Domestic violence reporting by Latinos has fallen sharply in CA, in face of increased ICE action. My latest: https://t.co/7Zy8D36pxT
— James Queally (@JamesQueallyLAT) October 9, 2017
7. FACT: Most of the folks talking about Weinstein on the far right don't even believe sexual harassment is a problem
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 7, 2017
Oh brother. Illegals have definitely taken over. #StopAmnesty #BuildTheWall #NoDACA #BanRefugees https://t.co/wLvq9OdIMW
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) October 7, 2017
Donald. Come on. https://t.co/whhp3b3ueV
— Robin Abcarian (@AbcarianLAT) October 7, 2017
.@danbalz looks at the leftward shift of Democrats and its implications for 2020 https://t.co/ZF4fYkVVei
— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) October 8, 2017
Partisan divisions are not new news in American politics, nor is the assertion that one cause of the deepening polarization has been a demonstrable rightward shift among Republicans. But a more recent leftward movement in attitudes among Democrats also is notable and has obvious implications as the party looks toward 2020.
Here is some context. In 2008, not one of the major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination advocated legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2016, not one of those who sought the nomination opposed such unions, and not just because of the Supreme Court’s rulings. Changing attitudes among all voters, and especially Democratic voters, made support for same-sex marriage an article of faith for anyone seeking to lead the party.
Trade policy is another case study. Over many years, Democrats have been divided on the merits of multilateral free-trade agreements. In 1992, Bill Clinton strongly supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the face of stiff opposition from labor unions and others. He took his case into union halls, and while he didn’t convert his opponents, he prospered politically in the face of that opposition.
By 2016, with skepticism rising more generally about trade and globalization, Hillary Clinton was not willing to make a similar defense of the merits of free-trade agreements. With Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) bashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a presidential candidate, Clinton joined the chorus of opponents. She ended up on the opposite side of then-President Barack Obama, even though she had spoken warmly about the prospects of such a treaty as secretary of state.
Looking ahead to 2020, something similar is likely to take place on the issue of health care. Because of changing attitudes that already are underway within the party, it will be difficult for any Democrat seeking the nomination not to support some kind of single-payer health-care plan, even if big questions remain about how it could be accomplished.
Sanders used his 2016 presidential campaign to advocate a universal health-care plan that he dubbed “Medicare for All.” The more cautious Clinton, who saw flaws in what Sanders was advocating, argued instead for focusing on improvements to the Affordable Care Act.
Sanders has now introduced a “Medicare for All” measure in the Senate, and his co-sponsors include several other prospective candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020.
Meanwhile, a majority of House Democrats have signed onto a single-payer plan sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) that goes much further. This has happened even though some of those who like Conyers’s idea in principle question whether it is ready for prime time, not only because of the potential cost and the absence of a mechanism to pay for it, but also because of other potential policy flaws as well.
The pressure to embrace single-payer plans grows out of shifts in attitudes among Democrats. The Pew Research Center found in June that 52 percent of self-identified Democrats now support a government-run health-care system. That is up nine points since the beginning of the year and 19 points since 2014. Among liberal Democrats, 64 percent support such a plan (up 13 points just this year) and among younger Democrats, 66 percent say they support it.
Health care isn’t the only area in which Democratic attitudes are shifting significantly. Others include such issues as the role of government and the social safety net; the role of race and racial discrimination in society; and immigration and the value of diversity.
A few days ago, the Pew Center released a comprehensive survey on the widening gap between Republicans and Democrats. The bottom line is summed up by one of the opening sentences in the report: “Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades.”
This poll is the latest in a series of surveys dating to 1994. Together they provide not just snapshots in time, but also an arc of the changes in public opinion. Republicans moved to the right harder and earlier than Democrats began moving left, and their base remains more uncompromising. But on a number or questions, the biggest recent movement has been among Democrats.
In its new survey, Pew found the widest partisan gap ever on the question of whether government should help those in need — primarily because of recent shifts among Democrats. From 2011 to today, the percentage of Democrats who say government should do more to help those in need has jumped from 54 percent to 71 percent.
Only a minority of Republicans (24 percent) say government should do more for the needy, and that figure has barely moved in the past six years. The Republicans shifted their views from 2007 through 2011, the early years of the Obama presidency, during which their support for a government role dropped by 20 percentage points.
Two related questions produce a similar pattern among Democrats. Three in 4 Democrats say that “poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently,” up a dozen points in the past few years.
Eight in 10 Democrats say the country needs to continue to make changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, up 18 points since 2014. And more than 6 in 10 say “racial discrimination is the main reason many black people can’t get ahead these days,” up from 4 in 10 three years ago.
Meanwhile, only a quarter of Republicans agree with the statement on government benefits, fewer than 4 in 10 say the country needs to continue to do things to provide equal rights for blacks, and just 14 percent cite racial discrimination as the main reason many blacks can’t get ahead...
Had to wear black for the first day of October! Wish temps were cooler in #SanDiego! 🦇🕷🕸💀🍁 pic.twitter.com/fZRuRGIpPE
— Jennifer Delacruz (@10NewsJen) October 2, 2017
My thoughts on Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton, and the Hollywood women who remained silent: https://t.co/XORKnqPdNS
— Melissa Mackenzie 🌐 (@MelissaTweets) October 6, 2017
A great moment in Sleazeland.More.
Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed women for decades. The women in Hollywood remained silent for decades. Hillary Clinton took Weinstein money for decades. It was an open secret said one Hollywood insider anonymously.
Weinstein’s lawyer and counselor is Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred’s daugher. Lisa Bloom represents women’s rights unless she’s being paid gobs of money by Hollywood bigwig pigs like Harvey Weinstein. Then, her sensibilities lean to the crassly money and power side. In this way, she’s a lot like feminist hero Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, the recipient of Harvey Weinstein’s largesse, found that her grabby hand’s nerves fired more quickly than her crawling skin nerves. Funny how that happens to feminists.
Speaking of feminists. Where was Ashley Judd when Harvey Weinstein feted Her Royal Highness Hillary? Why did Judd remain quiet when the serial abuser Weinstein paid big money to be for Her?
All this is not to absolve Harvey Weinstein or to say he isn’t awful, because based on many reports, wow, is he ever. To get a solid feel for how disgusting Mr. Weinstein is, one need only read his own comments about Ashley Judd. Aren’t women always to be believed? From the New York Post:
Weinstein continued, “But she changed her story when giving it to the Times. I know Ashley Judd is going through a tough time right now, I read her book [her memoir “All That Is Bitter and Sweet”], in which she talks about being the victim of sexual abuse and depression as a child. Her life story was brutal, and I have to respect her. In a year from now I am going to reach out to her.”
He also insisted of Judd, “I never laid a glove on her. After this supposed incident, which she says was in 1997 while filming ‘Kiss The Girls,’ I took her to an Academy Award party where we were photographed smiling. She claimed to the Times she never worked with me again. She did two movies with me — ‘Frida’, which came out in 2002, and ‘Crossing Over’ with Harrison Ford, released in 2009.”
And when asked about the Times reporting that he has reached at least eight settlements with women, including a young assistant in New York in 1990, actress Rose McGowan, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and O’Connor, he told The Post, “No company ever talks about settlements, and neither does the recipient, so I don’t know how the Times came to this conclusion, but it is pure conjecture, the reporters have made assumptions.”
Weinstein plans to sue the New York Times for $50 million even as he’s taking a break to get therapy because of his unspecified problem.
Here’s Weinstein’s full statement emphasis added with some comments in italics.
I came of age in the 60’s and 70’s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. [Really? There was a time when it was okay to take showers naked in front of subordinates and then ask them to massage you?] That was the culture then.A simpler statement would have been, “SORRY, NOT SORRY!”
I have since learned it’s not an excuse, in the office — or out of it. To anyone.
I realized some time ago that I needed to be a better person [this is a laugh line] and my interactions with the people I work with have changed.
I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.
Though I’m trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go. That is my commitment.
My journey now will be to learn about myself and conquer my demons. Over the last year I’ve asked Lisa Bloom to tutor me and she’s put together a team of people. I’ve brought on therapists and I plan to take a leave of absence from my company and to deal with this issue head on. I so respect all women [hahahahaha] and regret what happened [translation: I regret getting caught]. I hope that my actions will speak louder than words and that one day we will all be able to earn their trust and sit down together with Lisa to learn more. Jay Z wrote in 4:44 “I’m not the man I thought I was and I better be that man for my children.” The same is true for me. [So Weinstein is making reference to Jay Z who cheated on Beyoncé and is doing okay and hopes he’ll come out of this unscathed as well?] I want a second chance in the community [Translation: I want to be let off the hook like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski] but I know I’ve got work to do to earn it. I have goals that are now priorities. Trust me, this isn’t an overnight process. I’ve been trying to do this for 10 years and this is a wake-up call. I cannot be more remorseful about the people I hurt and I plan to do right by all of them.
I am going to need a place to channel that anger so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. [This is disgusting. To deflect away from his bad behavior, he’s attempting to rope in ideological enemies. He’s saying: Remember who the real bad guy is here.] I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party. [Translation: I’m shifting the blame to a common enemy and I’m pissed off that the President still has a job and I might lose mine.] One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC. While this might seem coincidental, it has been in the works for a year. It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her. [Translation: Even though I’ve used women as objects, I’m still pro-women. See? I’m a good guy.]
Twitter response encapsulates Weinstein’s weasel statement...
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.Still more.
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...
We need #FallacyControl now more than ever!— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 4, 2017
In response to senseless violence, clear-headed citizens deserve a safe space from the 24/7 barrage of #GunControl nonsense==>https://t.co/tqDzUqbfIH pic.twitter.com/aKWgfvVNtn
Enough is enough. It’s epidemic. It’s dangerous. And the time has come to demand its end.
In the aftermath of the horrific massacre in Las Vegas, America needs fallacy control. Yes, we must declare war on fallaciousness. Now more than ever, the nation is suffering from an outbreak of illogical thinking. In response to senseless violence, clearheaded citizens deserve a safe space from the 24/7 barrage of rhetorical nonsense. Let's break down the collective cognitive breakdown.
Argumentum ad celebritum. Empty talking points don't become persuasive arguments when uttered by Hollywood stars. But in the bizarre land of the celebrity cult, late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel has been suddenly anointed "America's conscience" and "voice of reason."
Kimmel railed "intensely" on TV Monday night against politicians doing "nothing" to stop mass gun violence. Sobbing and emotional, he insisted, "there's a lot of things we can do about it." Yet, Kimmel acknowledged that Mandalay Bay gunman Stephen Paddock had passed multiple, mandated background checks and had no criminal history. Moreover, Paddock bought his guns legally from Nevada and Utah gun shops subject to a thicket of local, state and federal rules -- and reportedly carried 23 of his weapons into a casino/hotel that already operates as a gun-free zone.
Federal studies show that a measly 1 to 3 percent of all guns are purchased at gun shows, but that didn't stop Kimmel from tossing around non sequiturs attacking the "gun show loophole." It's a mythical exemption in federal law for private weapons sales at gun shows or online intended to drum up hysteria about unregulated gun sales. In reality, firearms purchased through federally licensed firearms dealers at gun shops, shows, garage sales or anywhere else are subject to all the usual checks and restrictions. Only a narrow category of same-state transactions between private individuals not engaged in the commercial business of selling firearms (family members or collectors, for example) are unaffected by those regulations.
There is zero empirical evidence that banning these types of transactions would do anything to prevent gun crimes or mass shootings. But who needs evidence when Jimmy Kimmel is bawling on stage "intensely"? The tears of a clown outweigh the sobriety of facts.
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad hashtag. Actor Billy Baldwin unloaded a fallacy two-fer with his assertion that "the overwhelming majority of Dems, Reps & NRA members endorse #GunSafety," so "how can we let the #NRA hold us hostage like this? #NRATerrorists." Claiming that an "overwhelming majority" of people agree with you doesn't make your argument sound. Nor does citing polls showing support for "gun show loopholes" that those surveyed don't fully understand. Nor does attacking the character of your political opponents and hashtag-smearing them as "NRATerrorists" for holding political viewpoints different than your own.
Straw men and red herrings. Grossly oversimplifying support of ineffective or superfluous gun control measures as "#GunSafety" allows celebrities, politicians and activists to prop up their favorite hollow debating tactic: asserting that gun owners, NRA members, and Republicans don't care about gun safety and want more innocent people to die.
Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu illustrated a similar diversionary tactic by waving the red herring of a "gun silencer bill" and demanding that GOP "COWARDS" vote against deregulating such suppressors. Hillary Clinton also demagogued the issue, ghoulishly tweeting: "Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." Her running mate and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine parroted the propaganda, claiming that Paddock "was only stopped because he didn't have a silencer on his firearm, and the sound drew people to the place where he was ultimately stopped."
Police, however, took 72 minutes to locate Paddock; it was the sound of hotel fire alarms set off by all the gun smoke that led them to the shooter. But let's not let pesky facts in the way.
Think of the children. Invoking kids to support one's public policy preferences is not an argument. It's a timeworn appeal to emotion. Without it, however, gun control advocates are all out of ammunition.
"We as a society owe it to our children" to pass "common sense" gun control, New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton pleaded.
"Thoughts & prayers are NOT enough. Not when more moms & dads will bury kids this week, & more sons & daughters will grow up without parents," Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., fumed on Twitter.
And actor Boris Kodjoe tweeted: "My 10 year old asked me how the shooter was able to get his machine gun. I told him that pretty much anyone in the US can. 'But why daddy'?"
Too bad Kodjoe's kid will never know that daddy didn't tell him the truth about fully automatic firearms (aka "machine guns"), which have been effectively banned from private civilian ownership in the U.S. as a result of federal gun legislation dating back to 1934. Nor will the children of the "Think about the children!" brigade be taught the truth about defensive gun use or Second Amendment history and jurisprudence.
We owe our children critical thinking skills and evidence-based public policy, not knee-jerk slogans and tear-jerking treacle.
“Im not inclined to give up my ability to defend myself in response to demands by ppl who tell me they want me dead” https://t.co/SUjM8OgpU8— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 7, 2017
