Althouse: "I am dismayed that The New Yorker has decided to characterize a respectful relationship with a woman I dated as somehow inappropriate."

December 12, 2017

"I am dismayed that The New Yorker has decided to characterize a respectful relationship with a woman I dated as somehow inappropriate."

"The New Yorker was unable to cite any company policy that was violated," said Ryan Lizza, saying The New Yorker's decision to fire him "was made hastily and without a full investigation of the relevant facts" and "a terrible mistake."

Quoted in the NYT.

The unnamed accuser is represented by Douglas H. Wigdor, "who has filed at least 11 lawsuits against Fox News this year for defamation, sexual harassment and racial discrimination." Wilder said that “in no way did Mr. Lizza’s misconduct constitute a ‘respectful relationship’ as he has now tried to characterize it.”

I wish I had a clue what Lizza was accused of doing. He was disrespectful to a woman he was in a relationship with? Are we really going down that road now? As long as one party to a relationship wants to submit that relationship to public inspection, we're going to deem the other party to be the bad person his sexual partner deemed him to be? That seems crazy! But maybe Lizza did something truly horrendous. And yet, if he did, wouldn't he take advantage of the opportunity to slink away into the dark? Why would he beg for a full investigation into the facts? If there is no full investigation, if firing happens instantly when the woman steps into the light, then light is darkness.

Will a man in an abusive relationship ever step forward and blindside a woman? Would The New Yorker fire the woman if he did?

104 comments:

Bay Area Guy said...: Not a fan of The New Yorker, and not a fan of Lizza, but this is exactly the time of lynch mob tactics that we should resist.

1. We don't know the woman
2. We don't know what Lizza allegedly did

Yes, the Left is eating its own, but it's still not right.; 12/12/17, 8:51 AM
Rick said...: But maybe Lizza did something truly horrendous.

The key question motivated reporters ought to be able to discover:

Did this activity have any nexus to the employer? Was the target also an employee?

I think people are going to presume this is true, but there is no hint of it.

BTW wouldn't it be great if Scaramucci was involved?; 12/12/17, 8:53 AM
Sebastian said...: "Are we really going down that road now?" We are already far down that road. Ask male students at American colleges.

"As long as one party to a relationship wants to submit that relationship to public inspection, we're going to deem the other party to be the bad person his sexual partner deemed him to be?" No. Only if a woman has regrets.

"That seems crazy!" A totally unexpected consequence of feminism's insistence that women are special!

"If there is no full investigation, if firing happens instantly when the woman steps into the light, then light is darkness." So? Progs are scorching the earth, eating their own -- choose your bad metaphor. But they don't give a damn about fairness or light.

This is not an Althousian world. I wish it were.; 12/12/17, 8:56 AM
David Begley said...: “Are we really going down that road now? “

Oh yes we are. The Reckoning will bring out the shakedown attempts. Money is to be made here.; 12/12/17, 8:58 AM
sparrow said...: If every accusation is unexamined and successful, then any unscrupulous woman with a grudge can target whomever she pleases.; 12/12/17, 8:59 AM
sparrow said...: The longer this goes on the more it harms feminism, unless a female defender of due process emerges.; 12/12/17, 9:02 AM
Michael K said...: "Yes, the Left is eating its own, but it's still not right."

I have ordered more popcorn but agree that it is getting ridiculous.

The situation at colleges is much more of a concern.

My youngest daughter graduated about six years ago and is pretty and social but she saw none of this rape fantasy we read about.

My grandson is entering his teens and I worry about him. He might do better to join the Marines out of high school and come back to college later,; 12/12/17, 9:05 AM
Rob said...: Seeing those smug condescending pricks at The New Yorker with their very own sexual harassment scandal, and seeing them handle it with a lack of transparency, is all too delicious. #MeToo is the gift that keeps on giving.; 12/12/17, 9:13 AM
Henry said...: He must have used an app on her.; 12/12/17, 9:15 AM
Fritz said...: It's just possible that somewhere a liberal has been falsely accused of sexual harassment. But I'm not going to worry about it today.; 12/12/17, 9:15 AM
gspencer said...: Big deal; he’s just being treated the same way as males on college campuses were treated up through Trump. Today, not only are some colleges males fighting back, but some of the rules are changing.

One of the rule changes is that the police are to be involved. College administrators and hacks at the New Yorker are not judges. So in this case let Lizza’s girlfriend go to the cops.; 12/12/17, 9:16 AM
Unknown said...: I wonder if Ryan Lizza regrets all the bashing of Republicans as evil members of the Patriarchy now that he's joined the evil Patriarchy.... allegedly.

Probably not. Usually karma bites those who won't recognize it.

--Vance; 12/12/17, 9:16 AM
William said...: The historical record shows that allegations against frat boys are more slanderous and overblown than allegations against celebs and journalists.......Ryan Lizza is connected. He knows how to get his day in court, and he knows how to get his side of the story made public......We'll see how it turns out.; 12/12/17, 9:19 AM
Blackbeard said...: We seem to have these moral panics 30 years or so. The last one I remember that was this bad was the pre-school sexual abuse scare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria). A lot of lives were ruined in that one but it was good for newspaper sales and good for quite a few ambitious prosecutors. And then the bubble burst and suddenly sexual abuse of pre-schoolers disappeared. Those who profited from this disgraceful episode never paid a price and they won't pay a price this time which is an important reason these panics will continue to recur.; 12/12/17, 9:25 AM
stevew said...: These incidents - the Lizza sort not the Weinstein, Conyers, and Franken ones - fascinate me. I work for a large company and have been here for 20+ years. There are very specific policies and procedures in place, codified in an employee handbook, that we employees are all held responsible for following. In addition, every employee is required to re-take an online course called "Preventing Workplace Harassment" every two years. Those of us that run a team have a special longer version of the course. I would have thought these media companies, being part usually of much larger concerns, would do the same thing.

Btw, dating someone at work while not advised is not prohibited by my work's policies unless said person is your immediate superior in the organization or one of your subordinates.

-sw; 12/12/17, 9:25 AM
buwaya said...: It seems one needs to take a lawyer along on dates.
This should help employment prospects in the legal profession, but may have a depressing effect on nightlife.; 12/12/17, 9:27 AM
Leslie Graves said...: For sure, senior leadership teams and HR departments in a number of companies we've read about in The Reckoning failed to act quickly or appropriately to allegations of predatory behavior.

Now, senior leadership teams are acting as if they are mini-tornadoes. This means that there is Pernvado and also ... HRnadoes?

But just because some companies are acting very quickly and sternly doesn't (yet) make me think they are going overboard. I don't believe Ryan Lizza's defense of himself. I am (perhaps wrongly) sure that the New Yorker wouldn't have acted this way if it didn't have a darned good reason to act this way, even though I don't know what the specifics are.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to credit them with doing the right thing since I simultaneously believe that presented with the same facts a year or two ago, they wouldn't have fired him.

So, at least for me, there is Pervnado, HRnado and IQnado.; 12/12/17, 9:31 AM
pacwest said...: "Are we really going down that road now ?"

Why, yes. Yes we are. You expected something different ?; 12/12/17, 9:32 AM
William said...: Posit this: You're a guy who meets your favorite action star in the hotel bar. He's a big, burly fellow like John Wayne or Rock Hudson. He tells you lots of amusing stories about his costars and really takes you into his confidence. You hit off, just like you always knew you would. He invites you back to his room to show you some naked pics he took of his costar......Posit this: back in the room, he overpowers you and fucks you in the ass. He's a a big guy, in top shape, and you don't have the strength to resist him.......What would your next step be? He became rich and famous because people believe he's true and honest. You, on the other hand, have a history of kiting checks and of an acrimonious divorce that would soon become public if you went to the police.....My guess is that you'd shut up about the whole thing.; 12/12/17, 9:35 AM
James Graham said...: Lawyering is our Teflon Profession; 12/12/17, 9:35 AM
Francisco D said...: In my field of clinical and business psychology, dating a colleague in the same office is unethical, at best.

IMHO, it is inappropriate because it sets up potential "us versus them" situations as well as drama when relationships do not work out. I saw that early in my career and think it is destructive to an environment in which people share cases or client organizations.

When I managed people, they had a choice: you have to end something, either your relationship or your employment here.; 12/12/17, 9:38 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Are we really going down that road now?

Yes.

I was going to make a comment about how nicely paved it is, what with all the good intentions and all. But on further consideration, it's clear that good intentions were not involved. ( I'm sure that there are people joining in The Reckoning with good intentions. But it is being driven by the same old lust for power on the part of the Democrats. ); 12/12/17, 9:41 AM
cubanbob said...: This kind of action is why plaintiffs lawyers should also be on the hook financially if the defendant prevails.; 12/12/17, 9:44 AM
JPS said...: Unknown / Vance, 9:16:

"I wonder if Ryan Lizza regrets all the bashing of Republicans as evil members of the Patriarchy now that he's joined the evil Patriarchy.... allegedly"

To him I would bet that is completely different: They deserved it; whereas he's one of the good guys, so this is a shocking injustice.; 12/12/17, 9:46 AM
Rick said...: I am (perhaps wrongly) sure that the New Yorker wouldn't have acted this way if it didn't have a darned good reason to act this way,

I don't believe this at all. A big part of media branding is left wing political support. During this moral panic any sense that the New Yorker isn't fully supportive of activist preferences is an existential risk and would certainly taint it for decades to come. That's especially true since they have fully supported the panic in other contexts like on campuses. They've criticized Devos over what are clearly reasonable corrections from lunacy and in fact to the extent Devos deserves criticism it's because she isn't doing enough to roll back the panic. Yet they're acting as if any change to the campus witch hunts is support for sexual assault. This is their readership.; 12/12/17, 9:47 AM
dreams said...: We became a sluts are us country in the sixties. Sluts are us trying to reinvent themselves as born again virgins. I think this applies "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."; 12/12/17, 9:50 AM
FIDO said...: I am a Conservative White Christian male.

If I was hit by the slander and insinuations that Lizza was facing, would he help defend me...or would he pile onto my woes as a Deplorable Example of the Patriarchy?

Yeah...we all know the answer to that.

So the supposed deep thinkers will say to me 'but...if you don't safeguard this principle of due process and full investigations, it might happen to you! You HAVE to defend him.'

My response? I already live in that land and the problems the Lefty men are having is not that these laws are afflicting me...it is that these laws are afflicting THEM.

SO welcome to my world, Lizza. You get no sympathy from me.; 12/12/17, 9:52 AM
Sal said...: He was disrespectful to a woman he was in a relationship with?

He might've farted in bed and not said, "excuse me."; 12/12/17, 9:52 AM
Fernandinande said...: Which is more horrible and traumatically life-shattering: "inappropriate" or "improper" behavior?

Blackbeard said...
We seem to have these moral panics 30 years or so.

Moral panics are usually framed by the media and led by community leaders or groups intent on changing laws or practices.

"A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible."; 12/12/17, 9:55 AM
bleh said...: It has to be something bad enough, like assault/rape or harassment. But yeah, if being emotionally cruel in a relationship is going to be grounds for termination or a lawsuit, watch out ladies.; 12/12/17, 9:57 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: He never called. He never wrote. He told his friends she was an easy lay. She overheard him telling David Remnick to call her "Anytime Sue".

#FrankenStay2018; 12/12/17, 10:01 AM
sparrow said...: Principle has to be above partisan interest, or it's false. Due process is for everyone, not just those I agree with. So I have to defend due process for those I detest to demonstrate I mean it. But to be clear I am partisan in this. I'm hoping to see the call for due process rise up before Trump is credibly targeted.; 12/12/17, 10:03 AM
Kevin said...: Would The New Yorker fire the woman if he did?

Ha! Hahahahahah!

We have entered the virtue signaling phase of the mob action. Now that everyone has been instructed as to the correct response - immediate dismissal has won out over carefully and respectfully listening to the women - there will be no future thinking about what the correct response should be. Or could be.

The next phase is the identification of "rape culture" at work, with People Of Virtue walking the halls of their companies looking for people to "out". Brownshirts and armbands optional.

A man accusing a woman is in an entirely different phase and would likely have to prove his case with extensive evidence before action would be considered.

After all, women harassing men goes against rape culture at work (RC@W) and therefore cannot be tolerated at this time.; 12/12/17, 10:15 AM
Rick said...: We seem to have these moral panics 30 years or so.

I think it's more common than that. Remember the fear Dungeons and Dragons is causing suicide? That was the 80s version of vaccines are causing autism.; 12/12/17, 10:15 AM
Curious George said...: What's with this due process shit? Lizza isn't being tried. His employer fired his sorry ass. Which is within their power to do. The lefties like Lizza created this mess. Suck it.; 12/12/17, 10:15 AM
rehajm said...: There are definitely parallels to the daycare scandals. Certainly the same brand of politicians are leading the charge and the same rabid media response. Martha Coakley sure hitched her wagon to the day care scandal. Fortunately it hasn't worked out the way she wanted. Given the reach and breadth of the latest scandal I don't see a future of success for the current crop of pols either.; 12/12/17, 10:16 AM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/12/17, 10:18 AM
n.n said...: the Left is eating its own

Maybe. Or, we are witness to a schism in the Pro-Choice Church. The internal, external, and mutually irreconcilable positions have been clear for several decades, but have been progressive for nearly a century.; 12/12/17, 10:21 AM
sparrow said...: I know it's not a criminal court but the idea of a fair hearing and weighing real evidence before summarily punishing someone goes beyond a court. You're letting your desire for a partisan victory trample what's right. If that's the case then politics are too important to you IMO.; 12/12/17, 10:21 AM
dreams said...: I think there is a some truth to this, maybe.

"Another former Facebook executive has spoken out about the harm the social network is doing to civil society around the world. Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels "tremendous guilt" about the company he helped make. "I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works," he told an audience at Stanford Graduate School of Business, before recommending people take a "hard break" from social media.
Palihapitiya's criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem. "The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we've created are destroying how society works," he said, referring to online interactions driven by "hearts, likes, thumbs-up." "No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it's not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/11/former-facebook-exec-chamath-palihapitiya-on-social-media.html?__source=Facebook%7Cmain; 12/12/17, 10:22 AM
hombre said...: William (9:35): "My guess is that you'd shut up about the whole thing."

Your guess is wrong. Although in the event you were right, if I brought it up later, people would be justified in assuming I might be lying or mischaracterizing the experience for some reason. Sane people, that is.

Let's see, given the timing what reason might Moore's or Trump's accusers have to lie or mischaracterize the accusations?; 12/12/17, 10:28 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/12/17, 10:28 AM
RichardJohnson said...: Btw, dating someone at work while not advised is not prohibited by my work's policies unless said person is your immediate superior in the organization or one of your subordinates.

Several years after my aunt died, my Uncle Bill by marriage married a younger woman who was a fellow employee. They were not in the same department, so there was never a superior-subordinate relationship.

My Uncle Bill and his prospective wife had dinner with my aunt and uncle. The prospective wife informed them, "Bill and I love each other. But we also respect each other." My aunt and uncle decided this was a case of doth protest too much. Love should imply respect- no buts needed. They decided that she was at least in part marrying Uncle Bill for what he could do to assist her rise in the company- but kept their opinions to themselves.(That's OK- Uncle Bill had his own ulterior motives. My cousin was leaving for college, so she wouldn't be available any more to cook and clean. New wife filled the bill.)

As the years went by, this ulterior motive for the marriage became more and more obvious, so my aunt and uncle were correct.

Uncle Joe and his second wife eventually divorced. My understanding is that they both cheated on each other. After the breakup, she complained at work about Uncle Joe- nothing that would be criminally actionable, though. As he had risen to a vice president position in the company, he had more clout. Her supervisor told her to stop her kvetching or leave the company. She left.; 12/12/17, 10:28 AM
Tommy Duncan said...: Ryan Lizza is collateral damage, as are others like Al Franken.

The Democrats are playing the long game. Once it became obvious it was possible to take down the rich and powerful using sexual allegations they quickly formulated their strategy to bring down Trump: Get a mob of Senators to demand Franken's resignation over sexual allegations. Franken resigns. There are sexual allegations against Trump. So now Trump needs to resign. It's only fair!

Democracy is mob rule: Sometimes with a ballot box, sometimes with a gaggle of Congressional women.; 12/12/17, 10:30 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: "Unnamed accuser."; 12/12/17, 10:30 AM
Ken B said...: When you endorsed Rose McGowan you started down this road. What is #RoseArmy but a mob? Twitter doesn’t have debating societies, it has mobs. When she insisted that her word was enough to jail a man — I’m the proof — haven’t we already left any notion of fact finding in the dust? Aren’t we creating incentives for just this kind of thing? When she is blameless because she’s a woman haven’t we established that women have no responsibility, so the rest of us must intervene for any dispute or trouble?

Like I said, you spent thousands of words vindicating rhhardin before you looked around.; 12/12/17, 10:34 AM
n.n said...: Lynching. Bullhorn prosecutions. Elective abortion. A progressive slope? Yes.

Lizza isn't being tried. His employer fired his sorry ass

That's true. This matter is between him, her, and his employer, a private affair. Was there probable cause to warrant public interest?; 12/12/17, 10:34 AM
AllenS said...: Very good point, Tommy Duncan. However, I don't think that Alfranken is going to resign, So, what happens then to the narrative that Trump needs to resign?; 12/12/17, 10:36 AM
Rob said...: Leon Weasel-tier at The New Republic and Ryan Lizzard at The New Yorker--it's too perfect.; 12/12/17, 10:39 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Mary Jo who? (Kopechne -- killed by drunk driver, Sen Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), left to drown in submerged car, as he escaped, and didn't report it until the next day.

Juanita who? (Broadderick -- raped by Governor Bill Clinton (D-Ark), who bit down hard on her lip, and graciously told her to get some ice on the swelling.

Just providing context and perspective........; 12/12/17, 10:40 AM
RichardJohnson said...: rehajm
Martha Coakley sure hitched her wagon to the day care scandal. Fortunately it hasn't worked out the way she wanted.

Martha Coakley wasn't involved in the initial prosecution of Fells Acres Day Care Center prosecution. She didn't became Middlesex County DA until 1999. The Fells Acres prosecution was in 1986-87. As Middlesex County DA, Coakley did lobby to deny clemency to Gerald Aminrault. Clemency for Amirault had been recommended unanimously by the Massachusetts Parole Board.[7] Amirault's co-accused mother and sister had already been released from custody. Not very good judgment on Coakley's part.

Coakley- bad but not as bad as those who initially prosecuted the case.; 12/12/17, 10:44 AM
Sebastian said...: "When she is blameless because she’s a woman haven’t we established that women have no responsibility, so the rest of us must intervene for any dispute or trouble?" Now, now, don't you go unintentionally fetishizing women.; 12/12/17, 10:45 AM
Drago said...: AllenS: "Very good point, Tommy Duncan. However, I don't think that Alfranken is going to resign, So, what happens then to the narrative that Trump needs to resign?"

Nothing happens. The lefties push ahead anyway.

Since when did consistency matter?

I guarantee that in about a day or two Inga and the rest of the automatons will officially "forget" that Franken ever said he was going to resign. The lefty narrative requires a "Reset" and a "Reset" the lefty narrative will have.; 12/12/17, 10:45 AM
Bill said...: But maybe Lizza did something truly horrendous.

He stole a kiss on their first date.; 12/12/17, 10:46 AM
Drago said...: KenB: "Twitter doesn’t have debating societies, it has mobs."

("Gladiator") Gracchus: "I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it."; 12/12/17, 10:49 AM
Kevin said...: the Left is eating its own

The left is doing whatever it believes is necessary to get Trump out of office. It will do nothing more. It will accept nothing less.

When it looks back after 8 years of Trumpism, all the damage it endured will have been self-inflicted.; 12/12/17, 10:52 AM
Yancey Ward said...: It is curious to me how we still don't know what the accusation is. It is almost as if journalists have lost all ability to find out the details that matter to the stories they publish. I suspect they do know, but are withholding the details.; 12/12/17, 10:55 AM
MikeR said...: New Yorker fired someone. We have no details from either side. I think it's getting carried away to make all kinds of speculations on What If He Was Fired Unfairly, Just Because of an Accusation? Wait.; 12/12/17, 10:56 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I am going to take a flyer on this one and predict that Lizza is eventually demonstrated to be in the right on this one- such an outcome would fit my theory as to why the details are being withheld.; 12/12/17, 10:57 AM
Drago said...: I find it interesting that all of Inga's and LLR Chucks big media pals are still, STILL!, embargoing all stories about Juanita Broaddrick and excluding her from the Time magazine cover shoot and article. They won't even include a quote from her.

That's how you know this entire exercise is intended to transfer democrat guilt to republicans; 12/12/17, 11:01 AM
Jaq said...: Twitter is the Greek chorus to our American tragedy.; 12/12/17, 11:02 AM
Michael K said...: "Coakley- bad but not as bad as those who initially prosecuted the case."

She was worse because t least the initial accusations were by people who might not know the truth.

By the time Coakley came along, the innocence was established and Gerald's mother and sister had been released. She opposed his release after the Supreme Court had ruled in his favor.

The story of this abuse of power.

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was "formidable" and that she was entirely convinced "those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants."

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

Coakley is beneath contempt.; 12/12/17, 11:03 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I think, at some point soon, many of you are going to owe rhhardin an apology.; 12/12/17, 11:15 AM
gerry said...: He was disrespectful to a woman he was in a relationship with?

She might've farted in bed and he did not say, "excuse me."

It's the age we now live in.; 12/12/17, 11:20 AM
Chuck said...: I agree with you, Althouse. I agree with your position, and I admire how you've written on the subject. Let's have clarity. Let's have understanding. "Understanding," in a meaningful sense and not in some merely touchy-feely emotional-healing sense.

And let's never forget about due process for the accused. I'll want due process for Roy Moore. Lots and lots of due process. Until it hurts. And if someone wants to say that it would be unprecedented -- and moreover setting a bad precedent -- to expel a U.S. Senator for acts completely outside of his activities as a Senator while in office, fine. Let's investigate, and have due process. Lots of due process.; 12/12/17, 11:22 AM
Fernandinande said...: Rick said...
I think it's more common than that.

There's been an on-going moral panic over drugs for over 50 years, with the drug of panic changing when the lies are uncovered - first "reefer madness" then "LSD madness" then "crack babies" then "face-eaters on bath salts".

Not that crack or "bath salts" are harmless, but "crack babies" didn't exist and the "face-eaters" hadn't taken any drugs.

The "jenkem" hoax resulted in some shiny new laws.; 12/12/17, 11:23 AM
Unknown said...: said...
Rick said...
I think it's more common than that.

There's been an on-going moral panic over drugs for over 50 years, with the drug of panic changing when the lies are uncovered - first "reefer madness" then "LSD madness" then "crack babies" then "face-eaters on bath salts".

Not that crack or "bath salts" are harmless, but "crack babies" didn't exist and the "face-eaters" hadn't taken any drugs.

The "jenkem" hoax resulted in some shiny new laws.
12/12/17, 11:23 AM

you may be pleased to know that the hysteria surrounding ‘bath salts’ (which may not even actually exist) and the documented instances of people eating faces while on them is actually ‘fake news.’; 12/12/17, 11:31 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Unknown said...These incidents - the Lizza sort not the Weinstein, Conyers, and Franken ones - fascinate me. I work for a large company and have been here for 20+ years. There are very specific policies and procedures in place, codified in an employee handbook, that we employees are all held responsible for following. In addition, every employee is required to re-take an online course called "Preventing Workplace Harassment" every two years. Those of us that run a team have a special longer version of the course. I would have thought these media companies, being part usually of much larger concerns, would do the same thing.

You're lucky--my company rotates them through about every 6 months (although they alternate with "cyber security" and other corp. training topics, so maybe it's just once/yr for the sexual harassment courses). Mandatory courses, mind you, with deadlines and quizzes and angry calls from HR if your group hasn't all completed theirs. But I guess Hollywood and the Media (New Yorker, NPR, etc) are too cool for that stodgy old routine.; 12/12/17, 11:33 AM
Drago said...: Poor LLR Chuck.

Even now carrying water for Sen Menendez and the dems.

The greatest aspect of Trump's election is how it has exposed all the poseurs.

Fantastic.; 12/12/17, 11:38 AM
Drago said...: I can't help but notice the similarity in style and substance between LLR Chuck's postings and KittyM's from yesterday.

Very curious indeed.; 12/12/17, 11:38 AM
Jupiter said...: Blogger Yancey Ward said...
"It is curious to me how we still don't know what the accusation is. It is almost as if journalists have lost all ability to find out the details that matter to the stories they publish. I suspect they do know, but are withholding the details."

Presumably, journalist Ryan Lizza knows. And he is certainly at liberty to tell us anything he might care to.; 12/12/17, 11:41 AM
Richard Dolan said...: Only a matter of time before employees (especially male employees) start demanding provisions in their employment agreements forbidding a discharge for cause based only on an accusation. Even in situations where the person is hired nominally on an at-will basis, there are precedents for finding that the employer has contractual obligations to act in a fair, non-arbitrary manner when dealing with employees accused of misconduct. For example, courts applying Title IX to college students have been slow to find a federal cause of action, but much quicker to find a contractual claim based on student handbooks, general statements of policy and the like. Easy to see how that approach can be carried over to the employment context, where the typical employee handbook promises evenhanded and fair treatment, etc.

Where as in Lizza's case the accusation is disputed, some process will either be adopted voluntarily by employers or imposed on them by courts or regulators to achieve a minimal level of fairness. We are approaching the end of these witchcraft trials, where an accusation is all you need to condemn the accused.; 12/12/17, 11:48 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Jupiter,

Yes, he can tell us what he is accused of, I suppose, but what if the accusation is a lie? That is a tough spot to be put in. My problem is that many people have to know the details, and yet not one reporter can find someone to describe them?; 12/12/17, 11:54 AM
LYNNDH said...: That's a lot of lawsuits against FOX. They run out of money so now he is going after other places. Were the lawsuits against the same person, by the same people? Interesting to know.; 12/12/17, 11:59 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Equality, ladies and gentlemen, means if a woman accuses you of something then we all must #BelieveHer and you're just out of luck.
That's the only way to really treat men and women the same--we must give wildly disproportionate value to, and have wildly disproportionate trust in, whatever a woman says.

Question that and you're a rape apologist, straight up.; 12/12/17, 12:00 PM
RichardJohnson said...: Michael K
She was worse because at least the initial accusations were by people who might not know the truth.

Point taken. A decade later, the truth was out- which she refused to see.; 12/12/17, 12:06 PM
Rick said...: My problem is that many people have to know the details, and yet not one reporter can find someone to describe them?

It just broke yesterday, give it some time. Gawker will have it. Er...oops.; 12/12/17, 12:08 PM
Jupiter said...: "My problem is that many people have to know the details, and yet not one reporter can find someone to describe them?"

There will be lawsuits.; 12/12/17, 12:10 PM
n.n said...: To be fair, Lizza may have been deemed nonviable. So, Choice is sufficient [legal] cause to abort his career, life, etc.; 12/12/17, 12:12 PM
buwaya said...: The process is the punishment.
Accusations become very personally costly.

Interesting how it has become so.
Whose interests does this situation serve?
This is not usually the case in other countries - political controversies can happen without incurring crippling personal costs. Or, perhaps, requiring alliances with "deep pockets", just in case.; 12/12/17, 12:17 PM
Yancey Ward said...: If you go to press with this story, why not determine the details? If Lizza won't offer them, then find someone who will. As printed, this isn't a story at all since it is missing the key element- if I were an editor, I wouldn't publish anything here without it- you are describing a dispute without the actual dispute itself.; 12/12/17, 12:19 PM
Jupiter said...: buwaya said...

"Whose interests does this situation serve?"

I don't think this has turned out quite the way anyone had planned. Ronan Farrow, maybe.; 12/12/17, 12:20 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Again, though, I will repeat- I am almost 100% sure the reporters already know the details, but are withholding them.; 12/12/17, 12:21 PM
David said...: "When I managed people, they had a choice: you have to end something, either your relationship or your employment here."

Well, that certainly cuts down the difficulty of managing, doesn't it? I wonder how many good employees you lose, or never engage in the first place, because of that rule?

If neither person was willing to resign their job, what did you do?; 12/12/17, 12:44 PM
Achilles said...: buwaya said...
The process is the punishment.
Accusations become very personally costly.

Interesting how it has become so.
Whose interests does this situation serve?

Everyone is missing the forest for the trees. Gillibrand was at a podium with 3 women calling for Trump to resign. This has been the point all along. It was planned from the start.

All of the leftists that have been sacrificed so far were done so with one goal in mind. They set the precedent. They had to have other men resign or be fired in order to make it so other men had to do the same. It had to be normal for a man to resign at the first hint of an allegation.

As usual with the left it is all about power over other people.; 12/12/17, 1:05 PM
Achilles said...: Chuck said...

And let's never forget about due process for the accused. I'll want due process for Roy Moore. Lots and lots of due process. Until it hurts.

Only for republicans though. More specifically bad republicans. Republicans the GOPe doesn't like. Don't talk about Bill or Menendez or Kennedy. Roy Moore and Trump. Only. That is all that matters now.

We have known from the start what your goals are "Chuck." The deplorables are getting uppity. Chuck, the GOPe, and their democrat friends are only interested in pushing them back down. To do that they smear anyone not on their team.; 12/12/17, 1:11 PM
Rabel said...: "The New Yorker was unable to cite any company policy that was violated,"

Lizza misunderstands the "that's not even wrong" meme. It's only a short step to the Costanza defense.; 12/12/17, 1:15 PM
Big Mike said...: We are approaching the end of these witchcraft trials, where an accusation is all you need to condemn the accused.

@Richard Dolan, I wish that were true but I fear you are wrong. Lots more to come, I think.; 12/12/17, 1:15 PM
Jupiter said...: Yancey Ward said...
"Again, though, I will repeat- I am almost 100% sure the reporters already know the details, but are withholding them."

And I will repeat, there will be lawsuits.; 12/12/17, 1:19 PM
Jupiter said...: If you were a reporter, would you want to publish explosive allegations for which there was no evidence? Perhaps you would rather call the "victim" a liar in print?; 12/12/17, 1:21 PM
n.n said...: The witch hunts end where the baby trials begin.; 12/12/17, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: To those thinking about the Fells Acre Day Care Case in Middlesex county MA, it was Scott Harshbarger who brought that case and he proceeded to skate through any number of liberal sinecures (Common Cause among them) without any kick back when the reality of how bad the prosecution was was determined by the MA courts. Scott is a good guy, but his reputation should have been forever tarnished by the Fells Acre case.; 12/12/17, 1:38 PM
n.n said...: Dismayed. Played. Used.; 12/12/17, 1:39 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/12/17, 1:48 PM
Jon Burack said...: Let's not forget that in the day care cases, the constant refrain was "you have to believe the children." Sound like anything familiar?; 12/12/17, 1:49 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Chuck at 11:22 AM

I'll want due process for Roy Moore. Lots and lots of due process. Until it hurts.

Chuck, you might want to rethink that position.

Investigations and prosecutions and punishments should be kept separate. Due process requires such separation.

Another element of due process is proper jurisdiction. Why does the US Senate have jurisdiction in allegations of sexual harassment that might have happened 40 years ago?

If the US Senate has so much time and energy to investigate problems, then the US Senate should investigate the dirty tricks used in this election to fill a Senate seat.

The US Senate can give lots and lots of due process to Beverly Young Nelson, to Gloria Allred and to the Washington Post.

* Question them publicly.

* Subpoena their bank and telephone records.

* Search their homes in the early morning.

* Investigate their relatives and associates.

Lots and lots of due process until it hurts them.; 12/12/17, 2:08 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Marxist feminism has reached its circular firing squad purge stage.

As all Marxist regimes do. The illusion among Mensheviks is that the bloodshed can be contained, and that democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech can somehow co-exist with Marxism. The purge never discredits Marxism (or in this case Marxist feminism).

Bolsheviks always win. They call Mensheviks "Useful Idiots."

Althouse is a Menshevik, i.e., she's a Useful Idiot.

Don't expect her to give up on Marxist feminism. Maybe she'll remain true to the cause like the Useful Idiots in Solzhenitsyn's work who, while starving to death in the GULAG, keep sending Uncle Joe letters telling him that their imprisonment was a mistake.; 12/12/17, 2:26 PM
Ken B said...: Mike Slywester
The one thing Chuck won’t do is rethink that. He believes everyone is entitled to due process. Republicans especially. Chuck would like to do away with double jeopardy for Republicans, so that they might enjoy due process repeatedly. But as a LLR, he has no desire to share the blessings of due process with Democrats.; 12/12/17, 2:59 PM
rhhardin said...: Will a man in an abusive relationship ever step forward and blindside a woman? Would The New Yorker fire the woman if he did?

The double standard isn't the problem. The problem is it's nobody's business.

Solve it one on one. The meme is that it has to be public now, which is serving the left's interests apparently. They get to Trump that way, is the probable plan.

(DSL is dead today. I spend a few hours resurrecting the wiring for a dial-up connection. Dialup is impossibly slow, once from being slow, and next from hugely more elaborate web pages built for high speed internet only that it encounters); 12/12/17, 3:23 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: RH, be a good chap and shut up about the women for a second. Go up I think two threads and speak up on the use of ham radio to overthrow the government of the United States, would you?; 12/12/17, 4:13 PM
Jim at said...: Years from now, women all across the country will be wondering what happened? How did it turn out that we now live in a barren, scorched-earth world with a demilitarized zone between the sexes.

And you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.; 12/12/17, 4:34 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Khesahn,

"[original MA child-abuse-scam prosecutor] Scott is a good guy..."

The hell he is--the evidence is right there in your previous sentence: skating through successive lib-sinecure jobs is NOT the way a good guy would follow up having (inadvertantly?) engaged in what turned out to be such an atrocity. I would hold Chuck Colson up as a good guy, on that basis, but Harshbarger? Never.; 12/12/17, 9:54 PM
rhhardin said...: There's nothing private about ham radio. Many listeners and a few talkers.; 12/13/17, 6:25 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Who said private? That's what code is for. Ham radio is untraceable except with non-trivial efforts like DF, right? There's no IPs or uncommanded dots of toner on the page to mark you. You can play the Lincolnshire Poacher and John has a long mustache, 36.9.21.8.40.6.544.11.909.24, and it's hard to trace you, impossible, I guess, to trace the receiver. Yes?; 12/13/17, 10:25 PM