Tuesday, October 10, 2017

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":

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.

'I Need to Know'

What a totally unexpected and of course untimely death. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers just came off their 40th anniversary tour, and I was still hoping to catch them in concert. One of my favorite bands hands down. Too many classic songs to recount. Their music's just part of the culture, from the movies ("Silence of the Lambs") to sports (Superbowl halftime show) and on and on. I should've been blogging him more all these years of drive-time music blogging. Shame.

In any case, here's the New York Times' obit, "Tom Petty, a Mainstay of Rock With the Heartbreakers, Dies at 66."

And at the L.A. Times, "Tom Petty, down-to-earth rock superstar, dies at 66," and "Tom Petty's final interview: There was supposed to have been so much more."

And at the Sound L.A., from Friday' morning's errand-running drive-time, "I Need to Know":


Modern Love
David Bowie
12:26 PM

Tumbling Dice
The Rolling Stones
12:23 PM

Girls Got Rhythm
AC/DC
12:20 PM

Drive
The Cars
12:10 PM

Sweet Child O' Mine
Guns N' Roses
12:04 PM

Rock 'N' Roll Fantasy
Bad Company
12:00 PM

I Need to Know
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers

Dance Sister Dance (Baila Mi Hermana)
Santana
11:49 AM

Kashmir
Led Zeppelin
11:36 AM

Josie
Steely Dan
11:31 AM

Roxanne
The Police
11:28 AM

Hello, Goodbye
The Beatles
11:25 AM

The Culture Wars Are Bad for Business

From Joel Kotkin, at the O.C. Register, "The bottom line of the culture wars: Catastrophic bad for business."


Monday, October 9, 2017

The Democrats' George McGovern Redux for 2020

I love this piece, from Alan Greenblatt, at Politico, "Are Democrats Headed for a McGovern Redux?":

As Trump continues his Nixonian campaign of white cultural-grievance politics, Democrats appear consumed by the same squabbles that destroyed them in 1972.

Four decades ago, Richard Nixon lived out the fantasy many liberals harbor about Donald Trump, stepping down in the face of possible impeachment over a slow-moving scandal long before his term was up. Before that happened, however, Nixon was reelected by a resounding margin, in large part because progressives made strategic errors that Democrats today appear hellbent on repeating.

In 1968, as in 2016, Democrats narrowly lost the White House after nominating a relatively moderate, establishment candidate instead of a more liberal alternative who had inspired a raging enthusiasm among younger voters. Democrats spent much of the next four years arguing about what direction the party should take. White working-class voters—traditionally a Democratic bloc—were sluicing away, and progressives, convinced the party needed to change both its policy direction and its coalition of supporters, demanded a new approach: a “loose peace coalition” of minorities, young voters and educated white Democrats, as strategist Fred Dutton wrote in his 1971 book, Changing Sources of Power. One year later, the party’s presidential nominee, the ultra-liberal Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, went on to lose 49 states in one of the most lopsided victories in American history.

We’re a long, long way from 2020, but it’s abundantly evident that Trump will again run a Nixonian campaign, tearing down his opponent and presenting himself as the champion of an aggrieved coalition that Nixon called the “silent majority” and Trump calls “the forgotten men and women” of America.

Consumed by internecine battles and the idea of opposition, Democrats run the risk of again nominating someone like McGovern who pleases progressives but steers a course too far from the country’s center of political gravity to win, even as Trump continues his funhouse mirror impression of Nixon as the avatar of white cultural-grievance politics.

Politics today are much different than they were then, as is the shape of the American electorate. But there are parallels that Democrats should bear in mind as they nurse their hopes of driving Trump from the Oval Office. Trump is a culture warrior, and progressives today are perfectly willing to engage that sideshow—just as they did 45 years with Nixon.

Look no further than the recent controversy over NFL players’ protests over police violence and racism, which Trump has successfully portrayed for most voters as an insult to men and women in uniform, the American flag, mom and apple pie.

“If the Democrats become the party of those in favor of kneeling rather than standing for the national anthem,” says historian Jeffrey Bloodworth, author of Losing the Center: A History of American Liberalism, 1968-1992, “that would be a full McGovern.”
Well, the electoral map today looks nothing like Nixon's 49 state blowout in 1972, but the comparisons are more than idle speculation. The Dems indeed are moving way to the left, and, frankly, the party's so ideological koo-koo it's like they're practically begging for a second Trump term.

Lol. One can only hope.

Keep reading.

Today's Deals

At Amazon, Shop Our Deal of the Day.

And especially, Ecco Shoes for Men.

Also, Save up to 20 Percent on Books.

More, Columbia Men's Glennaker Lake Front-Zip Rain Jacket with Hideaway Hood.

Plus, Mountain House Just In Case...Breakfast Bucket.

And, Hershey's 36ct. Plus 1 Bonus Bar (37 Bars Total).

Still more, LG Electronics 60UJ7700 60-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV (2017 Model).

BONUS: Thomas Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49 (Perennial Fiction Library).

ICYMI: Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian

*BUMPED.*

I've about 100 pages to go finished this one, and I'll tell you, this is an astonishing book.

At Amazon, Cormac McCarthey, Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West — A Novel.




Domestic Violence Victims Avoid the Police, Fearing Deportation

This is why people hate the media. We're supposed to feel bad for battered illegals? Go back to Mexico and report your illegal domestic abuser, sheesh.

At the stupid Los Angeles Times, "Fearing deportation, many domestic violence victims are steering clear of police and courts."


Jessica Gomes and Julie Henderson at Discovery Cove (VIDEO)

For Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:



Here's Danielle Gersh's Los Angeles Forecast

Can't go without the lovely Danielle as well, at CBS News 2 Los Angeles:



Jennifer Delacruz's Monday Forecast

It's supposed to be clear, warm, and pleasant all week.

I love this October weather, and just love Ms. Jennifer!

At ABC News 10 San Diego:



Kiss Pauses Louisiana Concert to Lead Crowd in Pledge of Allegiance

Here's Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, "Oh, to go back in time and tell my ten year old self that in the 21st century, a Kiss concert would be more patriotic than the NFL…"

Chelsea Clinton Weighs In on Harvey Weinstein

At Twitchy, "Chelsea Clinton gets TORCHED after sharing thread criticizing politicization of Harvey Weinstein."

She tweeted leftist asshat Jedd Legum, of Think Progress infamy. Those people are the biggest assholes over there, and Chelsea's a bleedin' idiot.


Sunday, October 8, 2017

Oh Those Gold Shorts!

Wow!

What a woman!

Seen on Twitter:


Leon F. Litwack, Trouble in Mind

Following-up, "Eleanor Henderson, The Twelve-Mile Straight."

Reading this NYT review of Ms. Henderson's book got me thinking about Leon Litwack.

This is the essential tome on Jim Crow.

At Amazon, Leon F. Litwack, Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow.



Eleanor Henderson, The Twelve-Mile Straight

Honestly, I love all this literary fiction. I know it's mostly leftist blather, but these are interesting books nevertheless. (That said, I won't read some authors, like Margaret Atwood and Barbara Kingsolver; there are limits to my open-mindedness, lol.)

In any case, at Amazon, Eleanor Henderson, The Twelve-Mile Straight: A Novel.



Danzy Senna, New People

Ms. Senna is featured at NYT, "A novel explores the utopia and dystopia of a 'post-racial' America."

And at Amazon, Danzy Senna, New People: A Novel.



Irina Shayk Uncovered for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2017 (VIDEO)

For Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:



Illegals Have Definitely Taken Over

I tweeted.

Far left Robin Abcarian wasn't pleased.


Democrats Shift Even Farther Left Ahead of 2020

Actually, it's mostly that Democrats aren't secret about their far-left neo-communist agenda. Bernie Sanders is Marxist. He probably should've won the nomination, if it wasn't for the lies and machinations of Crooked Hillary and the DNC. But come 2020, it's no enemies on the left, and all out in the open. Maybe Bernie will run again. If not him, it'll be a bloody potpourri of radical left candidates.

At WaPo, "Shifting attitudes among Democrats have big implications for 2020":

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...

Jennifer Delacruz's Sunday Weather Forecast

The forecast isn't posted to YouTube, so go directly to ABC News 10's page, "Jennifer's Forecast: Mild & cooler Sunday: Fire Weather Watch to start the week."

And on Twitter: