livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Weinstein was a warning to Hillary
I have not commented on the Vegas massacre because I cannot add much to the discussion. The call for gun control is rote. Reflexive. It fell upon Jimmy Kimmel to deliver the stale call to strip handguns from granny.
But the New York Times switched subjects by dumping on Harvey Weinstein, a repugnant Hollywood producer who in a tradition pre-dating Hollywood had a casting couch. They made films in New Jersey before they moved to Hollywood. Bedding beauties was a perk.
An entitlement.
Hold that thought.
The Weinstein piece did not come out of nowhere. The Times ran it after watering down a similar piece a decade ago (according to the reporter who wrote it, Sharon Waxman).
One reader suggested this was part of a communist purge of the old regime.
Well, a new set of younger and more militant Marxists awaits us. Inspired by Barack Obama, they feel entitled by their race or sex. Kamala Harris has both black privilege and female privilege.
But Weinstein felt privileged as well. You want in the movie, sweetie?
There are plenty of women who do. The Times reported only on the few who said no. His company paid them off -- $80,000 to $150,000 each to settle their nuisance lawsuits. You don't spend that kind of money on a tactic that does not work.
As the star of "Celebrity Apprentice" once said, if you are a star or a billionaire, women let you grab them...
They do, but someone is keeping score.
Guys like Weinstein think they get away with it.
But people notice, and as the settled lawsuits pile up they become deadly. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly drank their self-brewed poison after the Murdoch brothers took over Fox News.
Now it is Weinstein's time to pay for years of abuse. Privilege. Entitlement.
One of the two names on the byline in the Times hit piece was Megan Twohey. She was part of that botched hit piece on Trump in May 2016, “Crossing the Line: Trump’s Private Conduct with Women.” He dated beautiful women when he was single. Shocking.
Camille Paglia said of it:
The drums had been beating for weeks about a major New York Times expose in the works that would demolish Trump once and for all by revealing his sordid lifetime of misogyny. When it finally appeared as a splashy front-page story this past Sunday (originally titled “Crossing the Line: Trump’s Private Conduct with Women”), I was off in the woods pursuing my Native American research. On Monday, after seeing countless exultant references to this virtuoso takedown, I finally read the article—and laughed out loud throughout. Can there be any finer demonstration of the insularity and mediocrity of today’s Manhattan prestige media? Wow, millionaire workaholic Donald Trump chased young, beautiful, willing women and liked to boast about it. Jail him now! Meanwhile, the New York Times remains mute about Bill Clinton’s long record of crude groping and grosser assaults—not one example of which could be found to taint Trump.Blame for this fiasco falls squarely upon the New York Times editors who delegated to two far too young journalists, Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, the complex task of probing the glitzy, exhibitionistic world of late-twentieth-century beauty pageants, gambling casinos, strip clubs, and luxury resorts. Neither Barbaro, a 2002 graduate of Yale, nor Twohey, a 1998 graduate of Georgetown University, had any frame of reference for sexual analysis aside from the rote political correctness that has saturated elite American campuses for nearly 40 years. Their prim, priggish formulations in this awkwardly disconnected article demonstrate the embarrassing lack of sophistication that passes for theoretical expertise among their over-paid and under-educated professors.Twohey did better this time.
The target was bigger and the sources were familiar to the Times. Not the people quoted. The people who peddled this to the Times aren't in the story.
But Clinton is. The Times prominently displayed a picture of her and Weinstein at a fund-raiser.
Why bring her in?
Because she blew the biggest race since the Tortoise and the Hare. More than $1.2 billion was riding on her.
Now the donors are pissed. And she is on her book tour playing victim.
Don Surber: Weinstein was a warning to Hillary
more at
I have not commented on the Vegas massacre because I cannot add much to the discussion. The call for gun control is rote. Reflexive. It fell upon Jimmy Kimmel to deliver the stale call to strip handguns from granny.
But the New York Times switched subjects by dumping on Harvey Weinstein, a repugnant Hollywood producer who in a tradition pre-dating Hollywood had a casting couch. They made films in New Jersey before they moved to Hollywood. Bedding beauties was a perk.
An entitlement.
Hold that thought.
The Weinstein piece did not come out of nowhere. The Times ran it after watering down a similar piece a decade ago (according to the reporter who wrote it, Sharon Waxman).
One reader suggested this was part of a communist purge of the old regime.
Well, a new set of younger and more militant Marxists awaits us. Inspired by Barack Obama, they feel entitled by their race or sex. Kamala Harris has both black privilege and female privilege.
But Weinstein felt privileged as well. You want in the movie, sweetie?
There are plenty of women who do. The Times reported only on the few who said no. His company paid them off -- $80,000 to $150,000 each to settle their nuisance lawsuits. You don't spend that kind of money on a tactic that does not work.
As the star of "Celebrity Apprentice" once said, if you are a star or a billionaire, women let you grab them...
They do, but someone is keeping score.
Guys like Weinstein think they get away with it.
But people notice, and as the settled lawsuits pile up they become deadly. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly drank their self-brewed poison after the Murdoch brothers took over Fox News.
Now it is Weinstein's time to pay for years of abuse. Privilege. Entitlement.
One of the two names on the byline in the Times hit piece was Megan Twohey. She was part of that botched hit piece on Trump in May 2016, “Crossing the Line: Trump’s Private Conduct with Women.” He dated beautiful women when he was single. Shocking.
Camille Paglia said of it:
The drums had been beating for weeks about a major New York Times expose in the works that would demolish Trump once and for all by revealing his sordid lifetime of misogyny. When it finally appeared as a splashy front-page story this past Sunday (originally titled “Crossing the Line: Trump’s Private Conduct with Women”), I was off in the woods pursuing my Native American research. On Monday, after seeing countless exultant references to this virtuoso takedown, I finally read the article—and laughed out loud throughout. Can there be any finer demonstration of the insularity and mediocrity of today’s Manhattan prestige media? Wow, millionaire workaholic Donald Trump chased young, beautiful, willing women and liked to boast about it. Jail him now! Meanwhile, the New York Times remains mute about Bill Clinton’s long record of crude groping and grosser assaults—not one example of which could be found to taint Trump.Blame for this fiasco falls squarely upon the New York Times editors who delegated to two far too young journalists, Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, the complex task of probing the glitzy, exhibitionistic world of late-twentieth-century beauty pageants, gambling casinos, strip clubs, and luxury resorts. Neither Barbaro, a 2002 graduate of Yale, nor Twohey, a 1998 graduate of Georgetown University, had any frame of reference for sexual analysis aside from the rote political correctness that has saturated elite American campuses for nearly 40 years. Their prim, priggish formulations in this awkwardly disconnected article demonstrate the embarrassing lack of sophistication that passes for theoretical expertise among their over-paid and under-educated professors.Twohey did better this time.
The target was bigger and the sources were familiar to the Times. Not the people quoted. The people who peddled this to the Times aren't in the story.
But Clinton is. The Times prominently displayed a picture of her and Weinstein at a fund-raiser.
Why bring her in?
Because she blew the biggest race since the Tortoise and the Hare. More than $1.2 billion was riding on her.
Now the donors are pissed. And she is on her book tour playing victim.
Don Surber: Weinstein was a warning to Hillary
more at
