Harvey Weinstein story in New Yorker...truly shocking

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, Dan Gould said:

There is less and less tolerance for it and that's to be applauded.  

And keep applauding until there is none!

Men...for all their vaunted "work ethics" are still basically lazy when it comes to sex. I'm all in favor of women making them earn it.

Or is it asking too much to ask people today, male and female, to work at shit, to earn and to be earned?

I've not read that Donna Karan (who is she, anyway?) thing, but from the sound of it, she might have had some decent kernel ideas in there, because, I tell you, in most cases, men will do as little to get laid as they know they have to do. No, nobody should ever be assumed to have been "asking for it", but, you know, too many men play that shit because they know that they can get by with it, if not actually getting some action, then at least not reported and shamed by their fellow men. Zero tolerance for laziness!

People in general are all lazy with their genitals. And as the genitals go, so goes the brain, you think I'm wrong, tell me one time, any of you, when your brain did the thinking for your genitals and if your brain won, it was because your genitals didn't ultimately let  it. I have seen the ways of man/woman, and people are smart about how the anatomy works and dumb as fuck about how the anatomy works with and/or against the brain. If your brain is weak, that's entirely on you, and don't look for excuses, shelter, or sympathy, train your brain to do right, train your genitals to do right, just train your whole goddam self to do right.

I hope that's not political.

[Dan Gould]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

And keep applauding until there is none!

 

Unfortunately some men gonna be lazy, and entitled and pathological and predatory.  Especially but not limited to Show Business. If things are really changing, there are so many other shoes dropping that you'll think the Payless warehouse was hit by the Big One.

[ghost of miles]

Sounds like the Times "spiked" the 2004 article because Waxman couldn't really back it up... And good point about why didn't she publish it at her own publication or elsewhere in the decade-plus since?

Former NY Times writer accuses paper of spiking 2004 article

Not saying at all that Weinstein was innocent of whatever the article discussed, just saying that I wouldn't blame a news outlet for being extra careful in that case. (If only they'd had the same diligence about their Iraq/WMD reporting in the same era!) Also, if this story was so accessible and reportable, where the hell was Breitbart last year during the campaign? Where was the National Enquirer, or Fox News? They would have been blaring this from here to Sunday, given Weinstein's association with the Democrats. 

[JSngry]

As for Donna Karan's thing...there have been many movements that have coalesced around the evolution of "putting up with it" being seen as a mind-numbed version of "asking for it" and then moving into a more conscious version of "oh HELL no". so let's hope that the collective consciousness is indeed moving that way. Because, for real, Dick Power need to be over for a while, if not longer...people want to talk about "adjustment periods" and shit, well, let's let Dick Power be over and then adjust to that.

 

[uli]

3 hours ago, JSngry said:

 let's give everybody a quick minute to get it all out before we do that.

thanks. Trump is a racist moron,dotard asshole unfit to be president

[Guy Berger]

3 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

While its still up ...

The Times spiked an article in 2004. The writer claims that Weinstein and various actors exerted influence to see to it. Now they are saying the article wasn't much to begin with, and 13 years later they got all the important stuff on the record, but what else are they going to say? The author of the piece has a very different recollection.

I will continue to believe that Weinstein's politics gave him a pass for far too long. It's been described as the worst kept secret in Hollywood. But he supported the right causes and candidates so ... It's possible that part of this coming out now is a result of Trump's own statements, acts, and/or accusations against him, and Ailes and the other Fox a-hole getting shit-canned. There is less and less tolerance for it and that's to be applauded.  

My sense is that organizations, independent of political affiliation, are becoming less tolerant of this kind of thing which is a positive development.  Weinstein, the Fox News folks, President Trump, Uber, Cosby... it's good this is all getting exposed.  Hopefully in the future accountability will happen sooner.

[Scott Dolan]

2 hours ago, uli said:

thanks. Trump is a racist moron,dotard asshole unfit to be president

Although I'd never say any of this, I do have to give it my seal of approval. 

[Dmitry]

5 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

Yes -- but Dan's point, which I don't agree with, is that Weinstein was a predator of one political affiliation who was or would have been given a pass by the MSM because of that affiliation.

Jeez, Larry. 

NBC refused to publish Farrow's story last August, even though he presented them with that NYPD tape from Weinstein that everyone has heard now. Instead the story appeared in the New Yorker today. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein-investigation_us_59dd2739e4b04fc4e1e96d08

 

6 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

We're getting deep into politics here but the point is, negative reporting on someone so closely associated with a President Hillary would be seen as an attack on Hillary, and therefore, totally unacceptable to the mainstream media. Or does no one else see that Weinstein and Bill share a certain "passion"?  (At least Bill wasted his seed on the dress, not into a potted plant.)

I think the lurking issue is the decline of print journalism. When media mattered, no one was going to care about Weinstein's horrid acts because of his power. 

BTW, does anyone doubt that Weinstein is the one who raped Rose McGowan?  She's said she was raped by a major studio exec; She took $100,000 hush money; and now she's all over twitter on this story.

And Dmitry this is not producer bedding starlets. For way too many, its forcible rape, replete with efforts to destroy those who didn't submit.

Pretty much along the lines of what I would've said. I'm surprised people are either naive or genuinely blinded by their party affiliation/membership to see how partisan the coverage of the long-known Weinstein's love of the young meat would've been. W. was/is a major bundler for the Democrats, and raised untold millions for them. He and the Clintons are good friends, who vacation together. He, in part, financed Bill's legal defense fund during the Monicagate. Publicizing such a bombshell story would really stain Hillary the President by a strong proxy,.  I thought anyone could see that...but looks like that's not the case. 

In any case, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If, like you say, there were rapes, and there will be a criminal trial, one can only imagine what else will come out.

[Larry Kart]

OK, Dmitry, you've got a point. But I can tell you as a former journalist that there also are many possible reasons other than the fix being in as to why a particular expose-like story does not run, including but not limited to "How much trouble do we [i.e. the publication] want?" And that can include trouble from almost any quarter.

By the same token, but far more insidious, are the times a publication mounts an expose-like crusade on a more or less false basis and choses not to be deflected from its course even though outside or in-house experts on the subject at hand try to warn them that the crusade is b.s. I witnessed one of those at the Chicago Tribune -- the expose in question was the most extensive in terms of newsprint devoted to it that the paper had ever run -- and when the Trib's two chief science reporters, one of them later a Pulitzer Prize winner, tried their damnedest to warn their bosses off, they were told that if they didn't shut up they'd lose their jobs.

[Dmitry]

I hear what you're saying; Still, I'd like to remind you that same NBC sat on Trump's 'pussy' recording for 5 years, while he was affiliated with them through his Apprentice TV show, but released it in a heartbeat when they thought it would hurt him the most, right before a debate with Hillary. MSM is partisan as hell. Everything is partisan and polarizing today, tv and print news, movies, theater, literature, institutions of secondary and higher education, and even music. This is some crazy shit happening around us, driving people apart. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Dmitry

[Larry Kart]

Dmitry -- Are you sure that it was NBC that sat on Trump's 'pussy' recording for 5 years, i.e. that the network at some executive level knew that the recording existed and kept mum because Trump was on their team. What I recall from when the story broke is that the Washington Post "obtained" the tape, not where it came from or where it had been sitting. My guess, though I'm willing to be proved otherwise, is that the tape was in the hands of the guy who actually shot it or others at that level, and that it was passed around as a source of idle amusement or the like until Trump became a candidate and its "worth" to those who possessed it became obvious. Everything is potentially polarizing today, but not everything is motivate by partisanship -- good old financial gain still plays a role.

[Brad]

Agree with Paul; let’s keep politics off of here. 

[Dmitry]

2 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

Dmitry -- Are you sure that it was NBC that sat on Trump's 'pussy' recording for 5 years, i.e. that the network at some executive level knew that the recording existed and kept mum because Trump was on their team. What I recall from when the story broke is that the Washington Post "obtained" the tape, not where it came from or where it had been sitting. My guess, though I'm willing to be proved otherwise, is that the tape was in the hands of the guy who actually shot it or others at that level, and that it was passed around as a source of idle amusement or the like until Trump became a candidate and its "worth" to those who possessed it became obvious. Everything is potentially polarizing today, but not everything is motivate by partisanship -- good old financial gain still plays a role.

Larry, the tape was made in 2005, so someone held it for 11 years, whether it was an executive or someone else at the network, they knew about it, and saw its value. NBC released the tape 10 minutes after it appeared on the Washington Post website, so I'm positive they were well-aware, just got beaten to the finish line. 
I know this is not the most credible source out there, but still - http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/11/donald-trump-tape-billy-bush-nbc-access-staff-knew/

Regarding being motivated by partisanship vs. financial gain, call me jaded, but those two walk hand in hand, and always have. 

For the sake of camaraderie, I think I've had enough politics and not nearly enough financial gain from this thread, so I'll cool it for a bit.,,considering that I've pretty much shot my entire load on the subject of Weinstein's bust.

Unless...

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Dmitry

[BERIGAN]

For some reason, I thought Harvey was going to be somehow involved with Pedophilia "situation" in Hollywood (Corey Feldman said the late Corey Haim was raped when he was 11)

that has amazingly been covered up for so many years....

a whole lotta shit is going to hit the proverbial fan, so very many stories...

just saw this one!!!! http://time.com/4977289/terry-crews-sexual-assault-hollywood-producer/

[BERIGAN]

no one knew about this, NO ONE KNEW...except Seth...4 years ago...

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by BERIGAN
add words

[Larry Kart]

Good one, Berigan.

Dmitry -- I agree. Enough.

[Soulstation1]

Dude is a sick f^*k

[catesta]

It's nice to see the big hollywood stars that have either experienced this shit directly from Weinstein like Paltrow and Jolie or knew of this kind of shit going on like Damon and Pitt, are now speaking out. What fucking courage they have especially now that others, lesser known, have spoken up again and their own careers are firmly in place.

On a side note two of my cousins (both female) on my mother's side worked for Weinstein, one as a VP of something and the other a publicist or VP of something else. We're not close so I don't know if they were victims or part of the charade.

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, catesta said:

It's nice to see the big hollywood stars that have either experienced this shit directly from Weinstein like Paltrow and Jolie or knew of this kind of shit going on like Damon and Pitt, are now speaking out. What fucking courage they have especially now that others, lesser known, have spoken up again and their own careers are firmly in place.

Yeah, the book was called Profiles In Courage for a reason!

OTOH, most people - in all walks of life - are weasels about upsetting any applecart that's got their apples in it. Most people are weasels that way, it's true.

[Scott Dolan]

I'm glad I'm not that in love with money to where I'd sit idly by while things of this nature were going on. 

 

[Dmitry]

Harv pulling a Polanski?

http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/10/harvey-weinstein-sex-rehab-sexual-harassment-europe/

[Larry Kart]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Yeah, the book was called Profiles In Courage for a reason!

OTOH, most people - in all walks of life - are weasels about upsetting any applecart that's got their apples in it. Most people are weasels that way, it's true.

Too bad JFK didn't write "Profiles on Courage" -- Ted Sorenson wrote it for him.

[Adam]

Rachel Maddow included two scenes from 30 Rock with a character making jokes about being pinned by Weinstein.  Weinstein has been known to be an asshole ("open secret") for decades in Hollywood.  All the networks & print sources have buried that story for many years, regardless of administration.  Weinstein has given to political candidates in the past; no reason to think his treatment by Hillary would be any different (i.e., they wouldn't care). When the NY Times finally ran with a story, and the New Yorker the following day, as has been pointed out, it probably has as much to do with Weinstein not being as powerful now as he once was, and that Ailes & O'Reilly & Cosby have already gotten hit, not which political party was ascendant. 

Tangent:

Ronan Farrow is the son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen.  Ronan, named Satchel at birth, is estranged from Woody since Woody, another problematic male, had married Ronan's step-sister.

Political: Donald Trump, another admitted sexual predator, is president of the United States, a position which theoretically involves being the defender of the nation's laws, and also means that one should be held to a higher ethical standard, than movie producer.  It's a false equivalency.  However, i could readily imagine Trump & Weinstein going bar hopping and groping females together in NY in the 1990s

Observation: Most people in the world don't speak out about things until they are in a safe place to do so.  That includes actors, who as a group generally are insecure and want public approval.  No surprise that Paltrow & Jolie would wait til now; but if their statements help more come out now, that would be good.  Anyone who claims to be shocked though was in a state of willful denial. 

Another observation: One brave woman actually recorded a conversation with Weinstein for the NYPD, (and that is now being played all over).  The prosecutor's office sat on it and never prosecuted, it is said, because she had also accused other powerful men of groping her.  (Presumably Weinstein has friends in that office as well.)  The problem here is that the woman becomes the one to blame if she should accuse more than one, even though it seems more likely that multiple powerful men had in fact hit on her.  People in power like to preserve their power, and so their ongoing general desire to blame the woman first (and then by extension in other cases, blame the victim first) is still largely the rule.  And many people in power believe that they are entitled to whatever they take. 

And movies have an ongoing trope: Male protagonist is horrible; woman doesn't care for him; but in the end, as long as he keeps after her, then at some point she gives in and is happy to be with him.  As long as that fantasy keeps being peddled to horny lonely men, why would they start thinking that they need to behave like decent people?

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, Larry Kart said:

Too bad JFK didn't write "Profiles on Courage" -- Ted Sorenson wrote it for him.

And yet the book is still called Profiles In Courage!

2 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

I'm glad I'm not that in love with money to where I'd sit idly by while things of this nature were going on. 

 

It's easy to blame "being in love with money", but it's more than that, it's about "career", which is only partially about money. Ego, insecurity, actual honest to god ambition to play on the biggest stage to see what you can do, it's not all about money all the time, that's too easy.

Never having been "career oriented" myself, that's easy for me to say. But I have seen so many people in so many walks of life who are willing to compromise on some pretty basic things in the interest of career advancement.

I'll call a weasel a weasel, but I've compromised on some things, pretty sure we all have. It just motivates me to do better myself.. What other people do...never surprises me, however it goes. Although, the bigger the weasel, the greater the odds. At some point, you go from coward to asshole to weasel, and by the time you make weasel scout...good luck.

[Dmitry]

2 hours ago, Adam said:

Ronan Farrow is the son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen.  Ronan, named Satchel at birth, is estranged from Woody since Woody, another problematic male, had married Ronan's step-sister.

 

Yep, he's a splitting image of his dad.

 

Sorry, I meant his other dad.