which he invoked God in his apology, but *did not* apologize to Chris Rock at the time: "'I’m being called on in my life to love people and to protect people and to be a river to my people' — Will Smith, accepting his Academy Award after striking fellow brother Chris Rock across the face. God called on him to do that, you know."

Smith's assault on Rock has dominated the 24 hour news-cycles, and my continue to dominate for a few more days. Both astonishing and reprehensible behavior. 

At the New York Times, "Will Smith Apologizes to Chris Rock After Academy Condemns His Slap:"

“I was out of line and I was wrong,” said Smith, who hit Rock at the Oscars after the comedian made a joke about his wife. The film organization opened an inquiry into the incident.

LOS ANGELES — Will Smith apologized to the comedian Chris Rock on Monday evening for slapping him during Sunday night’s Oscars telecast after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which administers the awards, denounced his actions and opened an inquiry into the incident.

Mr. Smith, who had pointedly not apologized to Mr. Rock on Sunday night when he accepted the award for best actor, wrote on Instagram Monday evening that “I would like to publicly apologize to you, Chris.”

“I was out of line and I was wrong,” he said in the statement. “I am embarrassed and my actions were not indicative of the man I want to be.”

His apology came as the academy, a major Hollywood union and others criticized his actions, which stunned viewers around the world and overshadowed the Oscars.

“The academy condemns the actions of Mr. Smith at last night’s show,” the film organization said in a statement. “We have officially started a formal review around the incident and will explore further action and consequences in accordance with our bylaws, standards of conduct and California law.”

The academy’s statement came after a meeting Monday. A five-page document on standards of conduct that accompanied it spells out behavior the organization deems unacceptable. It prohibits “physical contact that is uninvited and, in the situation, inappropriate and unwelcome, or coercive sexual attention.” Also not allowed is “intimidation, stalking, abusive or threatening behavior, or bullying.”

Disciplinary action, according to the bylaws, could include “suspension of membership or expulsion from membership.”

The Academy was not known to have expelled a member before 2017, when Harvey Weinstein was removed amid allegations of sexual harassment and rape. Then, in 2018, after adopting a code of conduct for members, the organization expelled Bill Cosby, who had been convicted of sexual assault, and the filmmaker Roman Polanski, who had fled the country years earlier while awaiting sentencing for statutory rape.

The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the union representing thousands of people who work in film, television and radio, called the incident “unacceptable” but said that it “does not comment on any pending member disciplinary process.” “Violence or physical abuse in the workplace is never appropriate and the union condemns any such conduct,” the union said in a statement Monday. “The incident involving Will Smith and Chris Rock at last night’s Academy Awards was unacceptable.”

The incident unfolded Sunday night after Mr. Rock made a joke about the buzzed hair of Mr. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, who has alopecia, a condition that leads to hair loss. Mr. Smith responded by walking onto the stage of the Dolby Theater and slapping Mr. Rock, leaving stunned viewers wondering at first if the blow might have been scripted until Mr. Smith returned to his seat and warned him to stop talking about his wife, using expletives.

Behind the scenes at the Oscars, there were serious discussions about removing Mr. Smith from the theater, according to two industry officials with knowledge of the situation who were granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations. But time was short, because the best actor award, which Mr. Smith was heavily favored to win, was fast approaching, one noted — and stakeholders had varying opinions on how to proceed. There was also concern about further disrupting the live broadcast, the other said.

As the show went on, the actor Denzel Washington spoke with Mr. Smith during a commercial break. Not long after that Mr. Smith won best actor. (Mr. Smith said in his speech that Mr. Washington had told him: “At your highest moment, be careful. That’s when the devil comes for you.”) In his onstage remarks, Mr. Smith apologized to the academy and to his fellow nominees — but not to Mr. Rock — and defiantly sought to draw parallels to the character he played in “King Richard,” the father of Venus and Serena Williams.

“Richard Williams was a fierce defender of his family,” Mr. Smith said. 

He received a standing ovation.

American society is completely (and perhaps irrevocably) degenerate.  

See Allahpundit for lots more, "No, Will Smith isn't going to lose his Oscar."

Local CBS Station Chiefs Ousted

There are 28 CBS-owned local stations across the U.S. 

Heads rolled in Chicago and Los Angeles (and New York too). 

At LAT, "CBS ousts L.A., Chicago station managers after misconduct probe":

CBS’ stations in Los Angeles have been beset by turnover for years. Current and former employees have long complained about the harsh workplace culture, which they allege has been rife with sexual harassment, favoritism, pay discrimination and ageism.

In the last five years, KCBS has been led by two general managers and three news directors. Last year, Howell navigated the L.A. stations through at least two rounds of corporately mandated staff cuts, resulting in the departures of high-profile anchors Jeff Michael and Sandra Mitchell and meteorologist Garth Kemp.

Workplace complaints have festered for years. In 2018, CBS paid a settlement to former KCAL anchor Leyna Nguyen after she complained to KCBS management about inappropriate comments and unwanted touching by a male colleague, according to several people familiar with the matter.

In separate high-profile incident, described in a 2019 story in The Times, popular sports anchor Jill Arrington was denied a salary increase after she learned she was making $60,000 a year less than her male predecessor.

Then-station manager Steve Mauldin allegedly told Arrington in 2018 to “put on a tennis dress.... We’ll put you on tape, and you can make some extra money.” Mauldin denied making the remark.

Mauldin retired in 2019, and Howell was brought in as L.A.'s general manager after leading CBS’ station in Pittsburgh. He was tasked with modernizing the L.A. stations.

Howell could not be immediately reached for comment.

CBS manages KCBS and KCAL jointly, and the stations’ audience lags in size behind market leaders KABC-TV Channel 7, KNBC-TV Channel 4 and Spanish-language stations KMEX-TV Channel 34 and KVEA-TV Channel 52...

RTWT.

Explosive Lindsey Boylan Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Govenor Andrew Cuomo (VIDEO)

I was watching "Outnumbered" this morning on Fox News, and the news was just breaking on this Lindsey Boylan blockbuster story.

And there's additional Fox News reporting here.

She's posted her whole story at Medium, "My Story of Working with Governor Cuomo":

“Let’s play strip poker.”

I should have been shocked by the Governor’s crude comment, but I wasn’t.

We were flying home from an October 2017 event in Western New York on his taxpayer-funded jet. He was seated facing me, so close our knees almost touched. His press aide was to my right and a state trooper behind us.

“That’s exactly what I was thinking,” I responded sarcastically and awkwardly. I tried to play it cool. But in that moment, I realized just how acquiescent I had become.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected. His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right. He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences. That’s why I panicked on the morning of December 13.

While enjoying a weekend with my husband and six-year-old daughter, I spontaneously decided to share a small part of the truth I had hidden for so long in shame and never planned to disclose. The night before, a former Cuomo staffer confided to me that she, too, had been the subject of the Governor’s workplace harassment. Her story mirrored my own. Seeing his name floated as a potential candidate for U.S. Attorney General — the highest law enforcement official in the land — set me off.

In a few tweets, I told the world what a few close friends, family members and my therapist had known for years: Andrew Cuomo abused his power as Governor to sexually harass me, just as he had done with so many other women.

As messages from journalists buzzed on my phone, I laid in bed unable to move. I finally had decided to speak up, but at what cost? Parts of a supposed confidential personnel file (which I’ve never seen) were leaked to the media in an effort to smear me. The Governor’s loyalists called around town, asking about me.

Last week, Assemblymember Ron Kim spoke out publicly about the intimidation and abuse he has faced from Governor Cuomo and his aides. As Mayor de Blasio remarked, “the bullying is nothing new.” There are many more of us, but most are too afraid to speak up. I’m compelled to tell my story because no woman should feel forced to hide their experiences of workplace intimidation, harassment and humiliation — not by the Governor or anyone else. I expect the Governor and his top aides will attempt to further disparage me, just as they’ve done with Assemblymember Kim. They’d lose their jobs if they didn’t protect him. That’s how his administration works. I know because I was a part of it.

I joined state government in 2015 as a Vice President at Empire State Development. I was quickly promoted to Chief of Staff at the state economic development agency. The news of my appointment prompted a warning from a friend who served as an executive with an influential civic engagement organization: “Be careful around the Governor.”

My first encounter with the Governor came at a January 6, 2016, event at Madison Square Garden to promote the new Pennsylvania Station-Farley Complex project. After his speech, he stopped to talk to me. I was new on the job and surprised by how much attention he paid me.:

My boss soon informed me that the Governor had a “crush” on me. It was an uncomfortable but all-too-familiar feeling: the struggle to be taken seriously by a powerful man who tied my worth to my body and my appearance.

Stephanie Benton, Director of the Governor’s Offices, told me in an email on December 14, 2016 that the Governor suggested I look up images of Lisa Shields — his rumored former girlfriend — because “we could be sisters” and I was “the better looking sister.” The Governor began calling me “Lisa” in front of colleagues. It was degrading...

Keep reading. 

As all the hipsters like to say now, the woman's "got the receipts." (She's posted all kinds of screenshots of implicating texts and email, etc.)

Jill Arrington Featured at the Los Angeles Times

This is a major, major investigation, and fascinating.

I remember Ms. Jill announcing her departure from CBS 2 Los Angeles a couple of years ago, and she was disgruntled.

At LAT, "One year after Moonves’ exit, CBS TV stations also face harassment and misogyny claims":

One year after Moonves' exit, CBS TV stations also face harassment and misogyny claims https://t.co/cxetfh5ktn

— LAT Entertainment (@latimesent) December 8, 2019

Jill Arrington was a star in TV sports. Then, four years ago, the former NFL sideline reporter traded national exposure for what she thought would be a more stable job at CBS’ television stations in Los Angeles.

Arrington loved chronicling the Rams and other pro teams, and eventually took on additional duties as the weekend sports anchor for KCBS-TV Channel 2 and KCAL-TV Channel 9. But one thing about her job galled her: She was earning nearly $60,000 less a year than the male anchor she replaced.

When her contract came up for renewal, Arrington told the station’s top managers that it was unacceptable to pay a woman so much less than a man.

“Oooh, isn’t she tough,” Arrington recalls the former general manager of CBS’ L.A. stations, Steve Mauldin, saying during a March 2018 meeting. She said Mauldin turned to his lieutenant and said: “This one talks more than my wife.”

The meeting ended with no assurance of a raise. But as Arrington started to leave, she said her boss told her: “Put on a tennis dress and meet me at the golf club. We’ll put you on tape, and you can make some extra money.”

Arrington had experienced come-ons in her years covering sports, but nothing like this. She confided in a colleague, who recalled that Arrington was “frantic and scared” after the exchange. In an interview last week, Mauldin denied making the remarks. “That didn’t happen,” he said. “That’s the most absurd thing. I would not talk to women that way.”

Six months after that meeting, a bombshell detonated at the highest level of the company: CBS’ larger-than-life chief executive, Leslie Moonves, was ousted over claims he harassed and assaulted multiple women decades ago.

After a high-profile probe into Moonves’ conduct and the company’s workplace culture, independent law firms hired by CBS concluded that “harassment and retaliation are not pervasive at CBS.” But a Times investigation has uncovered claims of discrimination, retaliation and other forms of mistreatment in an overlooked but significant corner of the company: the chain of CBS-owned television stations.

More than two dozen current and former employees of KCBS and KCAL described a toxic environment where, they said, employees encountered age discrimination, misogyny, and sexual harassment — and retaliation if they complained.

Discrimination complaints have also surfaced at CBS-owned stations in Chicago, Dallas and Miami. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against CBS after investigating allegations that station managers in Dallas denied a full-time position to a 42-year-old traffic reporter and instead hired a 24-year-old former NFL cheerleader who didn’t meet the job’s requirements. CBS denied that it engaged in discrimination.

In late November, shortly before a scheduled trial, CBS reached a tentative agreement to resolve an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by award-winning Miami-based journalist Michele Gillen, who sued CBS last year. The company admitted no liability in the agreement. In her court filings, Gillen called CBS a “good ole boys club” that “protects men despite bad behavior.”

*****

During the last seven years, multiple women at the Los Angeles stations complained that they were subject to harassment by their bosses or colleagues.

Early in 2018, prominent KCAL anchor Leyna Nguyen complained to KCBS management about inappropriate comments and unwanted touching by a male colleague, according to several people familiar with the matter. CBS spent months investigating the allegations but concluded there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, according to a person familiar with the situation who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity.

CBS reached a settlement with Nguyen in July 2018 — just days before the allegations about Moonves became big news. Nguyen, a 20-year employee who left KCBS following the incident, declined to comment on the matter. CBS also struck a separation agreement with the person who was accused of the misconduct, and he also left. CBS did not admit liability in the matter. The employee denied wrongdoing and did not respond to a request for comment placed through his attorney.

The station’s then-head of makeup, Gwendolyn Gatti, backed Nguyen’s allegations. Gatti said the same employee harassed her, too, and that he “propositioned her for sex, asked about her sex life,” “slapped her on the buttocks,” and used the N-word when referring to her, according to a lawsuit in a separate case. CBS settled the matter with Gatti on July 27, 2018, according to court records. In a court filing, a CBS attorney labeled Gatti’s sexual harassment allegations “frivolous.” CBS denied any liability, according to a partially redacted copy of Gatti’s settlement agreement.

A former KCBS employee told The Times that he recalled a separate episode several years ago when Gatti was near tears and shaking with anger after a different colleague, a cameraman, forcefully slapped her on the buttocks. A second person confirmed that CBS investigated the slapping incident and the cameraman was disciplined.

Gatti was fired in September 2018, two months after her settlement. The 64-year-old makeup artist sued CBS in Los Angeles Superior Court in February, alleging wrongful termination, discrimination and retaliation. CBS, in court documents, said Gatti was fired “after she brought illegal drugs onto CBS property, in violation of company policy.”

In her lawsuit, Gatti said she realized her wallet was missing on Sept. 18, 2018, and called CBS’ security office to see if it had been turned it in. Later that day, she said she was called to the security office and presented with what she said were two empty plastic bags that a security guard claimed were found in her wallet. Gatti denied the bags were hers and “stated that she does not use any illegal drugs,” according to the lawsuit. She was fired the next day.

Nguyen and Gatti complained to management about sexual harassment in March 2018, according to court records. This was the same month that Arrington, the weekend sports anchor, began inquiring about her contract renewal. A single mom, she had been at the station more than two years, her duties had increased, and she wanted a raise.

The Times independently confirmed that CBS was paying Arrington about $60,000 a year less than her male predecessor. Arrington said her goal simply was to extend her contract, which expired in April 2018, and get a bump in pay to an anchor’s salary because she was putting in long hours serving as both a reporter and an anchor — appearing in as many as seven telecasts on a weekend shift.

Arrington was far from the highest-paid employee at the station, according to a person familiar with KCBS’ finances. Her salary put her among the middle of the pack. She was told to discuss the situation with Mauldin, which led to the awkward exchange.

Arrington’s colleague, Elsa Ramon, a former KCBS and KCAL anchor, confirmed that Arrington shared details about the incident with her shortly after it occurred in early 2018.

“She was uncomfortable,” Ramon said. “Mauldin made a suggestion that she engage in some activity,” adding that she viewed it as a quid pro quo situation.

A second CBS executive who attended the meeting said he didn’t recall Mauldin making inappropriate comments. Arrington claims that executive left the meeting just before she did. The second executive and Mauldin said they felt that Arrington was out of line in asking for a substantial raise over her $135,000 annual salary at a time when the station was struggling to control costs. (Arrington said she made no specific salary demands, and merely asked to be paid what other anchors in L.A. were making.)

“I thought she was making a good salary,” Mauldin said. “She thought she was worth more.”

Arrington initially was reluctant to talk to The Times.

Before joining KCBS, the 47-year-old Georgia native worked at Fox Sports, ESPN and CBS Sports, where she was seen by millions of viewers on the sidelines of NFL games and hosting shows about college football and NASCAR. Playboy readers in a 2000 online poll voted her America’s “sexiest sportscaster.” She declined the $1-million offer to pose for the magazine.

She arrived at KCBS and KCAL in 2015 after being recruited by Bill Dallman, a popular station news director who was also a Fox Sports alum. Arrington said she accepted the CBS stations job even though it meant lower pay and less exposure than a position at a national network. She was then in her 40s and working in on-air roles, a corner of the industry that can be unforgiving to women as they age.

Arrington nonetheless said she “felt it could be a whole new career for me, and a place where I could work for the next 10 years.”

Dallman, who now is news director for an ABC affiliate in Seattle, told The Times: “Jill and I both worked diligently to improve the quality of the on-air product and the culture in the building.”

Arrington enjoyed her experience early on, particularly co-anchoring KCAL’s weekend “Sports Central” with Gary Miller, an ESPN veteran. Miller, who now works at a Cincinnati station owned by Sinclair, said in an interview that Arrington was capable and a team player. Another KCBS reporter said: “She was one of the best we’ve ever had.”

Miller said Arrington confided in him that she was uncomfortable with Mauldin’s comments. Miller said he encouraged Arrington to complain to the human relations department, but she felt her best option was to avoid Mauldin. “He would start talking about her appearance or ask about her private life,” Miller said. “It was so inappropriate.” Mauldin denied the claims, saying “there was never a time when I put her in an uncomfortable position.”

Miller was let go in January 2017 due to budget cuts, and Arrington’s workload increased.

There were other tensions, too, according to seven current and former station employees interviewed by The Times. Jim Hill, a former NFL player and a fixture in L.A. broadcasting, was the station’s main sports personality and its sports director. He seemed uninterested in sharing the limelight, these people said.

“Jim wanted to handle the big stuff,” Mauldin said, adding that Hill was one of his favorites. “He wanted to do the big interviews, and I think Jill had a problem with that. ... I don’t think people down there [in sports] were comfortable being around her because of where her head was at.”

Arrington’s feature stories rarely appeared in Hill’s shows, she and others familiar with the situation said. Even a powerful report on an NFL lineman battling depression didn’t make the cut. Instead, the station ran preseason baseball clips.

“She wasn’t allowed to do stories that she wanted to do,” Miller said.

Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

Arrington said she tried to persevere: “I was just hoping the quality of my work would speak for itself.”

In early August 2018, the high-profile investigation into CBS’ culture began. Arrington’s attorney, Bobby Hacker, said he reached out to lawyers conducting the review because of concerns about Arrington’s treatment. But Arrington didn’t get a chance to talk to the investigators.

She was blindsided a week later on Aug. 22, 2018. It was her first day back at work after spending the weekend covering a Rams-Oakland Raiders preseason game. She was summoned to a conference room, where Tara Finestone, the news director who had replaced Dallman in January 2018, told her it was her last day.

Arrington demanded an explanation. She recalls Finestone saying: “We’re not firing you. We are happy with the quality of your work.” Instead, Arrington was told her position was no longer being staffed.

“I thanked her for her contributions and we talked about budgetary reasons,” Finestone told The Times. “Hers was the position that we decided to eliminate.”

More than a year later, Arrington still hasn’t landed a new job and she fears for her future.

“My takeaway from my experience at KCBS is that they were more concerned with protecting political alignments rather than the quality of their on-air broadcasts,” she said.

Colleagues and others also were confused by her abrupt departure. “My dealings with Jill were always first rate,” said Steve Brener, Dodgers spokesman. “She was professional and easy to work with. Then one day, she wasn’t here any more.”

Other station staffers say management decisions can be capricious and punitive. In 2013, Emmy Award-winning KCBS reporter Joy Benedict, who had just become the union shop steward at the station, posted a photo on Facebook of herself playfully posing on a giant chess board while on vacation in Miami with the caption, “Who wants to play with me???” Executives in New York became upset when a TV industry blog reposted the picture. They ordered KCBS managers to fire Benedict over the picture, according to three people with knowledge of the incident. KCBS executives felt that was too harsh of a punishment but they nonetheless assigned Benedict to primarily work less desirable weekend shifts. CBS representatives pointed out that she has since been given additional on-air opportunities at KCBS and CBS News.

Nancy London, who worked at CBS for 34 years, found herself on the outs after years of favorable performance reviews.

Nearly a decade ago, London, who worked at KCBS in technical services, received a new assignment and a new boss. He “harassed and ridiculed” her, she claimed in a lawsuit, alleging age, race and sex discrimination. London is African American. When she complained to HR, she said the situation grew worse. In July 2011, she was confronted by her boss and three other men who “railed upon” her in a group setting, London alleged in court filings. She fainted, requiring medical attention, according to the lawsuit.

A week later, London was fired.

London sued CBS in 2012, alleging wrongful termination. CBS dismissed London’s account as baseless. CBS settled the case in 2013 and did not admit liability. London declined to comment.

Several older CBS workers in L.A. also have alleged that they have been subject to age discrimination. The company also has come under criticism for its use of so-called per diem reporters, some of whom have worked for CBS for decades. These employees refer to themselves as freelancers, but some have been there so long that they jokingly call themselves “perma-lancers.”

Los Angeles relies heavily on per diem talent, according to executives and agents. The system causes resentment because it results in two classes of staff members working side by side. Using more per diem, part-time workers allows the stations to save money on personnel costs.

“People want to work in L.A., so there is a bigger pool of talent,” said one veteran CBS executive. “It comes down to market conditions.”

In the last 18 months, the station hired several new part-time reporters in their 20s. Younger reporters tend to get marquee weekday slots, which has caused resentment among some veterans, according to interviews and a review of KCBS staffing schedules.

In the just-completed November sweeps, KCBS and KCAL tied for sixth place in Los Angeles in viewership to late local newscasts. Market leaders are Walt Disney Co.’s KABC-TV Channel 7 and Univision’s KMEX-TV Channel 34.

“They are trying to cut, cut, cut and it’s taking a toll,” said Ramon, the former anchor who left the station in spring 2018. Ramon, 48, left rather than return to the weekend shift after spending two years filling in on prominent weekday newscasts because she cherished that time with her kids. She said she did not experience sexual harassment, but she didn’t see any opportunity for advancement, particularly because the station was investing in younger workers. “I felt that I was just spinning my wheels,” she said.

Numerous people said the atmosphere at KCBS and KCAL deteriorated after Dallman left.

Six employees told the Times that what they perceived as a hostile atmosphere at the station contributed to their decision to leave it in recent years.

Earlier this year, KCBS employees brought their concerns about stagnant wages and reliance on long-term freelancers to their union, SAG-AFTRA. Nearly two dozen reporters and anchors signed a petition in May. A union representative declined to comment on pending negotiations.

Mauldin denied that women were treated poorly or underpaid and said that the highest-paid talent was 30-year anchor Pat Harvey, a woman.

“We didn’t pay women less than men because they were women,” he said. “We respect everyone. But when you cut back in business, it’s difficult on people.”

CBS has faced workplace complaints in other divisions. Scott Pelley, 62, the respected former anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” told CNN that he lost his job as chief anchor “because I wouldn’t stop complaining ... about the hostile work environment.” CBS also ousted two big names — morning news anchor Charlie Rose and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager — over allegations of inappropriate conduct.

CBS’ board a year ago acknowledged shortcomings. “Historical policies [and] practices ... have not reflected a high institutional priority on preventing harassment and retaliation,” the board said of the investigators’ findings.

At KCBS and KCAL, a new general manager, Jay Howell, arrived in July, after spending the previous year running CBS stations in Pittsburgh.

Some staff members said they doubt reforms will filter down to the local stations.

Democrats Opened Up Can of Sexual Assault Worms in #MeToo Era

You gotta love it!

At the Los Angeles Times, "Presidential hopefuls struggle to control damage from sexual misconduct cases in first race of #MeToo era":

The first presidential campaign of the #MeToo era is raising new questions and resurrecting old episodes, to the discomfort of Dems @finneganLAT https://t.co/Diu3UEFrFz

— Mark Z. Barabak (@markzbarabak) February 10, 2019

As he lays ground to run for president, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock looks back with regret at his failure to recognize the gravity of a top aide’s sexual harassment of a colleague.

After he was fired, the advisor went to work for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and was soon accused of harassing two more women. Bullock now says he’s “deeply sorry” he never told de Blasio about his aide’s misbehavior.

“I was wrong and naïve to think I did enough,” Bullock, a Democrat, wrote Feb. 2 in a blog post.

Kamala Harris has similar regrets. So does Bernie Sanders. And so does Joe Biden.

The 2020 presidential race is the first to occur since the #MeToo movement changed the nation’s cultural and political climate. Democratic contenders are already struggling to control the damage from their own shortcomings in policing sexual harassment in the workplace.

“You can say you support #MeToo, and you can say you support women, but you have to be able to demonstrate that in your own organization and in your own behavior,” said Kelly Dittmar, a political scientist at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics.

“I don’t think we’re going to see all of a sudden a wholesale overturning of the allowances that we’ve given to folks for this type of behavior, or not acting significantly to stop this behavior in the past. But I do think the bar is higher.”

Cold political math is at least part of what’s drawing heightened attention to sexual misconduct: Women consistently turn out to vote in greater numbers than men. Women have also strongly preferred Democrats in recent elections, driving the party’s takeover of the House in the November midterm.

In the White House race, Democrats face pressure to nominate a candidate who can draw a strong contrast with President Trump. A Democrat who is perceived as not dealing with sexual harassment seriously could have a hard time attacking the president over allegations by multiple women that Trump sexually assaulted them.

The accusations, which Trump denies, have not caused die-hard supporters to desert him, but the president remains highly unpopular among women in general.

For Harris, the U.S. senator from California, the issue has become fraught since the Sacramento Bee revealed in December that the state paid $400,000 to settle a lawsuit over alleged sexual harassment by Larry Wallace, one of her closest aides for 14 years.

When Harris was state attorney general, she named Wallace as chief of the Division of Law Enforcement. He was in charge of her personal security detail, and he was a crucial figure in her political life: He led Harris’ successful drive to win endorsements from dozens of police groups that had once roundly opposed her.

In September 2016, Wallace and at least four others on her staff at the attorney general’s office were notified of the initial complaint filed by Danielle Hartley, Wallace’s executive assistant.

Three months later, Hartley sued the state, alleging Wallace had “harassed and demeaned” her in his Sacramento office. He kept a printer on the floor beneath his desk, she claimed, and ordered her every day to get on her knees to put paper in it or replace the ink, at times with him and male co-workers watching. Harris’ successor, Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, approved the settlement in May 2017.

Harris said she was not told about the case until the Bee asked about it two months ago. The inquiry led Wallace to resign as a senior advisor on her Senate staff in Sacramento.

“It was a very painful experience to know that something can happen in one’s office — of almost 5,000 people, granted, but I didn’t know about it,” Harris told CNN. “That being said, I take full responsibility for anything that has happened in my office.”

Critics have attacked the credibility of Harris, one of the Senate’s most pointed interrogators of Brett M. Kavanaugh when he faced sexual assault accusations at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. A Bee editorial called her denial of any knowledge of the Wallace settlement “far-fetched.” And if she’s to be believed, it said, she “isn’t a terribly good manager.”

Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State, said Harris was facing the conundrum of many politicians: How do they justify actions they took — or didn’t take — prior to the #MeToo movement shifting public attitudes?

“It’s very hard for those folks to go back and undo what they did at a time when it wasn’t viewed as terrible as it is now,” he said.

Keep reading.

Bernie's in hot water too, lol.

Beware the Rape Allegation Bandwagon

Folks have been warning about the radical left's virtue signaling on the sexual harassment allegations train. All aboard! You too --- #MeToo --- can make bogus accusations of sexual assault, and bring down your powerful ideological enemies!

There's obviously a real problem going on right now, but just this afternoon I learned of the progressive journalist Jordan Chariton's firing by Cenk Uygur at the Young Turks. This looks like total scam, a scheme hatched to destroy this guy, with the Young Turks throwing the dude under the bus faster than you can say "perv!" (See Politico, "‘Young Turks’ reporter vows to sue over his firing.")

And this reminds me of Michelle Malkin's piece from last month, "#MeToo May Exaggerate Prevalence of Sex Crimes":

Beware the #MeToo rape allegation bandwagon ==>https://t.co/UDYljqtKXC pic.twitter.com/bdVBSF8E81

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 18, 2017

#MeToo" is the social media meme of the moment. In a 24-hour period, the phrase was tweeted nearly a half million times and posted on Facebook 12 million times. Spearheaded by actress Alyssa Milano in the wake of Hollyweird's Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal, women have flooded social media with their own long-buried accounts of being pestered, groped or assaulted by rapacious male predators in the workplace.

Count me out.

It's one thing to break down cultural stigmas constructively, but the #MeToo movement is collectivist virtue signaling of a very perilous sort. The New York Times heralded the phenomenon with multiple articles "to show how commonplace sexual assault and harassment are." The Washington Post credited #MeToo with making "the scale of sexual abuse go viral." And actress Emily Ratajkowski declared at a Marie Claire magazine's women's conference on Monday:

"The most important response to #metoo is 'I believe you.'"

No. I do not believe every woman who is now standing up to "share her story" or "tell her truth." I owe no blind allegiance to any other woman simply because we share the same pronoun. Assertions are not truths until they are established as facts and corroborated with evidence. Timing, context, motives and manner all matter.

Because I reserve the right to vet the claims of individual sexual assault complainants instead of championing them all knee-jerk and wholesale as "victims," I've been scolded as insensitive and inhumane.

"TIMING DOES NOT MATTER," a Twitter user named Meg Yarbrough fumed. "What matters is what is best for EACH INDIVIDUAL victim. You should be ashamed of yourself."

CNN anchor Jake Tapper informed me, "People coming forward should be applauded." But applauding people for "coming forward" is not a journalistic tenet. It's an advocacy tenet. Tapper responded that he was expressing the sentiment as a "human being not as a journalist." Last time I checked, humans have brains. The Weinstein scandal is not an excuse to turn them off and abdicate a basic responsibility to assess the credibility of accusers. It's an incontrovertible fact that not all accusers' claims are equal.

Some number of harrowing encounters described by Weinstein's accusers and the #MeToo hashtag activists no doubt occurred. But experience and scientific literature show us that a significant portion of these allegations will turn out to be half-truths, exaggerations or outright fabrications. That's not victim-blaming. It's reality-checking.

It is irresponsible for news outlets to extrapolate how “commonplace” sexual abuse is based on hashtag trends spread by celebrities, anonymous claimants and bots. The role of the press should be verification, not validation. Instead of interviewing activist actresses, reporters should be interviewing bona fide experts...

Keep reading.

“The most important response to #metoo is ‘I believe you’ 🙏” @emrata @marieclaire #powertrip pic.twitter.com/ftP7yLIF1Z

— meika hollender (@missmeiks) October 17, 2017

Mark Halperin Out at NBC, MSNBC, and HBO After Multiple Claims of Sexual Assault

This is freakin' major.

At the Los Angeles Times, "MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin losing book deal and TV jobs over sexual harassment claims":

#MeToo https://t.co/J4R5sj9wfG

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) October 26, 2017

To be clear, I was NOT one of the victims in this story about Mark Halperin. I was ANOTHER junior ABC employee he attacked. #MeToo https://t.co/itV6HvEpA2

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) October 26, 2017

Go back and watch the episode I was on of Morning Joe. This will explain why so many of you asked why he attacked me on live TV

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) October 26, 2017

I did not report Halperin to ABC because I thought I was the only one, and I blamed myself, and I was embarrassed and I was scared of him.

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) October 26, 2017

The multimedia career of political journalist and author Mark Halperin is on shaky ground after a report that he sexually harassed five women during his tenure at ABC News.

Just hours after the publication of the CNN report late Wednesday, Halperin was pulled from his contributor’s role at MSNBC and NBC News. Penguin Press canceled the publication of his next “Game Change” book about the 2016 presidential campaign, co-authored with John Heilemann. Plans for an HBO miniseries tied to the title were scrapped by the premium cable network, and the next season of the Showtime documentary series “The Circus,” in which Halperin co-stars, appears in doubt.

Five women who worked with Halperin when he was political director of ABC News in the early 2000s told CNN that he propositioned them or touched them inappropriately while on the job. Three women said Halperin pressed up against them while having an erection. None of the women complained to ABC’s human resources department about his behavior. The accusers spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity.

The accusations against Halperin join the growing maelstrom of sexual harassment and assault charges, which have rocked the careers and reputations of former Weinstein Co. co-Chairman Harvey Weinstein, former Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, screenwriter James Toback, and others. As more women come forward to allege years of bad behavior, the roiling national discussion of workplace harassment shows no signs of abating.

In a statement to CNN, Halperin acknowledged that he mistreated female employees at ABC News and issued an apology.

“During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me,” said Halperin, 52. “I now understand from these accounts that my behavior was inappropriate and caused others pain. For that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize. Under the circumstances, I’m going to take a step back from my day-to-day work while I properly deal with this situation.”

By Thursday morning, Halperin, a paid contributor who regularly appears on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and other NBC News programs, was on leave indefinitely.

“We find the story and the allegations very troubling. Mark Halperin is leaving his role as a contributor until the questions around his past conduct are fully understood,” the cable network said in a statement.

The alleged incidents involving Halperin occurred when he was political director at ABC News from 1997 to 2007. An ABC News representative said, “Mark left ABC a decade ago and no complaints were filed during his tenure.”

But some women who worked with Halperin at ABC have commented on social media that there had been talk within the company at the time about his treatment of women.

Clarissa Ward, a senior international correspondent for CNN, tweeted out the Halperin story and said, “This was an open story when I was @ABC for years.”

Former ABC News staffer Emily Miller put a #MeToo hashtag on her tweet of the CNN story and said she too was harassed by Halperin. She then added: “To be clear, I was NOT one of the victims in this story about Mark Halperin. I was ANOTHER junior ABC employee he attacked.”

As of Thursday, there had been no sexual harassment complaints filed against Halperin at NBC, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly. As an on-air contributor, Halperin does not have an office or work space in the network’s headquarters or newsroom.

Halperin has a multiyear contract with NBC, but such deals can typically be terminated in the event an on-air talent embarrasses the company.

Showtime Networks issued a statement that there had been no allegations of “untoward behavior” by Halperin during the production of “The Circus.” However, the premium cable network said it will “evaluate its options” on going forward with a second season of the program...

More.

Mira Sorvino, Rosanna Arquette, and Asia Argento Share Their Accounts of Harvey Weinstein's Sexual Assault and Harassment

It's from Ronan Farrow, at the New Yorker. He's leftist. The New Yorker's leftist. I don't like them. But this story is irresistible, and it's leftist outlets leading the charge against Democrat/Hollywood hypocrisy. It's pretty amazing.

Safe link, "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories":

! NYer Weinstein story just dropped, 3 women alleging rape + audio recording of Weinstein from NYPD sting operation https://t.co/EtDsJ1XWvj

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) October 10, 2017

Since the establishment of the first studios a century ago, there have been few movie executives as dominant, or as domineering, as Harvey Weinstein. As the co-founder of the production-and-distribution companies Miramax and the Weinstein Company, he helped to reinvent the model for independent films, with movies such as “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “The English Patient,” “Pulp Fiction,” “The Crying Game,” “Shakespeare in Love,” and “The King’s Speech.” Beyond Hollywood, he has exercised his influence as a prolific fund-raiser for Democratic Party candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weinstein combined a keen eye for promising scripts, directors, and actors with a bullying, even threatening, style of doing business, inspiring both fear and gratitude. His movies have earned more than three hundred Oscar nominations, and, at the annual awards ceremonies, he has been thanked more than almost anyone else in movie history, just after Steven Spielberg and right before God.

For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now—Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old; some of them are older—has never come out.”

Last week, the New York Times, in a powerful report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, revealed multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Weinstein, a story that led to the resignation of four members of his company’s all-male board, and to Weinstein’s firing from the company.

The story, however, is more complex, and there is more to know and to understand. In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.

Three women—among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.

Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace. They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models. All sixteen said that the behavior was widely known within both Miramax and the Weinstein Company. Messages sent by Irwin Reiter, a senior company executive, to Emily Nestor, one of the women who alleged that she was harassed at the company, described the “mistreatment of women” as a serial problem that the Weinstein Company was struggling with in recent years. Other employees described what was, in essence, a culture of complicity at Weinstein’s places of business, with numerous people throughout the companies fully aware of his behavior but either abetting it or looking the other way. Some employees said that they were enlisted in subterfuge to make the victims feel safe. A female executive with the company described how Weinstein assistants and others served as a “honeypot”—they would initially join a meeting, but then Weinstein would dismiss them, leaving him alone with the woman.

Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation. “If Harvey were to discover my identity, I’m worried that he could ruin my life,” one former employee told me. Many said that they had seen Weinstein’s associates confront and intimidate those who crossed him, and feared that they would be similarly targeted. Four actresses, including Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette, told me they suspected that, after they rejected Weinstein’s advances or complained about them to company representatives, Weinstein had them removed from projects or dissuaded people from hiring them. Multiple sources said that Weinstein frequently bragged about planting items in media outlets about those who spoke against him; these sources feared that they might be similarly targeted. Several pointed to Gutierrez’s case, in 2015: after she went to the police, negative items discussing her sexual history and impugning her credibility began rapidly appearing in New York gossip pages. (In the taped conversation with Gutierrez, Weinstein asks her to join him for “five minutes,” and warns, “Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”)

Several former employees told me that they were speaking about Weinstein’s alleged behavior now because they hoped to protect women in the future. “This wasn’t a one-off. This wasn’t a period of time,” an executive who worked for Weinstein for many years told me. “This was ongoing predatory behavior towards women—whether they consented or not.”

It’s likely that women have recently felt increasingly emboldened to talk about their experiences because of the way the world has changed regarding issues of sex and power. These disclosures follow in the wake of stories alleging sexual misconduct by public figures, including Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump. In October, 2016, a month before the election, a tape emerged of Trump telling a celebrity-news reporter, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” This past April, O’Reilly, a host at Fox News, was forced to resign after Fox was discovered to have paid five women millions of dollars in exchange for silence about their accusations of sexual harassment. Ailes, the former head of Fox News, resigned last July, after he was accused of sexual harassment. Cosby went on trial this summer, charged with drugging and sexually assaulting a woman. The trial ended with a hung jury.

On October 5th, in an initial effort at damage control, Weinstein responded to the Times piece by issuing a statement partly acknowledging what he had done, saying, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.” In an interview with the New York Post, he said, “I’ve got to deal with my personality, I’ve got to work on my temper, I have got to dig deep. I know a lot of people would like me to go into a facility, and I may well just do that—I will go anywhere I can learn more about myself.” Weinstein went on, “In the past I used to compliment people, and some took it as me being sexual, I won’t do that again.” In his statement to the Times, Weinstein claimed that he would “channel that anger” into a fight against the leadership of the National Rifle Association. He also said that it was not “coincidental” that he was organizing a foundation for women directors at the University of Southern California. “It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.”
Sallie Hofmeister, a spokesperson for Weinstein, issued a statement in response to the allegations in this article. It reads in full: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.”

While Weinstein and his representatives have said that the incidents were consensual, and were not widespread or severe, the women I spoke to tell a very different story.

Keep reading.

Harvey Weinstein Exposes Hollywood's Double-Standards

I'm actually surprised this got published at the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper for the Hollywood elite. But it's a good piece.

See, "Weinstein sexual harassment controversy exposes Hollywood's double standard":

Weinstein sexual harassment controversy exposes Hollywood's double standard https://t.co/O8s5Nr0T1D

— Seema Mehta (@LATSeema) October 7, 2017

When the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape leaked one year ago, capturing then-candidate, now-President Trump bragging in coarse terms in 2005 about being allowed to grab women because he was a celebrity, Hollywood had a meltdown.

Cher called Trump a “scumbag carny barker" on Twitter. Comedian Patton Oswalt labeled him a “sexist creep.” Actress Emmy Rossum wrote: “misogynistic entitled pig.”

This week, amid revelations that Oscar-winning movie and television producer Harvey Weinstein had a long history of sexually harassing women, Hollywood’s response was largely muted. Film studios on Friday all declined to comment.

“Yup. Hollywood shines light on Catholic Church, sex trafficking — let's shine it on ourselves a second and what we've condoned,” actress-writer-producer Lena Dunham wrote on Twitter, one of the few celebrities who took a public stand.

Hollywood has a poor track record when it comes to women. Actresses received just 31.4% of speaking roles in the top 100 films released last year, according to the Media, Diversity and Social Change Initiative at USC Annenberg’s School for Communication and Journalism. The “sexy stereotype” persisted with more than a quarter of females in those films wearing sexy attire, compared with 5.7% of men. In 2015, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission opened an investigation into allegedly discriminatory hiring practices against female directors.

“Hollywood likes to project an image of being progressive about issues of race, gender and social issues — but at the end of the day it is an incredibly regressive industry,” said Caroline Heldman, a college professor who has worked with alleged victims of Bill Cosby and Weinstein. “It is an industry that, in many ways, looks more like the 1950s.”

Weinstein, who has taken a leave of absence from his company, attributed his alleged conduct to coming of age “in the ‘60s and 70s, when all of the rules about behavior and workplaces were different.” On Friday, his company’s board said it was investigating the allegations.

The New York Times reported that at least eight settlements had been paid to woman who disclosed allegations of sexual harassment to Weinstein Co. or Miramax, the studio that Weinstein and his brother Bob built into a cultural juggernaut with such independent films such as “Pulp Fiction,” “Shakespeare in Love,” and “Chicago.” Weinstein, while on trips to Los Angeles and London, would summon young actresses or assistants to his hotel room, where he would request massages or invite women to watch him shower, the paper said.

Hollywood has long been tarnished with allegations of sexual harassment, dating to the silent film era when actor Roscoe Conkling “Fatty” Arbuckle faced charges in the rape and death of an actress. (Arbuckle was acquitted.) Other prominent stars and directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Marlon Brando and Arnold Schwarzenegger have been accused of inappropriate behavior.

Allegations of sexual misconduct have toppled other media figures, including Fox News architect Roger Ailes and host Bill O’Reilly, and Epic Records Chief Executive L.A. Reid. Scandals have also rocked beloved indie-film institutions, including L.A.’s nonprofit theater Cinefamily (where two leaders recently resigned) and indie-theater chain Alamo Drafthouse. All have denied wrongdoing.

Instead of expressing shock or even dismay, Hollywood insiders acknowledged that Weinstein’s behavior was an “open secret,” the fodder of gossip for decades.

Weinstein’s alleged behavior may have been enabled by Hollywood’s sometimes toxic workplace culture, which often tolerates — and in some cases, glorifies — an array of inappropriate, exploitative conduct. For lowly assistants hungry to get a foot in the door, long hours, demeaning job duties and the occasional cellphone-hurling boss are considered part of the job.

Being “volatile” or “hard-charging” can be a badge of honor, epitomized in such characters as Ari Gold, the rage-prone super-agent in the HBO series “Entourage.” The character was based on Ari Emanuel, now co-chief executive of one of the biggest talent agencies, William Morris Endeavor (and a Democratic fundraiser).

The sordid allegations against Weinstein put Hollywood and Democrats in an awkward spot.

Over the years, Weinstein has given generously to Democrats and liberal causes, contributing more than $600,000 to Democratic politicians and groups, according to federal records. He donated tens of thousands of dollars to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Obama’s oldest daughter, Malia, worked as an intern for Weinstein Co. in New York last summer prior to enrolling at Harvard University. Weinstein also has contributed to the Clinton Foundation, whose website states that the producer provided well over $100,000 as of June.

Known as a “bundler,” Weinstein also used his vast connections to organize and collect checks from a wide swathe of donors. The mogul threw glamorous fundraisers for Clinton that raised millions for her presidential campaign and were attended by A-list celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lopez. One of the fundraisers was a Broadway musical concert last October that featured “Hamilton” composer Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Weinstein, in his statement, noted that last year he began organizing a $5-million foundation at USC to provide scholarships to women who want to direct films.

Conservatives, who have spent years chafing when Hollywood celebrities moralized about social causes, had a field day over the Weinstein scandal. “Waiting on the professional ‘pro-women’ outrage machine...Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein,” Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway wrote Friday morning on Twitter.

Others jumped on the details of Weinstein’s alleged behavior as evidence that the entertainment industry has a double standard when it comes to sexual harassment...

Still more.

How Megyn Kelly's Move to NBC Could Change the Cable News Landscape

Following-up from earlier, "Megyn Kelly to Join NBC News."

I watched the "Kelly File" tonight, looking to catch the last of Ms. Megyn's appearances on Fox News. Unlike a lot of conservatives during the GOP primary (especially on Twitter), I wasn't critical of her. I liked her approach. I think Trump said some nasty things. I don't like him any less, but I don't think he shouldn't be called out from time to time.

In any case, it's going to be interesting at Fox News with Megyn gone. The network will be fine. The New York Times reported today that network executives have no plans to change the conservative programming that's made Fox the leader in cable news. That's good. On the other hand, I liked the more news/analysis feel of the 6:00pm hour (Pacific time) between O'Reilly and Hannity. Indeed, I always get a kick with how the "Kelly File" opens with "BREAKING TONIGHT!" It seems so urgent, heh.

In any case, at WaPo:

An ending, and a new beginning... pic.twitter.com/clyKaDpQTW

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 3, 2017

Thank you for watching. With love... pic.twitter.com/0MjyVl6vAe

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 4, 2017

Megyn Kelly's wholly unsurprising decision to leave Fox News to join NBC leaves a void at the network where she spent the past 12 years, and perhaps nudges the cable news juggernaut in a new direction — while opening the door for media rivals.

Kelly confirmed her job change in a message Tuesday on Twitter after it was first reported by the New York Times.

Already a cable news star before the 2016 election cycle began, Kelly became a household name as she remained poised amid nasty attacks by Donald Trump, who objected to her line of questioning at the first Republican primary debate. Last January, Fox News's then-chairman, Roger Ailes, rejected Trump's demand that the network replace Kelly as a moderator of the second debate, even as the billionaire threatened to boycott the event — which he did.

When former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson accused Ailes of sexual harassment in a lawsuit in July, prompting 21st Century Fox to launch an investigation, Kelly shared her own claim of harassment by Ailes, who resigned later that month.

From then on, Kelly seemed to be viewed as a traitor by some Ailes loyalists who remained at Fox News. Sean Hannity called her a Hillary Clinton supporter in October. Bill O'Reilly criticized Kelly's decision to air dirty laundry in a book released in November.

“If somebody is paying you a wage, you owe that person or company allegiance,” O'Reilly told CBS News. “You don't like what's happening in the workplace? Go to human resources or leave. I've done that. And then take the action you need to take afterward if you feel aggrieved. There are labor laws in this country. But don't run down the concern that supports you by trying to undermine it.”

Kelly's departure from Fox News appeared inevitable. But now that it is here, it is worth considering the effect on cable news...

An interesting piece.

Keep reading.

At at the bottom tweet above, Ms. Megyn announces she leaving the network.

Well, Shoot, I Was Waiting for Trump's Purge Anarchy

Scott Eric Kaufman has died.

The hand of God swept to smite that asshole from the earth.

When I think of the one person I'd purge if purge anarchy was a possibility (in our times of troubles), it'd be SEK.

Sorry not sorry.

This was an evil person, a perfect representation of the evil the left produces. There is no redeeming quality. There's nothing redeeming I could even think of in his case. He was an all-around despicable person and I'm cheering his exit from this mortal existence.

Good riddance.

In any case, long time readers will get it. If you're a newbie around these parts, see "The Lies of Scott Eric Kaufman — Leftist Hate-Blogger Sought to Silence Criticism With Libelous Campaign of Workplace Harassment."

Francesca Valle Threatens Workplace Harassment Over a Facebook Post

Here's the thread from yesterday, which prompted this private message, which I just read moments ago:

Hey Donald.

I wanted to reach out and share some perspective. Yesterday, after you jumped on my thread w your psudeo [sic] insults, unsolicited and unwelcomed, you were criticized by both me and some other FB members. You then proceeded to tag me in a thread you posted on your page, further belittling me and attempting to stir the pot. I didn't really bite. And apparently, no one else did either. I've looked at the results of that behavior this morning and garnered this outcome. My "blathering" picked up a decent amount of traction. My post was shared half a dozen times and I've had a couple folks direct message me w encouragement to ignore your seemingly overt and rude behavior. Your post got one like. That's it. One. No shares. No commentary. And obviously, little agreement. So, my question is why all this energy towards such a minuscule outcome? Why piss in my yard? I have done nothing but spread a message of peace and love. Would you behave that way w someone like, I don't know, Pope Francis (one of my role models)? I feel you cause more damage for your cause than good.

Furthermore, I am sure I won't be the first to take such an action, but I have screen shot this incident and am going to write LBCC asking what their policy is on public decorum for professors. I truly feel it inappropriate for you to behave in such a way, publicly, as a man who is responsible for teaching young minds appropriate and responsible discourse in politics. I assume they must be aware already of such indiscretion, but perhaps if enough people bring it to their attention, it will make a difference. You, like me, are an educator. And I would expect more maturity and thoughtfulness.

I've attempted to be friendly and work towards civil discourse. I've defended you in the past. Yesterday was disappointing, to say the least. I wish you well. And I hope you find peace sooner than later. I haven't blocked you because I don't feel that accomplishes much in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I believe your behavior yesterday worked in my favor. The age of the bully is coming to a close. Though if you are an avid watcher of fox news, I can imagine you may feel differently. I hope you find some more effective means of leading and making change. In the meantime, may you enjoy your freedoms and privileges as much as I do mine.

Good luck.

Francesca Valle
Vocalist/ Coach / Music Producer / Multi-Instrumentalist / Artist & Singer ... Musician, Teacher at California Music Studios and Owner at Bugbyte Studios
Lives in San Diego, California
www.facebook.com/francescavallemusic 

*****

My response:

You are a child, Francesca. Clearly, you measure your worth by "likes," "shares," and "friends" on social media. I feel sad for you. I will put your threats in a blog post right now, and I'll contact my attorney. You wouldn't be the first to threaten my livelihood for the HORRIBLE act of sharing my opinion. If you've followed my writing online you'd know that leftists have been trying to get me fired for years for my views, which are politically incorrect to totalitarian leftists. You're just the latest illiberal stooge, and not a very original one at that. The college won't bat an eye about my private, free-speech activities, but knock yourself out. I know you want to feel superior. Just know that you are most certainly not, since efforts to harass those of different opinions are the height of intolerance and "bullying." Oh, and "peace," since that's the uber cool progressive way to blow off bullies (like you) who ultimately aren't worth the time.

West Hollywood Councilman John Duran Was Seen at Public Council Meetings 'trolling for men on Grindr...'

Well, there's those Democrat Party values for you.

When I was blogging homosexual marriage all the time back in the day, one of the biggest findings (that went against the left's "marriage equality" mantra), is that homosexual men are plagued with virtually unquenchable rampant sexual urges. They just can't get enough, and they're in no way likely to want to "settle down" monogamously with a "spouse." It's utter hypocrisy to claim that same-sex marriages are equal to, well, regular marriage (which somehow started to be called "opposite sex" marriage, smh). Andrew Sullivan was the personification of the hypocrisy, when his "milky loads" scandal broke wide open, lol.

More of this utter depravity, at LAT, "Sex scandal at West Hollywood City Hall spark calls for less Grindr, more respect":

West Hollywood is not shy about sex.

When city officials held a public forum about anal cancer, they called it "Booty Call to Action." The City Hall lobby offers free condoms. A water conservation campaign encouraged residents to "have a morning quickie" by taking short showers.

But in February, West Hollywood agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against the city and Councilman John Duran. The suit was brought on behalf of Ian Owens, whom Duran hired as his deputy after meeting him on Grindr, the smartphone dating app for gay and bisexual men, and then having sex with him.

Now, some residents and politicians in this mecca of gay culture and the home of the Sunset Strip counterculture are wondering if City Hall's famously cheeky attitude about sex needs to be checked a little.

Councilman John D'Amico, who like Duran is gay, said he often looked over during public meetings and saw Duran "trolling for men on Grindr."

"This is not gay-life excuse time, or 'This is how we do it because we're gay,'" D'Amico said at a council meeting. "This is we-live-in-the-21st-century time, and treating people with respect and care and following not just the letter of the law but the spirit of the law is ... part of who we are as a city."

As part of the settlement, Duran and West Hollywood admitted no wrongdoing, but a private investigator's report commissioned by the city dinged Duran for openly talking about his sex life and making "inappropriate" comments that "were sexual in nature" in the workplace.

Duran publicly apologized last month for hiring "a friend," but he has repeatedly denied sexual harassment. He conceded in an interview that had the lawsuit against him and the city gone to trial, West Hollywood's "unique culture" might not have translated well with many members of a jury outside of the city.

"I'm not a stuffed-shirt politician," Duran said. "Yes, my humor is bawdy and funny and outrageous, but, you know what, so is everything else in this town. I could not get elected in Downey."

Indeed, West Hollywood council members occasionally engage in the kind of risque talk that in more strait-laced towns could possibly cost politicians voters or get them recalled. Here, residents sometimes playfully join in the banter during council meetings, whether it's a play-by-play about a visit to the gynecologist or riffs on porn collections.

But in an email, Owens said Duran crossed the line...

More.

Donald Trump Hits Hillary Clinton Over Husband Bill's Sexual Predation (VIDEO)

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, "Playing the 'Bill card' against Hillary":

It's what she gets for playing the 'war on women card' against Trump.

Hillary Clinton stepped in it big time. Trotting out the “war on women” card that she has played so effectively, she charged Donald Trump with sexism.

But Trump, unlike other Republican candidates in the past, wasn’t having any of it. He fired back, on Twitter, ”If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!”

And boom! The issue switched to President Clinton’s record, turning him from a campaign asset to a campaign liability. As the only president to be impeached over sexual harassment (technically, for lying about sexual harassment), and as a political figure who has faced numerous accusations of rape and sexual abuse, Bill Clinton isn’t a good choice for feminist standard-bearer. Worse yet, bringing up Bill’s misbehavior also brings up Hillary’s role in covering for his abuses, and in attacking and humiliating his accusers.

Even The Washington Post’sRuth Marcus concluded that Trump was right, and that Bill’s awful record with women is "fair game.”

The former president, Marcus noted, has a real problem. “ 'Sexism' isn’t the precise word for his predatory behavior toward women or his inexcusable relationship with a 22-year-old intern. Yet in the larger scheme of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said. Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.”

Yes, and it’s a pretty ugly story. As The New York Times' Maureen Dowd wrote, feminism died when Hillary and other top Democratic women circled the wagons around Bill and attacked his accusers:

“Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica (Lewinsky) as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved. As to his dallying with an emotionally immature (22-year-old), Ms. Steinem noted, ‘Welcome sexual behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one.’ ”

Steinem must not have attended any human resources lectures lately...

God, this is the juiciest campaign ever, lol.

You gotta love Trump, which is why the left's gotta hate him, heh.

Still more.

Sick Anti-Zionist Repsac3: 'The Fact Is' I've Got 'No Tweets Supporting' Racist BDS Movement

I thought I'd better screencap this one, since once again racist, smarmy Repsac3 is cornered like a greasy polecat, dishonestly --- no, wickedly --- attempting to weasel out of his own words.

The fact is, not only has Walter James Casper III tweeted his racist support of BDS, he's allied himself with the most disgusting anti-Zionist racists I've ever seen.

Here's a Google link to more lies from racist anti-Zionist Walter James Casper III: "Donald Douglas Beclowns Himself (again), and Insults His Friend."

And he writes:

The fact is there are no tweets supporting BDS--in fact I don't support that movement, and never have--and while I did once post a tweet saying "Occupy Wherever You Are," it's quite the implausible stretch for Donald to imply that that tweet is in any way racist...not that the implausibility of his...well, "conspiracy theories" regarding me have ever stopped him before...

Screencapped here, since lying skunk-wad Reppy will probably pull the post, the racist pig:



As I noted earlier today, Repsac3's health is failing him --- he's literally at death's door --- and he's obviously lost his cognitive capacities. Heart bypass patients often suffer reduced blood flow --- and oxygen --- to the brain, restricting mental function. I've suggested that sick racist Reppy just call off his hateful jihad against American Power. He's been stalking me for over 6 years. He tried to get me fired by sponsoring attacks at American Nihilist, posting my work contact information, and he's continued to ally himself with all the hateful trolls who've libeled me time and again throughout the years of workplace harassment.

Repsac3's a racist, a stalker, and a liar.

Here's my post from April 2013, where Repsac3 attacked Pamela Geller, posting an endorsement of the eliminationist BDS movement: "Hateful Anti-Semitic Ghoul Walter James Casper III Tweets Jew-Bashing Attack on Pamela Geller — and Israel!" Screencapped here, since Reppy might pull that tweet, just as his racist BFF "Cassandra Rules" has been doing all weekend:



Walter James Casper tweeted his support for censoring Pamela Geller --- my friend in liberty, and a true crusader for human rights. His same tweet says that BDS hatred "should be allowed."

BDS is the premiere organization of contemporary global anti-Zionism. Judea Pearl, father of slain Wall Street Journal Reporter Daniel Pearl, has written that BDS should be understood for precisely what it is: a racist movement whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and the Jews. See: "Anti-Zionism is Racism."

So again, if Repsac3 doesn't like being called out for his racism then he should stop his racism. Simple as that.

Oh, and my wonderful friend the Mad Jewess Woman wrote that the ANSWER LA protest last weekend was "phoney," as in composed of a bunch of bullshit losers. She was writing facetiously.

Repsac3, on the other hand, was writing literally, not only correcting his spelling to the non-facetious "phony," but further elaborating with some conspiracy about how I "make a point" showing up at these protests" looking for these women."

Again, not enough circulation to Reppy's de-oxygenated brain. I wouldn't have even known who "these women" were until the disgusting Reppy starting reaching out to "Cassandra Rules" on Twitter in mid-July.

So, I renew my plea for Walter James Casper III to retire from this madness. He's getting worse. He's been bad a long time, since he started trolling me at Biobrain's blog. But he's gotten worse, more sinister and racist, and more intent to inflict harm on me and my friends. It's not good for him. It's obviously been bad for his health. He needs to just come clean and say, simply, "I'm sorry. Enough. No more of the hate. I'll leave you alone."

Hi Donald Douglas: You Have a New Stalking Troll-Rights Follower Harasser @Repsac3 on Disqus

A few weeks back, fresh off Roy Edroso commenter Selwyn Hollis' workplace harassment, I received this notification from Disqus: "Repsac3 is now following you on Disqus."

Right. My stalking troll rights harasser --- no, my lying stalking troll rights harasser who lies constantly about his ghoulish obsession with me and this blog --- adjusted his Disqus settings to follow my every single comment posted to the Disqus system.

Nope, no sick obsession there. You see, Disqus lets users follow any commenter at the system through the dashboard settings. So, any and all comments I make, no matter where I make them, would be aggregated among Repsac's follows at the system. And why? Well, despite denying that he's sick psychopath intent to inflict harm, harassment and evil on his political enemies, Repsac3 was no doubt hoping to find some off-color comments by me to forward to my place of employment in one more pathetic attempt to have me fired. He's done it before with his sponsorship of workplace harassment at American Nihilist. So this is just one more episode of systematic and criminal workplace intimidation and political recrimination.

Recall, as Robert Stacy McCain wrote in January, "Portrait of a Stalker Troll: @Repsac3, Also Known as Walter James Casper III":

Professor Donald Douglas has spent years fighting one particularly obsessed troll, Walter James Casper III, who might actually out-rank Bill Schmalfeldt in the Stalker Hall of Shame, because Casper has been cyberstalking Douglas for more than five years.

Among the significant characteristics of cyberstalkers is the disproportionality of their obsessions. Professor Douglas is not an academic celebrity or influential media personality. He’s a professor of political science at Long Beach City College in California. It is not as if he’s at Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Yale or some other big-money “prestige” school, and yet the fact that Professor Douglas is (a) conservative and (b) a blogger is sufficient to justify in Casper’s sick mind the most insane forms of stalking behavior.

Another characteristic of cyberstalkers is their resort to psychological projection: They are not obsessed with you — no! — you are obsessed with them, and don’t you dare accuse them of harassing you — of course not! — you are instead harassing them.

This kind of “accuse the accusers” tactic serves two purposes for the troll: First, it is a psychological rationalization by which he justifies his behavior and, second, it serves to obfuscate the situation in the eyes of law enforcement or other authorities.

Something else: The conflict between Casper and Professor Douglas is not about politics, nor is it about Professor Douglas.

That is to say, Casper’s espousal of left-wing political ideas is not the reason for his behavior, but simply a pretext, and if he weren’t harassing Professor Douglas, he’d be harassing some other target, selected more or less at random ... despite such clear evidence that no one else shares his obsession, Casper continues doing what he does, apparently with no other purpose except to annoy the target of his weird fixation.

Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly. Stalkers gotta stalk.

And remember, no one knows more about psychopathic leftist Internet trolls than Robert Stacy McCain. Don't miss his update yesterday on the Kimberlin lawsuit, "In Which @AceOfSpadesHQ Becomes a First Amendment Cause Célèbre."

In any case, as you can see with this deranged Disqus following situation, Repsac's still gotta stalk --- the f-king perverted homo-loving loser. Oh, and did I say Israel-loathing, Communist-loving, ObamaCare-shilling hack partisan dirtbag? Yeah, well that too. Walter James Casper III's got it bad --- which is why he's been ridiculed and repudiated across the entire conservative blogosphere. He's universally reviled, in fact. It's an impressive feat.

Oh, and and just in case Repsac's harassing you, here's this on blocking the f-ker on Disqus: "Disqus publicly launches its new private profiles feature," and "Making your activity private."

Fish gotta swim...

@Edroso Commenter Threatens Workplace Harassment Over Pete Seeger Communist Blogging — UPDATED AND BUMPED!!

It's one of the leftists over at Roy Edroso's blog, who writes:

Wonder how your employer's administration would enjoy reading a copy of this comment?

The comment's at the link.

Interesting how Edroso's entire community of depraved harassment leftists are down with it. No push back. F-k 'em. It never ceases to amaze me that virtually the first response of all leftists is to contact your employer. It's too pat. I understand more than ever why people blog anonymously. Personally, I've always put my reputation out there. Regressive leftists can't debate you. They can't win on the merits. All they have are lies and harassment. I've been through this too many times to recount. I'm up to a half dozen or so attempts to have me fired, a couple of which have instigated frivolous investigations.

These people are driven by hatred. All in a day's blogging, I guess.

Here's the search tag for "workplace harassment," which is voluminous.

Previous Communist Pete Seeger blogging is here.

*****

UPDATED!!

My department chair has been contacted by someone named "Selwyn Hollis."

I have sent this Hollis person an email to their gmail account of the same name. I have not heard back.

Also there is a Dr. Selwyn Hollis, Professor of Mathematics, at Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, Georgia. I cannot confirm if my harasser is the same as Professor Hollis.

Again, I do not know if this is the same "Selwyn Hollis"?

However, if readers are concerned, and need information or confirmation on "Selwyn Hollis," they should inquire with the Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, Dr. James Brawner:

Department of Mathematics
College of Science and Technology
University Hall 297
11935 Abercorn Street
Savannah, GA 31419

Thanks dear readers. And remember, never cave to these assholes. All they have are threats and intimidation. They never win debates on the merits. They attack and harass like the evil assholes they are. F-k 'em.

Walter James Casper, Hate-Troll and Pathological Liar, Lamely Tries to Score Political Points With Hilarious Make-Believe Abomination

Let me just start by being unequivocally clear: F-k you, Walter James Casper III.

F-k you and the bareback rim station perverts you rode in on. I'm just all torn up about your faux-outrage and political opportunism that, oops, now might be a little over the top and something of which you thought better, you depraved lunatic: "(Edited out... Not something to score points with)..." So, you thought you'd just post this over at the Other McCain's to, what, force conservatives to abandon old Donald?

I defy anyone sane and decent--and that includes some of Donald Douglas' biggest supporters, and especially anyone who has ever been swatted, or who chose to leave their home to protect their family from possible bad behavior by those they blogged about--to say that the post below is not very creepy, or that doxing someone with whom you disagree over the internet is EVER justified.

Oh brother. Talk about a junior high school drama queen. Grow up, Casper, you vile Internet troll and moral reprobate. You posted that to the Other McCain last night, at what, 3:30am eastern time? You think you've been doxed? That would be terrible, you know, to put someone's safety at risk. Just terrible! (Of course, you know first hand about putting people at risk, don't you, you hypocritical creep?)

Honestly, I don't care what my co-bloggers think or do. They're not being stalked by an obsessive-compulsive hate-troll who's allied with and abetted vicious personal attacks on me, my family, and my livelihood.

Dear readers will note that Repsac's exhortations to contact my workplace are still posted, "DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE" (which included this attack in its original form):

We know these behaviors all too well, and why some of you bother with this pinhead is beyond me. The Coward is not welcome at The Swash Zone; we delete his comments immediately. More disturbing are the comments and e-mails left by his followers: Profane, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic … worthy of report to the FBI. What to do?

If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President [XXXX XXXXXX at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or Executive VP of Academic Affairs [XXXXXX XXXX at (XXX) XXX-XXXX and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option ([lawsuit] in progress).

This was posted by (O)CT(O)PUS (libel blogger David Hillman of the Swash Zone). And it was completely authorized with the invitation and permission of hate-stalker Walter James Casper III.

And that's just one example of the hatred that racist Repsac has enabled and encouraged and participated in during his more than five years of utterly deranged harassment of American Power. Nothing is beyond the pale for Casper. Seriously. Carl Salonen? Now Casper's best buddy and top commenter at American Nihilist? Boy, not too worried about situational ethics, I guess. Casper's longtime friendship with Salonen is a ringing endorsement of these kinds of attacks: "Carl Salonen Libelous Workplace Allegations of Child Pornography and Sexual Harassment at Long Beach City College." If anyone should be abandoned maybe Salonen's a good place to start, no? Seems to me if someone's outraged at even the idea of doxing they would express equal outrage at actual cases of workplace harassment and intimidation, where the perpetrator even bullied the Attorney General of California's office in an attempt to have me fired. But no. Such despicable Internet bullies are welcomed open arms at the hate-site American Nihilist. Folks can see why I'm all lulz over racist Repsac's pathetic bawling.

In any case, the transparency of Repsac's "accuse the accusers" tactic is pretty hilarious. As Robert Stacy McCain wrote the other day:

Another characteristic of cyberstalkers is their resort to psychological projection: They are not obsessed with you — no! — you are obsessed with them, and don’t you dare accuse them of harassing you — of course not! — you are instead harassing them. This kind of “accuse the accusers” tactic serves two purposes for the troll: First, it is a psychological rationalization by which he justifies his behavior and, second, it serves to obfuscate the situation in the eyes of law enforcement or other authorities.

Something else: The conflict between Casper and Professor Douglas is not about politics, nor is it about Professor Douglas.

That is to say, Casper’s espousal of left-wing political ideas is not the reason for his behavior, but simply a pretext, and if he weren’t harassing Professor Douglas, he’d be harassing some other target, selected more or less at random. There is, of course, a specific history to the conflict between them, but it is ultimately irrelevant. There are plenty of people every bit as left-wing as Casper who are not obsessive stalkers, and there are other conservative bloggers who might just as easily become targets for stalking, if ever they attracted the attention of such a grotesquely deformed personality as Casper.

Walter James Casper III has spent years smearing and harassing Professor Douglas, trying to get him fired from his job. This could (and in fact, often does) happen to any blogger who has a day job.

To get an idea of the pathetic nature of Casper’s obsession, he has devoted an entire blog, called “American Nihilist,” to his anti-Douglas jihad. In the past six months, that stalker site has attracted an average of about 15 visitors a day. By contrast, Professor Douglas’s blog has averaged nearly 2,000 visitors daily...

Still more at the link.

Walter James Casper's a despicable lying half-wit douchebag --- which is to say, he's a regressive leftist. No one cares what happens to him. He deserves whatever malicious fate awaits him. I couldn't care less, although his predicable political opportunism is hilarious, and you gotta give it up for his moral relativism and situational ethics. I mean really, this whole spiel, "OMG, this is infinity times worse than whatever evil things I've done to Donald Douglas in the past and OMG I can't believe any of Donald's conservative friends would ever again have anything to do with him," is just a little too obvious and just a tiny bit desperate.

Get a life, Casper. I suggest you start by closing up shop at your stalking "jihad" blog American Nihilist, which clearly is the source of all your problems. And after that, get some psychological treatment to deal with all of your clearly acute issues of lying, projection and pathetic victimization. Man, that's just sad.