Multiple women said they had at first been reassured by the presence of Vega, Rose’s executive producer, who has worked with him for decades. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega.But:
“I explained how he inappropriately spoke to me during those times,” Godfrey-Ryan said. “She would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’"...It's a very long article, and I won't undertake to describe Rose's alleged modus operandi, using his small (15-person) operation to bring vulnerable women into his orbit and to isolate them in his remote beach house where Rose (we're told) used the mating technique of walking around naked.
“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”...
PBS and Bloomberg LP have distanced themselves from Charlie Rose Inc., which is a separate entity. They tell the Post they knew nothing, nothing. And they've suspended distribution of the show.
The most up-voted comment at WaPo is: "Is Trump the only man in the world that is not being held accountable?"
A liberal icon crashes to the ground and what can a liberal do but scream at the sky — Trump!!?
Posts
108 comments:
The torpedo missed Trump and kept circling until it hit a lefty in the ass.
Pence gets the last laugh yet again.
The most up-voted comment at WaPo is: "Is Trump the only man in the world that is not being held accountable?"
How long has Chuckles been commenting at the Post?
But, but, but Trumpppppp
"Is Trump the only man in the world that is not being held accountable?"
Who, dammit Who! WaPo needs a more educated class of readers, but then how could it possibly attract them?
DemCong Feminist policy statement: "He's a pig, but he's OUR pig!"
If you're need to get away with something in your past, get elected.
Charlie Rose a liberal icon?! As if! He is an apologist for the status quo, and never allows a discussion to veer too close to actual criticism of the ruling elites. Even worse, he's a long-winded blowhard, too often speaking over and interrupting his guests, who are usually much better equipped to discuss the given topic than Rose. He's like a flesh and blood manifestation of the New York Times.
The only thing I can credit him with is sporadically having interesting guests on who will never be seen on television otherwise.
It does make one reach for the popcorn, what with the media and the leftists (but I repeat myself) all flummoxed over how to deal with their rules being used against them.
I’m especially enjoying those (like Lena Dunham) who publicly vilified others and then had to eat shit when someone they know is accused.
Even Piers Morgn of all people just wrote about how horribly inconsistent and hypocritical Lena Dunham has been.
Let’s ban potted plants in office spaces. And let’s not hold “meetings” with young interns/colleagues at our hotel rooms or beach houses. Really, is the walking around naked thing ever a turn on for young women? Do women actually like it when you pull it out and start masturbating in front of them?
Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
"A liberal icon crashes to the ground and what can a liberal do but scream at the sky — Trump!!? "
In progressive circles they call that "a nuanced response".
Charlie Rose a liberal icon?! As if!
And once again, Comrade Marvin shows his complete ignorance of American politics. Rose is indeed a Leftwinger, and is indeed more of a liberal than a progressive.
never allows a discussion to veer too close to actual criticism of the ruling elites.
The Democratic Party sold its soul to the ruling elites sometime during the LBJ administration. Rose's behavior is because of his politics, not his class.
Life’s a beach.
We usually scream, "Impeach Trump!" It's a fervent plea, not a sign of mental derangement. If we shouted, "Kill Trump!" then you may have a point. "We" believe that Trump is deranged, and we can provide endless evidence.
Charlie Rose is not very smart, nor a very astute or knowledgeable interviewer in my opinion. He can't do much harm or good on the Good Morning America show that he co-hosts. It's kinda dangerous to prance around naked when it can be captured on a cellphone. He's a rich dirty old man similar to Trump, and they both should resign if the salacious, sordid allegations prove to be true.
"The Democratic Party sold its soul to the ruling elites sometime during the LBJ administration. Rose's behavior is because of his politics, not his class."
Oh, they were probably in the pockets of the ruling elites before that...just like the Republicans. It's all about class, baby!
And here I thought all these years that Rose's biggest problems were his terrible sense of humor and need to rely on a small circle of sycophantic pundits.
But he did get the best guests on his show.
At 75 years of age he should just hang it up and write his memoirs on his NC farm.
“Charlie Rose a liberal icon?! As if!”
Ha, I had the same thought. Whaaat liberal icon?
“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” she told The Post. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim,” said Reah Bravo.
Well, maybe not. Bravo advanced from a hardly-paid-at-all internship to the highly paid position of executive producer. In other words, by tolerating Rose's otherwise intolerable behavior Bravo gained steady lucrative employment. Prostitutes probably don't enjoy their work any better, but, unless they are in fact actual slaves, the women persist because more conventional employment doesn't pay nearly as well. It seems that Bravo at least — and perhaps others as well — was trading sexual favors for a high-status job. That sounds something like prostitution to me.
"Trump" simply doesn't resonate like "Khan."
.
Give the Post credit. They've done very thorough reporting on Moore and Rose. The Pulitzer will have to add a category for Best Sexual Harrassment and Assault Reporting.
Wait a minute. Did Karl Marx write an ancillary book; "How To Get Laid Before You Retire"
Blogger OregonGuy said...
"Trump" simply doesn't resonate like "Khan."
It resonates more like "Harcourt Fenton Mudd!"
Ha, I had the same thought. Whaaat liberal icon?
A typically socialist response. Charlie Rose, unperson.
Any intellectually honest person should watch Rose's fawning two-part interview with Hillary Clinton last September and ask why, if Charle Rose is such an inconsequential non-icon, Clinton would appear on his show for almost two hours? Here's why: (1) Charlie Rose is immensely popular with the target audience of Clinton's notorious screed called What Happened, and (2) being reliably leftish he was guaranteed to throw flattery at her instead of probing questions about her sanity.
et tu, brute?
My wife’s response when Moore’s battle plan revealed itself. “Didn’t your mother teach you anything”
Walk around naked?
“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”...
I'm sorry, but what a lying little weasel this woman is!
And for all the women who told yourselves sisterhood is powerful: Welcome back to planet Earth, ladies! If you're so clueless as to not understand why a woman would exploit another woman not only for a paycheck but to please a powerful man, you really need to get out more often.
Did I miss something? Has Trump been accused of anything specific and actionable?
We've been on a progressive slope since female chauvinists denied women's agency by placing conception before choice in order to restart the ancient practice of abortion rites.
Then "friendship with benefits" (e.g. "casting couch" relationships) only served to accelerate the progress of social liberalism.
In retrospect, denying civil rights, including due process, to men, probably didn't help, but PC (political congruence) really secured the path to dysfunctional convergence.
A man that age walking around naked in front of young women should be put in jail. He could turn them gay, for God's sake!
Quaestor: "A typically socialist response. Charlie Rose, unperson."
Inga and crew have been "unpersoning" people all day.
Why, heavens to Betsy, she has never even heard if feminists who don't care for men.
Nope. That's all a right wing conspiracy! Perhaps even a "vast" one.
It is very important that Trump be expunged from polite society as atonement for decades of structural Democrat abuse of women.
Anything less would not be "fair", like, ""marxian" fair...
"Trump" simply doesn't resonate like "Khan."
LOL, but it's beginning too!
I wonder if Democrats wish they had run somebody besides that foul enabler of the forcible rapist yet? I remember we had a choice of one or the other, Look at Hillary! Look at the bullet we dodged! She is clueless about any of this.
"We" believe that Trump is deranged, and we can provide endless evidence.
I don't doubt that you fervently believe it, and I am sure you "believe" that your "evidence" proves it. But America is doing pretty good this year. That's what really scares you, a strong economy, low unemployment, everybody's 401K doing great.
Alas Charlie, you have been such a good Democrat all of these years, doing your fawning interviews of Democrat after Democrat on PBS, and then morning TV, and now they disown you in a day!
Charlie Rose a liberal icon?! As if! He is an apologist for the status quo, and never allows a discussion to veer too close to actual criticism of the ruling elites. Even worse, he's a long-winded blowhard, too often speaking over and interrupting his guests, who are usually much better equipped to discuss the given topic than Rose. He's like a flesh and blood manifestation of the New York Times.
The only thing I can credit him with is sporadically having interesting guests on who will never be seen on television otherwise.
Yet oddly, our resident lefty seems to watch his show pretty regularly...
I am still trying to think of when Trump abused his elected office, the way Franken has, for example. I don't see any calls for Franken to resign. Hillary is still spouting off, even after running the "Bimbo Eruption Squad". in the 1990s, smearing her husbands "conquests" as nuts and sluts.
Sorry, we didn't have a good choice, we took the lesser of two evils, and he is serving out his term.
Is Trump the only man in the world that is not being held accountable?
Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
tim in vermont,
We know your schtick by now. You're no Bernie Sanders. Please stop the endless comments, and return to your roots milking sap out of maple trees instead of milking the comments. We love maple syrup, so get back to work. The only good thing about your constant posting, is that your not killing God's creatures. There is nothing you can say that will make us hate Trump any less, so forget about it. Say hi to Bernie for me.
What did Trump do that he's supposed to be held accountable for? And assuming there's something there...
The men being called out are almost all liberals (which makes sense since they're in the entertainment industry) The go-to response has been, "I dispute some of the allegations, but it's important to listen to these women, so I apologize." Maybe they truly feel sorry, maybe they're playing to the crowd to save their careers, maybe a little of both. In any case, they give a fuck. They look like hypocrites because of their politics, which feels bad, and they take a financial hit because of the allegations. They're trying to stop the bleeding.
But Trump got elected by not giving a fuck. He gets up every morning and spends all day working his ass off at not giving a fuck. It's his thing he does. The way this game is being played requires that you have to agree to be held accountable. Trump doesn't play the game. He's not gonna feel bad about allegations - people accuse him of things literally every minute of every day - and he's not a liberal so he doesn't feel any obligation to pay lip service to the idea that alleged victims of sexual assault are always telling the truth. If you want him held accountable, file charges, or a civil suit, then beat him. It'll require evidence, though, so you might wanna stick to going after the people who give a fuck and are willing to play the game.
This just in from Kurt Schlichter:
"Liberals have always been a bunch of lying posers pretending to be allies of women, and some of us always knew it was a scam. To see the truth so gloriously revealed, and to watch their humiliating back-pedaling and equivocation, is wonderful. Get-me-a-cigarette-and-a-cuddle wonderful.”
Yep.
Charlie Rose was the token Conservative on PBS/NPR? Who knew? Thanks Cook. You learn a lot on this blog.
Poor Billy Bush.
Does anybody else here watch the CBS morning show? Charlie is so creepy with Nora and Gayle. My husband and I joke that he has peepholes in their dressing rooms.
This news surprises me zero.
Say hi to Bernie for me.
Saw him in the farmer's market a few weeks ago. I nodded to him. I genuinely like him. He has managed to not get rich in public service. I know people talk about his "dacha" on Lake Champlain, but it is honestly pretty modest, and you could have been his next door neighbor for about 250K this summer. But about "shticks" I think your Trump hating and making everything about Trump, no matter what, is a shtick. I just keep pointing out that you have nothing, and you pretty much prove it by not providing anything.
I watched him occasionally. I thought he was dull and respectable. It didn't seem like a non PC thought would ever occur to him. You've got to admit he put up a petty good front.......The thing I liked the most about Charley Manson was that he had a Nazi tattoo on his forehead, and he was the least hypocritical person in public life.........Lena Dunham, a NYT reporter, Al Franken, and Charlie Rose. Can life get any better? Well, wait till tomorrow.
The snake is eating its own tail.
This was obviously launched as a scorched earth policy to try and take the Alabama Senate seat and set up 2018 and 2020 as the "sexual harassment" campaigns. They were, and probably still will, target every male GOP candidate in every swing district. The Russia narrative is collapsing so puritan sexual morality lectures from the left was in order. Alabama is the test canary.
They were willing to sacrifice a few, but they're burning down a lot more than they planned. More to come. Both sides of the swamp. After the passes given by the left to Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and all this bullshit finger waving I'm rooting for the good people of Alabama.
Alabama has flipped the bird to the rest of the progressive nation in the past, and I suspect they will do it again in December. If everything is on the up and up they will still elect Roy Moore. Good. As they say in the South, "Fuck all ya'll".
Charlie Rose used the Old "Shower technique" - he would invite wimmens up to his house/apartment, then take a shower and ask them to come in.
A variation on the Weinstein technique.
But no masturbating in front of women. Rose was probably a fairly good looking man when young, but once you get past 55, guys like him get desperate.
Contemplating the mating technique and asking myself, "Could he really have thought this would attract someone?" and not really knowing where to go with that question is giving me a cluster migraine.
The real crack in the armor that liberal women, who have worked with or associated with these liberal men, are now willing to throw them under the bus.
But there is nothing more sickening than Mika Brzezinski retro-lecturing everyone on the Clintons and Harvey as she sat silent to protect her party for decades. She just happened to fuck and get engaged to the boss (Morning-Wood Joe), so I guess we're supposed to think she occupies some moral high ground.
Puke.
Yvette Vega - a liberal female enabler. Can't walk around naked in front of subordinates unless you got a team of enablers.
Wait a minute! A trusted female enabler of a liberal male sexual harasser.....wait a sec...it's on the tip of my tongue, dammit!
@rcocean,
Charlie Rose used the Old "Shower technique" - he would invite wimmens up to his house/apartment, then take a shower and ask them to come in.
That's innocent enough. I mean, we all know about that spot on yer back that's unreachable even with a good brush. He wuz just askin' the ladies if they could be a little neighborly on a matter of personal hygiene.
I haven't heard about Trump walking around naked in front of women or offer to shower with them? Did this happen?
cubanbob: "Charlie Rose was the token Conservative on PBS/NPR? Who knew? Thanks Cook. You learn a lot on this blog."
Give Cookie another week and he will have been the brain behind the Trump campaign and every photo of Rose with lefties will be airbrushed right out of history.
Birches: "I haven't heard about Trump walking around naked in front of women or offer to shower with them? Did this happen?"
Sure it did! It will all be in the second dossier that Hillary is paying for.
If you want him held accountable, file charges, or a civil suit, then beat him.
Or in the 2020 election, the D candidate could invite his accusers to sit in the audience.
The WA Post is working through the shitty media list. Somebody must have gotten ahold of it. Imagine there will be more stories in media. Would be surprised if it doesn't move onto politics next. The Florida legislature is a garbage fire right now. Buckle up, more is coming. Nothing gets more clicks then sex scandals.
Oh my..Truuuummp! is even corrupting PBS.
I worked with a young producer a few months back who had worked with Rose..she told me he was a drunk..as if I might be surprised.
I hope she wasn't exposed to Charlie's nekked mating dance.
Clearly, men and women differ in their sexual appetites. For guys, sex is a lot like Chinese food. You're hungry again in 30 minutes. Women can be just as kinky however. A movie, Call Me By Your Name, about a gay fling in Italy is coming out (no pun intended) soon to rave reviews. Some heterosexual women are fascinated by two guys getting it on. One woman fascinated that the guys were really bisexual, and that she could imaging joining in in a threesome with them. That's some kinky shit.
In other breaking news, Ryan Seacrest has been accused of paying his hair stylist to claim he sexually harassed her.
Howard: "In other breaking news, Ryan Seacrest has been accused of paying his hair stylist to claim he sexually harassed her."
Ha!
Winner.
Trumpit: "Clearly, men and women differ in their sexual appetites."
LOL
Not a chance there tiger.
The lefties have made very clear there is no difference between men and women beyond social construct and men can become women and women can become men and there is no way to tell them apart except for every way which makes women look better, even though they aren't better because we are all the same, except for those things that show women are better, which they aren't because we are all the same.....
When all the insane lefty memes collide!
wwww: "If you want him held accountable, file charges, or a civil suit, then beat him."
I you want Rose help accountable he will have to register as a republican and change residence to Alabama.
Althouse, exactly how does this story rate a "Trump Derangement Syndrome" tag? I see that you chose, in your blog post, to ask your own question in response to the top-rated comment at WaPo online. I expect that it is the top-rated comment because so many Republicans and Independents (in addition to Liberals and Democrats) agree that Trump alone seems to be paying no public price for the dozen or so women who have gone public and on the record with complaints about Trump's numerous offenses to them. Is that a "Derangement Syndrome"? I see it as a broad-based support for a consistent standard of conduct. People who were fastidious about the offenses of, say, Harvey Weinstein (you know anybody like that?) are paying equal attention to Trump. The offenses of Trump might not be as dramatic as Weinstein; but then again Weinstein is just a guy while Trump is a guy who signs legislation into law and who signs executive orders and is the Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful military. I just don't see any "Derangment" on that end of critical analysis of Trump.
Again, as I have posted before, the Wikipedia page, footnoted as usual with its published sources, tallying the complaints made against Trump. And again, I still get a kick out of the fact that at least one Trump fan who is a regular commenter here thought that no such public complaints had ever been made; zero, he thought. Not one. He thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Interesting to compare Althouse's approach to this issue to that of a male partisan David French.
Well..when a majority of women never orgasm from intercourse..
wwww said...
If you want him held accountable, file charges, or a civil suit, then beat him.
...
I remember Trump saying something along those lines in the final pre-trial stages of the Trump University Fraud case. Trump said that he needed to fight all such cases because if he settled he would only invite more lawsuits. And so he would go to trial.
Right before he paid $25 million to settle it.
I see the resident LLR is back at it.
*Yawn*
So Chuck..are you suggesting the press and Dems are turning a blind eye to the accusations?
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This just in from Kurt Schlichter:
"Liberals have always been a bunch of lying posers pretending to be allies of women, and some of us always knew it was a scam. To see the truth so gloriously revealed, and to watch their humiliating back-pedaling and equivocation, is wonderful. Get-me-a-cigarette-and-a-cuddle wonderful.”
Yes, it's quite enjoyable.
And Glenn Thrush too! Isn't he that conservative reporter from Fox News?
Clearly, men and women differ in their sexual appetites.
Explain the epidemic of female teachers having sex with their students.
"Charlie Rose a liberal icon?! ...... He's like a flesh and blood manifestation of the New York Times."
So either the answer is, "Hell yes, he's a liberal icon, just like the NYT."
or
"No, he's no liberal, and neither is the NYT."
I choose answer 1.
My wife has a rule in the house, that no one runs around naked below the waist. Especially where food preparation or eating is concerned.
I think it is her southern heritage. I don't think people from Dixie are as horny as people from northern climates.
I know I am never ambitious when the heat is over 90, and the humidity can be cut with a knife. I've been known to lie naked on my bed with no interest in anything other than the ceiling fan on my buttocks.
Explain the epidemic of female teachers having sex with their students.
In my day, there was no social media. You could get a blow job, and no one was the wiser. Now people whip out their handheld computers (or drone) and record everything.
One of the reasons I don't go to public events, is people holding their computers in the air and recording everything for snap cat.
Gahrie @ 10:12:
Easy. Teenage boys have a multitude of online resources where they can learn certain methods to attract female attention. Many of them do. I had a good batting average before I learned of these sites, but since about age 25 or so (up until I began seriously dating the woman who is now my wife, I made use of some of these techniques and saw an instant increase in female attraction. Some of them, like "negging" and "routines", didn't suit me very well. But other techniques showed me how to highlight existing personality traits until they became overwhelmingly dominant personality traits. Around that age, I also had more money to blow, so I began dressing slightly better and buying better cars and tech toys - that helped somewhat too, but I never relied on them for attention or the initial spark.
In any case, these teen boys are learning these lessons online and applying them. Thanks to things like snapchat and instagram, they are able to connect with their teachers and peers in a very clandestine (so they think) way, and many of these teachers are married to beta-male provider types who don't excite them quite as much. Combine refined attraction techniques with secretive enabling tech communication and add a dash of "naughty teacher thrills", and you get 22-30 yr-old sluts-in-waiting. And sadly, women's sexual tastes and carnal desires don't seem to mature much as they do, which is why even the cougar teachers are falling for the schtick.
There is no magic phrase or special cologne that instantly makes a girl wanna bang a guy, but a combination of verbal foreplay with push-pull dynamics, as well as a heart dose of confidence with attractive women (usually false confidence in the beginning, poorly faked, but as time goes on it becomes more convincing - and eventually becomes REAL confidence that one puts on like a shirt every morning), will do the trick 75% of the time.
Best thing to do if you're a husband of a high school teacher? Tease your wife about being attracted to her students. Drop subtle hints that you've been checking out some of the cheerleaders at the football games. Become good at flirting - do it while you're out with her, though don't go tooooo overboard. Show her that you have options and the ability to attract other women just like you attracted her. And, if you're not already, get really good at giving her the wood. Really good. Good enough that, in her mind, nobody could possibly compare.
Not foolproof. But your best hope.
And yeah, some of these sites cater to so-called PickUp Artists, or PUAs. That term gets derisively tossed around quite a bit. And truly, some of the readers and participants on these sites and forums are just that, and for them it is pure schtick.
Myself, I grew up believing that women mostly meant what they said and knew what they wanted in a guy. To be sure, some do. But most play verbal and mental games with potential suitors to find out what kind of man they are underneath. Are they a supplicating beta-male who will do anything to please their mate but can't stick up for themselves? Or are they more alpha, capable of love and tenderness but not willing to put up with pointless drama, who have no qualms about calling a woman out for some of the Princess Bratty shit she might pull to get attention or favors? Are they men who are confident enough to speak their minds and not back down from a controversial opinion, or head-bobbing "yes dear" types who can be walked on like a throw rug? Do they put all their cards on the table from the get-go and leave nothing to the imagination, or do they understand that most women like a puzzle from time to time and stay slightly secretive? The worst, IMHO, are the sissies who agree to joint Facebook accounts and bank accounts. My wife will never get me to agree to either of those, and she's long since given up even hinting.
Reading those sites and selectively applying those techniques (as befits your existing personality, amplifying the good and smothering the beta) is probably the best thing a guy with little female success can ever do for himself. Aside from buying a Ferrari and showering pretty girls with gifts, which might earn him some sack-time but understand that it's a beta move at heart, and she will be cheating on you with the broke dude at the bar who mocks her hairstyle and shoes and only answers her texts when it suits him to do so within a month.
Liberals are dumber than retarded fetuses.
Etienne: "My wife has a rule in the house..."
Rule number 1: Do what I say or I will shoot you.
Rule number 2: ......well, we never really needed a "Rule number 2".....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1pjHPkuurs
If Charlie Rose is off the air, who's going to constantly interrupt guests as they try to answer questions?
I've said it before on this forum: sexual harassment is a non-partisan, non-political issue. Unpleasant men of all political stripes harass women and it doesn't help the victims to know which way the perpetrator votes or which party the perpetrator supports. Abusers are found right across the political spectrum: in anarchist circles, among Neo-Nazis, as Democrats, Republicans, and also as people who have no interest in politics at all.
This is an issue about power and the abuse of power. It is also about norms: about what is considered acceptable and respectable, and what is not. Victims have always hated being abused. But we are in the middle of a shift in the norms so that victims can finally identify behaviour and call it out, or name it.
So the whole tedious and predictable back-and-forth on this particular post is all hot air. I see it as avoidance strategy. You don't want to face the underlying truth, which is that a shocking number of men abuse their position of power and the stories these men tell themselves - that women don't mind, that the abuse does no damage, it's just a bit of fun, ultimately "I'm a good guy!" - is bullshit.
Isn't it a fair question? What's your answer?
“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”...
It is crushing? Or is it...conspiracy?
I mean collusion, lol. But unlike collusion, conspiracy is an actual crime.
@KittyM,
I see it as avoidance strategy. You don't want to face the underlying truth, which is that a shocking number of men abuse their position of power and the stories these men tell themselves
And a shocking lot of women are complicit in that male abuse of sexual power. Or, did you not notice the wives, female co-workers, sycophants, groupies, reporters, fellow politicians, et al who covered for these guys for years & years? Was it because these women were quacking in fear? Or, rather was it because these women were complicit partners in this abuse because it help to cement their advantage with the male in power?
The underlying truth you don't want to face is that modern feminism has stripped contemporary moral language of any consideration of what is the nature of the feminine aspect of evil. Men supposedly have the greater socio-sexual power, so only they commit sexual evil is how the thinking goes. What women will do to wield that sexual power to their own advantage is lost in the discussion, even though, as in almost all these cases there are women who stood by & let these abuses happen at best, or were active participants at worst.
Oh, yes, the issue is non-partisan. But the issue is non-gendered, too. But nobody wants to talk that way because 1) it spoils the drama of the "big reveal" with its victims & villians & 2) it gets far too close for secular comfort to that foundational human truth that is the giant turd in the punch bowl of modern secular morality, "All have sinned & fall short of the Glory of God".
Michael K wrote:
"The torpedo missed Trump and kept circling until it hit a lefty in the ass."
An appropriate link.
I'm so shocked that everyone is shocked. In fact I think many are just pretending.
I am of the age 60+ So much of this has been public for ever so long. Everybody knew about Charlie Rose, everybody+++ knew about James Toback and everybody knows about ....
I'm thinking of going back to some of my 1980's-90's back issues of Vanity Fair, Esquire and Spy magazine to see who's on the brink of being outed. It was all out there.
Read Candace Bushnell's 1990's weekly column in The New York Observer "Sex in the City". This is not fiction.
Now maybe some people can understand a lack of outrage about the Access Hollywood tapes. Relatively speaking, that stuff is actually pretty weak tea.
Blogger Trumpit said...
That's some kinky shit.
...
LOL. You’re as naive as you are stupid.
"I've said it before on this forum: sexual harassment is a non-partisan, non-political issue. Unpleasant men of all political stripes harass women and it doesn't help the victims to know which way the perpetrator votes or which party the perpetrator supports. Abusers are found right across the political spectrum: in anarchist circles, among Neo-Nazis, as Democrats, Republicans, and also as people who have no interest in politics at all."
Perhaps, except for one factor: the left has always been the side that aggressively goes after politicians or candidates on the right for hypocrisy regarding sexual misconduct. They're also the side that digs for such dirt on candidates on the right and then uses its media organ to publish it right before an election in the hopes of smearing the candidate at a point in the cycle where it's too late to replace him on the ballot. Think Barack Obama digging out sealed divorce decrees of his republican opponents and publishing them at eh last minute, think the Access Hollywood tapes dropped on Trump at the last minute, think the hooker/pee allegations in Hillary's dossier, think the NYT affair hit piece on McCain at the last minute, think the dem/media effort in Alabama right now after both the dems and the media having sat on the allegations and witnesses until Moore was the chosen candidate. When called on it, they have always claimed the charges and the
tactics are fair because they prove the R's to be moral hypocrites. Well, guess what? The dems, abetted by the press have been claiming the moral high ground on women's rights and painting the R's as women haters for at least the last 30 years. Now, the dems have been proven to be completely hypocritical about women's rights and sexual harassment, and the press has been proven to be not only the dems enablers, but also active participants. Using the old "both sides do it" argument is disingenuous in this whole affair because we're talking about more than harassment now, we're talking about hypocrisy, and in this regard the R's can't even hold a candle to the dems, Hollywood, the press and other leftist entities.
Is this some Walt Whitman thing from his generation? Didn't Bill give Monica a Walt Whitman book? I walk the body open, naked, across the generations, through the woods, that sort of maudlin mid-life crisis masculine fantasy... BURRRRMP! Not in today's rear-view mirror...
Unpleasant men of all political stripes harass women and it doesn't help the victims to know which way the perpetrator votes or which party the perpetrator supports.
Yeah, but one of the major political parties covered for an enabled such a man at the top of their party for decades, even though the evidence pretty clearly shows him to be a forcible rapist. One particular party with a very strong influence on the national press abetted this particular pervert and his enabling wife, even going along with smears of his victims. Or are we supposed to forget about decades of lies and smears and coverups because last week everybody changed their minds? Look at the comments from rank and file Dems to those articles condemning Clinton and you will see that they still support him as just a "horn dog" under attack by baying packs of jealous Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_charlie
Looks like Wikipedia is going to have to add a disambiguate page for "Creeping Charlie"
Etienne said
I've been known to lie naked on my bed with no interest in anything other than the ceiling fan on my buttocks.
Like self inflicted spankings? Seems kinky to me as a Northerner but then again, you had Faulkner and that prissy ass Capote from your neck of the woods.
KittyM
So the whole tedious and predictable back-and-forth on this particular post is all hot air. I see it as avoidance strategy. You don't want to face the underlying truth, which is that a shocking number of men abuse their position of power and the stories these men tell themselves - that women don't mind, that the abuse does no damage, it's just a bit of fun, ultimately "I'm a good guy!" - is bullshit.
Well...it isn't like women abuse power by destroying records, using their gender to avoid accountability, or have their creeper husband meet people to get out of an indictment.
The powerful abuse power. You want to gender it.
Grabbing a girl was always a risky move and frequently a creepy or reputation damaging one. Yes, even in the Fifties. Girls talk.
What has changed is the zero tolerance and virtual criminalizing of this behavior. Where a grope 30 years ago is suddenly seen as an indictable offense.
Well...you can see where this is leading. And it isn't a huge number of Republicans falling from this behavior. So your assertion that it is equal opportunity...the evidence thus far sort of refutes your point.
Hmm. I wonder about that 'power' thing. Most women get 'powerful' way up in their 40's and 50's, close to menopause. Could the lack of female scandals be the result of biochemistry instead of, you know...opportunity.
Though some of the recent histories have shown that Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great were rather...abusive and vindictive to courtiers who didn't toe the line in their effusive adoration.
ob said...
If Charlie Rose is off the air, who's going to constantly interrupt guests as they try to answer questions?"
Laura Ingraham is conservative, but she's doing her part to fill that role on the right. I like her as a commentator, but from what I've caught of her new show, she's awful as a host. She constantly interrupts even those she agrees with. Since when did being a "tough interviewer" mean not letting your guests finish a sentence?
KittyM said...
I've said it before on this forum: sexual harassment is a non-partisan, non-political issue. Unpleasant men of all political stripes harass women and it doesn't help the victims to know which way the perpetrator votes or which party the perpetrator supports. Abusers are found right across the political spectrum: in anarchist circles, among Neo-Nazis, as Democrats, Republicans, and also as people who have no interest in politics at all.
This is an issue about power and the abuse of power. It is also about norms: about what is considered acceptable and respectable, and what is not. Victims have always hated being abused. But we are in the middle of a shift in the norms so that victims can finally identify behaviour and call it out, or name it.
So the whole tedious and predictable back-and-forth on this particular post is all hot air. I see it as avoidance strategy.
Exceptionally well said.
Since when did being a "tough interviewer" mean not letting your guests finish a sentence?
On morning television I believe Katie Couric was a pioneer in this area.
"Any intellectually honest person should watch Rose's fawning two-part interview with Hillary Clinton last September and ask why, if Charle Rose is such an inconsequential non-icon, Clinton would appear on his show for almost two hours? Here's why: (1) Charlie Rose is immensely popular with the target audience of Clinton's notorious screed called What Happened, and (2) being reliably leftish he was guaranteed to throw flattery at her instead of probing questions about her sanity."
This just proves what I said: Rose is a protector of the status quo and of the ruling elites. Clinton is solidly of and for the ruling elites and would have governed for their benefit, just as Obama did, just as Trump will. Those who supported her are either among the wealthy elites or they were hoodwinked by her, just as the working class supporters of Trump were hoodwinked by him.
I remember reading years ago that Rose was a notorious "horndog", back when that was an ok thing to be.
This has been well known for a long time.
"Yet oddly, our resident lefty seems to watch his show pretty regularly..."
If you're referring to me, no. I never watch his show. I used to watch it off and on years ago, when he had guests who interested me, but I became too irritated with Rose's know-nothing bloviating and talking over his guests and strayed away. In more recent years, I have rarely even channel-surfed and come across his show by accident as I am usually preparing for (or in) bed when his show airs. I just saw a recent video online a few days ago of him interviewing alternative cartoonist Chris Ware. That's the first time I've seen him in years.
"'Charlie Rose a liberal icon?! ...... He's like a flesh and blood manifestation of the New York Times.'
So either the answer is, 'Hell yes, he's a liberal icon, just like the NYT.'
or
'No, he's no liberal, and neither is the NYT.'
I choose answer 1."
And, of course, you can infer correctly what my answer is.
Actually, I'll walk that back, as well as my assertion that Rose is not a liberal icon. I'm using the term as if it meant something substantial, as if it referred to people who truly were advocates for progressive ideals and enemies of oppression by the government and the ruling elites. As Chris Hedges has made clear in his book, THE DEATH OF THE LIBERAL CLASS, liberals have betrayed their promises to the people. Obama is a perfect illustration of present day liberals: oozing "sincerity" and well-shaped rhetoric meant to flatter and appease those being fucked by the powers that be, all while working for those powers that be.
I read Hedges' book a few years ago, and it is a merciless evisceration of the hypocrisy of the "liberal class."
Given that "liberal" is no longer a term with any meaning, I will grant that Rose is a "liberal" icon on the "liberal" PBS, and yes, this means I stand firm by my comment about Rose being like a flesh-and-blood New York Times.
Here is the problem for me: Folks like Robert Cook who seemingly HATE the status quo, seem quite dangerous to me.
I mean...the status quo which runs hospitals? The status quo which runs court systems? The status quo which provides water, food and shelter to people at reasonable prices? THAT status quo?
And yet their answer to what to replace it with seems strikingly like what is happening in Venezuela. No thanks to that!
Since his ilk seems to be much more wildly popular in Democratic circles, with their narrow, eliminationist rhetoric, I find the Democratic party much more dangerous.
This is how you get more Trump.
The status quo that is transferring the people's wealth to the wealthy, that is erasing jobs, restricting rises in wages, poisoning the environment, continuing and expanding our ruinous and illegal wars abroad, committing mass murder that fuels the growth of anti-American extremist groups, establishing a violent police state in our country,etc.
It's all nakedly apparent if you just look around you.
Easy. Teenage boys have a multitude of online resources where they can learn certain methods to attract female attention.
So female teachers having sex with their students (quite a bit of it lesbian by the way) is the fault of the boy victims?
So when male teachers have sex with students is it the fault of the girls?
Why are we punishing the adults by sending them to jail and making them register as sex offenders?
The Great Interrupter, interrupted.
Pence gets the last laugh yet again.
No, no, no.
We have it on good authority everybody else laughed at Pence and his guidelines.
The smart ones, natch.
We usually scream, "Impeach Trump!" It's a fervent plea, not a sign of mental derangement. If we shouted, "Kill Trump!" then you may have a point.
Your side is doing both.
Own it.
One strategy for liberals and Democrats is: let's fess up to some extent, then turn our guns back on Trump and his supporters. Peter Beinart writes in The Atlantic that the New Republic, where he rose to a pretty great career in journalism, had some bad habits which he reinforced: racism, sexism, and just catering to the egotistical whims of the two senior people who really counted. Sexual harassment, about which no one including Beinart really did anything, was part of this picture. Then, of course:
"I was given extraordinary opportunity at TNR, in large measure, because talented women like Sarah Wildman were not.
"In this regard, I suspect, I have something in common with the supporters of Donald Trump. It’s not pleasant to realize that the bygone age you romanticize—the age when America was still great—was great for you, or people like you, because others were denied a fair shot. In the America of the 1950s, or even the 1980s, white, straight, native-born American men didn’t worry as much about competing with Salvadoran immigrants and Chinese factory workers and professional women and Joshua-generation African Americans.
"Except for among the ultra-rich, the American pie is not expanding all that much. And so a lot of white American men look at Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, and mass immigration, and the global competition for jobs, and the taking-down of Confederate monuments, and even the revolt against sexual harassment, and fear that all of this means there will be less left for them. And they experience these attacks on their privilege as a desecration of the natural order, an attack on institutions that benefited them and to which they felt deep loyalty in return."
So: Trump voters are looking back to a past that unfairly privileged them (if they are toast now, that means they would always have been toast in a fair system), and in any case can't be recovered. Both evil and stupid. There. Now Beinart feels better, and that oppressive, crazy atmosphere at TNR doesn't seem so bad.
Post a Comment