The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 David Walsh Archive
Viciousness and Ignorance: New York Times Columnists on the Rampage
Amanda Hess and Manohla Dargis on the Weinstein-Spacey-Louis C.K. affairs
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The New York Times has been at the forefront of the campaign over sexual misconduct in the entertainment industry in particular, which has now been extended to the political arena (preposterously in the case of Sen. Al Franken). The newspaper has devoted considerable resources and published dozens of articles and “exposés” on the subject since early October, when it ran a story recounting allegations of sexual harassment against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

Harvey Weinstein (Photo credit: David Shankbone)
Harvey Weinstein (Photo credit: David Shankbone)

The campaign has a deeply reactionary and anti-democratic character. The Times and other media outlets, on the basis of allegations alone, have already ruined the lives and careers of a number of individuals and there is no reason to believe they will stop there. In its treatment of the issue, the Times entirely disregards elementary constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence, due process, the ability of the accused to confront and respond to witnesses and more. The individuals in question are pronounced, either by the Times or by those it cites, to be monsters, worthy of destruction.

The methods of the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s have been taken out, dusted off and brought to bear without any serious opposition within the artistic world. Once again, individuals are named and denounced, found guilty and excluded with hardly a voice being raised against the process. All of this has taken place without a single charge being laid, much less a guilty verdict having been reached by a jury.

This may outrage the Times’ editors and surprise a large portion of the newspaper’s readership but Weinstein, Brett Ratner and James Toback—not to mention Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Franken and countless others being drawn into the dragnet of yellow journalism—are owed the legal protections due every citizen.

The attack on democratic rights often begins with relatively easy, even “guilty” targets and proceeds from there. The elimination of constitutional protections, under conditions of a ruling elite moving at the speed of light toward authoritarianism and war, has extremely dangerous implications for the entire population. Today’s moral guardians may well find themselves bearing a share of the responsibility for openly dictatorial and fascistic measures in the not so distant future.

Amanda Hess (
Amanda Hess (

Two recent articles in the Times exemplify the ignorant and pernicious character of the current offensive on sexual matters, “How the Myth of the Artistic Genius Excuses the Abuse of Women,” by Amanda Hess, and “Louis C.K. and Hollywood’s Canon of Creeps,” by Manohla Dargis.

Neither author shows any evidence of having thought through the issues involved. Hess makes a number of wide-ranging comments about art and the history of art on the basis of superficial observations about recent developments in the American entertainment world. She writes like a glorified lifestyle columnist, which is what she is. On her own website, she cites the comment of fellow columnist Benjamin Freed in regard to her work, “I can’t think of anyone who writes about personal identity or relationships in a more intelligent or engaging fashion.”

Dargis, a film critic at the Times, has apparently composed her piece on sexual misconduct primarily out of personal spite and bitterness. Her article is hardly more than a series of unenlightening complaints and grumbles about Louis C.K. and Woody Allen and their purported relations with or fantasies about young women. If anything, her comment is pitched at an even lower and more vindictive level than Hess’s. She begins her article: “Soon after Harvey Weinstein was first outed as a sexual predator, I created a document titled ‘Creeps’ in which I tried to list every man who had sexually harassed or assaulted me.” Frankly, why should anyone be the slightest bit interested? Let us hope that Dargis finds the will-power to control the urge to share her story with the rest of the world.

These are two highly paid, privileged members of the American affluencia, writing for a “prestige” publication, who would have one believe they are horribly oppressed. It’s all self-pitying nonsense for starters, and that needs to be said.

Louis C.K.
Louis C.K.

It is also useful to bear in mind, to put matters in proper perspective, that Hess and Dargis write for a newspaper that published barefaced lies about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq (notably by the infamous Judith Miller), which helped justify the criminal US intervention responsible for more than one million deaths. Dead Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis and Pakistanis do not perturb our authors, both of them undoubtedly supporters of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, one of the two war parties.

Ultimately, such individuals—like their counterparts in academia engaged in what might be termed “gender cleansing”—are most interested in clearing a career and income path for themselves. A vicious settling of scores is at work here. There is almost nothing as ruthless as the petty bourgeoisie when it smells blood. The watchword in these circles today is clear enough: certain tides taken at the flood “lead on to fortune.”

A very large portion of the top posts in the entertainment and media world is held by men. Hess and Dargis would like to see them pushed out the door. That would open things up and make life generally more pleasant—and lucrative—for people like themselves.

Would the female sector of the corporate species be any less swinish in their own fashion (or more talented) than Weinstein and the others if that sought for eventuality were to come to pass? One doubts it. Their lack of compassion and empathy, the absence of any democratic sensibility in what they write, provide a sense of what Hollywood et al would look like under their domination, and it is not a pretty prospect.

For her part, Hess would like to rewrite artistic and cultural history. She wants to do away “with the idea of ‘separating the art from the artist’ … Whenever a creative type (usually a man) is accused of mistreating people (usually women), a call arises to prevent those pesky biographical details from sneaking into our assessments of the artist’s work.”

Kevin Spacey (Photo credit: Pinguino k)
Kevin Spacey (Photo credit: Pinguino k)

Referring to “the Hollywood players accused of sexual harassment or worse—Harvey Weinstein, James Toback, Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K.,” Hess goes on, “We’re learning more every day about how the entertainment industry has been shaped by their abuses of power. It’s time to consider how their art has been, too.”

It may be time for such a consideration, but Hess doesn’t indulge her readers by actually offering one. She carelessly throws a number of things into the pot, including Bernardo Bertolucci’s alleged mistreatment of Maria Schneider in the making of Last Tango in Paris (1972) and Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier’s disoriented cinematic rubbish, within which “riling actresses” is hardly the greatest of his crimes, but comes up with very little of substance. She cannot stop herself from smearing Roman Polanski in passing, but, again, since she makes no concrete analysis of any of Polanski’s film work, her pledge to examine the “art” in light of sexual misconduct remains a dead letter.

Hess, like Dargis, concentrates much of her time and energy on the case of Louis C.K. Her description of his work, however, suggests that the comic, for all his peculiarities and excesses, has been capable of providing more insight into sexual and social relations than Hess herself. Disapprovingly, in the light of the recent accusations, she writes, “What once looked like creative provocations now read like justifications of a moral universe where women are as complicit in sexual violation as men are, and where sex that begins with force easily gives way to mutual desire.”

The subjectivism in Hess’s approach should be noted. “We once admired Louis C.K. for his comic efforts,” she argues, in effect, “but now we’ve discovered they mean something quite different.”

Hess claims that a “proclivity for reprehensible acts is built right into the mythos of the artistic genius—a designation rarely extended to women. … The art excuses the crime.” While she refers sweepingly to 19th century culture, Hess again excuses herself from providing one example of the trend she identifies.

The relationship between the life and personal behavior of the artist and his or her body of work is a complex one. No one ought to suggest that talent or even genius excuses everything. As we noted years ago at the time of the “rehabilitation” of Hollywood director-informer Elia Kazan, an accurate assessment of artistic achievement inevitably requires “making a certain distinction between the artist and his or her art. We do not go searching through garbage cans for all the ways in which the writer, painter or composer falls short. But the distinction is a relative, not an absolute one.” Mozart is remembered fondly as a human being, while Wagner, the composer of much beautiful music but a horrible anti-Semite, is not.

At that time, the opposite argument to Hess’s was often being made: artists like Kazan were boasting in their memoirs of their rotten behavior and implying that rottenness was a necessary ingredient of artistic genius. We noted that imperfect human beings produced art, along with everything else. “They inevitably sin against others and against themselves,” we wrote. “But why make a virtue out of those inevitable errors and misdeeds, much less a program? History teaches us that class society occasionally mutilates very gifted people beyond recognition, so that artistic genius and personal vileness coexist within a single human being. Why not simply recognize this as an unfortunate fact of that society, another sign of its incompatibility with the demands of human happiness, and not as a proof that genius feeds on vileness?”

However, criticism of the existing social order and what it does to people is beyond Hess and Dargis, a pair of extraordinarily self-satisfied petty bourgeois.

On the basis of her arguments, Hess would presumably urge reconsidering or even proscribing the work of every male artist who mistreated women (or who were merely alleged to have done so). She and Dargis essentially rejoice in the destruction of Louis C.K. and Kevin Spacey. Dargis writes of the former: “I don’t feel bad for him or mourn a career that may be over. He’s rich and can crawl into a cushy hole.” An individual capable of writing such a foul sentence, shamelessly expressing delight in another person’s humiliation, is worthy only of contempt.

In fact, the purging of Spacey and Louis C.K. and the series with which they are connected will have an immediate impact on television in particular, not to mention a chilling effect on possible future ventures, helping to render the medium less critical and more conventional. If Hess and Dargis were allowed to carry out their purges, the results would be disastrous for cultural life.

Already we have the appalling example of Spacey being excised from a finished film, Ridley Scott’s All the Money in the World, and his scenes re-shot with Christopher Plummer in his stead. Stalin comes to Hollywood! Scott and Plummer ought to be ashamed of themselves, but there is no indication they are.

Louis C.K. is not a fiend deserving to be liquidated. He appears to suffer from emotional disorders that find expression in his compulsive exhibitionism. There must certainly have been a way to deal with his form of behavioral disorder without ending his career as an actor and comic. Perhaps one of his producers, directors or agents might have done more, or anything, to help Louis C.K. if he or she had not been so fixated on making as much money off the comic’s work as possible.

What if the moral criteria advocated by Hess and Dargis were to be applied retroactively?

August Strindberg
August Strindberg

Perhaps the writings of Ernest Hemingway, August Strindberg and Lord Byron (notorious for their stormy or difficult relationships with the opposite sex), the films of Charlie Chaplin (who married 18-year-old Oona O’Neill when he was 54) and the paintings of Egon Schiele (arrested for having sex with a teenage girl) and Fra Filippo Lippi (the Renaissance artist who scandalously seduced a young nun) should be removed from libraries, cinemas and galleries, respectively. Charles Dickens abandoned his wife for a younger woman, Leo Tolstoy broke from his on the eve of his death.

Oscar Wilde could easily be viewed as a sexual “predator” for his relationships with working class adolescents. And let us not forget that Lord Alfred “Bosie” Douglas, was not quite 21 when he first had sex with Wilde. Of course, there is evidence that Bosie may have been the aggressor, but let’s not quibble over facts and miss the bigger moral picture. Perhaps the Marquess of Queensberry, Lord Alfred’s father, deserves belated thanks for having served as the agent of Wilde’s destruction.

Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde

Should we continue down the list of artistic miscreants whose works might, in light of their notorious exploits, merit destruction? The painter Caravaggio and the poet François Villon may well have been murderers. Balzac, a little less recklessly and bloodily, had a child with one married woman and a decade-long intimate correspondence with another. Conservative contemporaries generally regarded him and his work as immoral and dangerous. What about Frida Kahlo, the icon of present-day feminists, who was relentless in her pursuit of sexual conquests, choosing targets of both genders?

Hess, Dargis and the rest of the middle class moralizers never stop to consider whether there is an element in art that transcends the individual life and personal conduct.

In fact, the more insightful writers on aesthetics over the past two centuries have understood that the great artist immerses him or herself as thoroughly as possible in the material at hand, largely setting aside his or her own personality and its individual characteristics. The artist becomes the particular means through which the theme that has seized him or her is formed.

But Hess and Dargis construct art according to their own petty intellectual and moral dimensions, as something narrow and thoroughly subjective. Of course the artist deals in sensations and perceptions, but as Marxists insist, the question of questions is: “Do our subjective sensations have objective significance?”

Our authors never concern themselves with whether or not the work of a given artist, even with his or her socially produced deformities, contributes to our understanding of the world and of ourselves. One of the difficulties is that both operate in the shallow and stagnant waters of contemporary American popular culture, where nothing especially illuminating does occur at present.

Dargis writes: “One fallacy about criticism is that it can be practiced objectively, as if we could see and write about movies from some sort of out-of-body experience. As if it were possible for me to watch a movie in which women are abused for no apparent reason—without even a pretense of narrative rationale—and view this exploitation as simply another formal attribute, like the cinematography, soundtrack or superb camerawork.”

As is the habit with philistines, Dargis identifies “objectivity” with passive impartiality. The aim is not to write about or regard films from “some sort of out-of-body experience,” but to treat them with regard for their truthfulness, their correspondence to the way the world is. Films that present women or any other portion of humanity in a dishonest or exploitative manner need to be rejected, although again Dargis’s selective perception is worth noting. She is evidently not upset by films that defend US imperialism’s crimes and paint Iraqis as a form of alien life, having placed Clint Eastwood’s foul, pro-military American Sniper at the top of her list of 2014 films “that meant the most to me.”

American Sniper (2014)
American Sniper (2014)

Art arrives at objective truths about reality, as science does, although obviously by other means. The recent series Genius played upon Albert Einstein’s supposed misdeeds as a husband. It chose to suggest, as the WSWS review observed, that his first wife, Mileva Maric, “came up with the ideas and mathematics for special relativity and that Einstein essentially stole her ideas.” This was wrongheaded enough, but suppose another film or series were to take a different tack: that the theory of relativity itself is tainted and needs to be reexamined in the light of Einstein’s unhappy relations with certain women in his life.

There is a lengthy intellectual and social history behind the retrograde positions advanced by Hess and Dargis, as they have emerged and flourished within the well-heeled professional middle class.

On the one hand, we have suffered through decades of postmodernism and identity politics with their extreme subjectivism and relativism, which write off the possibility of establishing the objective truth about society or history. On the other, whatever meager democratic residue that remained within official American life has been worn away through the endless “war on terror,” with its “human rights” justifications of military interventions, detention without trial, torture and other atrocities, along with a series of manipulated sex scandals.

The entire identity politics crowd in the US, like the establishment as a whole, is moving sharply to the right, toward support for censorship, political or moral witch-hunting and outright repression. The Weinstein-Spacey-Louis C.K affairs (with more to come!), combined with the “fake news” and anti-Russia campaigns, have simply provided these people the occasion for more brazenly embracing a right-wing, anti-democratic program.

(Republished from World Socialist Web Site by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Feminism, Political Correctness 
Hide 111 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Many good points in this article:
    - Weinstein (among others) is just as deserving of due process and the presumption of innocence as everyone else.
    - Effectively banning the works of the proscribed is Stalinist and an extremely dangerous precedent. Are we to burn the corpus of Aristotle because he was a “misogynist” who supported slavery? That’s insane. Just as discounting the achievements of men like Columbus for reasons of childish peevishness is insane because it must lead to absurdities such as disavowing the achievements of Washington and Amerigo Vespucci and the renaming of entire states and continents.
    - The NYT is fake news.

    The author’s conception of “the right” is somewhat mystifying; but it does look like “the identity politics crowd in the US” is becoming increasingly unhinged.

    • Agree: F0337
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    , @cowardly troll
  2. Renoman says:

    The NYT is no better than CNN, just a shit rag.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @jack ryan
  3. Amazing that these leftist scumbags have the audacity to rant about “Guilty until proven innocent” and “McCarthyism” and “Reactionary”and yet they are the assholes who convict anyone and everyone who does not fit into their progressive mold, simply based upon assertion and the “Severity of the charges”.

    They, the leftist lunatics, are the scourge of mankind and there is no common ground possible.
    This is clearly the result of stupid people having access to higher “Edumacation”, and specifically the useless communist front of = Journalism.
    The “Frankfurter Schule” being a sort of fungus which simply is impossible to get rid of.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    , @jacques sheete
  4. The entire identity politics crowd in the US, like the establishment as a whole, is moving sharply to the right, toward support for censorship, political or moral witch-hunting and outright repression.

    Now that liberal scumbag luminaries are in the firing line and the revolution is eating itself, some of the smarter left wing intelligentsia realize although the left started the identity politics gambit, the right will goddamn well finish it. Haha!

    Sorry mate, its too late to rein in the ‘coalition of the ascendant’ now. They’re going to keep chimping and fueling a right-wing counter-revolution.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  5. Leftists running Leftist rags reframe history.
    Wise people reframe Leftist rags (and Leftism’s pervasive Gnostic Heresy in general.)

    Life goes on.

  6. utu says:

    Louis C.K. is not a fiend deserving to be liquidated.

    Why does World Socialist Web care whether some rich fucks are liquidated or not? Their only questions should be how many and by what means. Shot in the back of the head or working to death in Gulag?

    • Agree: Forbes
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  7. Wally says: • Website

    As for Einstein’s “misdeeds”, he certainly stole from others.

    Albert Einstein was a Fraud


    Einstein, plagiarist of the century

  8. bandw says:

    This is the weirdest thing happening in America. It must be the work of the lawyering class which is intent to create a wave of highly profitable sexual harassment litigation,even the prominent members of their own tribe have to be sacrificed. Wow!

  9. Notice this 400 page rant protesting the innocents of the accused did not include Roy Moore.

    David Walsh is clearly upset that his beloved icons of the left are being exposed for the hypocrites that they really are, and he’s hitting out at the messengers. I’m sure if all the accused in NYT are GOP or Pat Buchanan he would not be writing such an article arguing for due process for the accused. Yet here he is pretending to be all about justice for the accused, assailing the NYT writers of being incapable of “separating the art from the artist”, for being unable to recognize and accept that “vileness and genius go hand in hand”, and for being unwilling to criticize the “existing social order” without dragging these “geniuses” through the mud for their vileness.

    I supposed it never occurred to David Walsh that many people do not consider these men “geniuses” nor what they produced “art”, but crass arrogant pretenders who produced garbage hailed as genius art by other leftist idiots like himself dominating the media. Everything touched by these leftist idiots have turned to garbage – the Democratic party, the media, liberal arts, modern art, modern lit, modern music, pretty much all movies made since the 70s have been garbage. I for one am thrilled to see these garbage and hypocrites of Hollywood and DNC called out for being the garbage and hypocrites that they are in real life. Now they can take the rotten garbage that they’ve been producing and shove it up their pompous asses.

    But the NYT itself is another garbage rag so go ahead, nothing pleases me more than to see leftist garbage hypocrites tear at each other. They deserve one another.

  10. Eagle Eye says:

    The entire article is a complicated piece of MISDIRECTION aiming to disarm the non-Left (aka as “extreme right” in Carlos-speak).

    Weinstein (among others) is just as deserving of due process and the presumption of innocence as everyone else.

    Let’s not get carried away. Constitutional protections such as due process apply in the context of a criminal trials against an accused.

    As Americans, we still have the right to SAY that X is a criminal and guilty of offences D, E and F.

    Naturally, this concept of Free Speeach is often difficult for non-Americans to understand.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @jimbojones
    , @ia
  11. Eagle Eye says:

    The “Frankfurter Schule” being a sort of fungus which simply is impossible to get rid of.

    The technical term is slime mold.

  12. LauraMR says:

    Let’em. They are eating their own.

  13. BozoB says:

    Whoever removes Egon Schiele’s work from the museums has my approval. He can take all the Klimt with him as well.

  14. Brabantian says: • Website

    Ironically, this article is from the World Socialist Web Site – wsws org – which is quite a totalitarian censoring website, sometimes instantly deleting and banning commenters who do not toe their Trotskyite party line on issues where they feel vulnerable

    E.g., with their Trotskyite pro-migrant-wave positioning, the ‘World Socialist Web Site’ does not like people pointing out that Karl Marx himself in his writings, denounced ‘weapons of mass migration’ as a major tool of oligarchs to destroy the morale, lives and livelihoods of working-class labourers, Marx saying back in the 1800s, that induced migration is a tool of conflict creation to distract from oligarchs’ own schemes of oppression

    This fact about Marx, was courageously covered though, by Irish Communist Gearóid Ó Colmáin in his 11-part series of articles, ‘Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe‘, published at ‘Dissident Voice’

    Funny that the World Socialist Web Site has recently been whining about being ‘censored by Google’, given how their Trotskyite commissars so quickly censor others

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Sure, we should just let the Tribe keep raping our women.

  16. “The methods of the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s have been taken out, dusted off and brought to bear without any serious opposition within the artistic world.”

    Can we be done with the idiotic “McCarthy witch-hunt” trope? Hess and Dragis are probably unaware that McCarthy was not in pursuit of imaginary witches but communists, of which there were prodigious numbers in the highest regions of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, most notably Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and, probably, Harry Hopkins, FDR’s go-to-guy for dealing with Stalin. The State Department was infested with commies (as JM correctly pointed out) who help hand China over to Mao.

    McCarthy is the Bete Noire of Hollywood because his anti-communist campaign targeted Hollywood as the chief propaganda arm of America’s Stalinist-left, which it was. Unfortunately, McCarthy lost, the left won the 1960s culture wars and Hollywood went full-Marxist in message and full-Caligula in life style. These degenerates who constantly remind us about how virtuous they are have been exposed and ae getting what they deserve. Presumption of innocence does not apply since they have confessed and, on script, retreat to rehab.

    • Replies: @robt
  17. I meant (above) David Walsh, not Hess and Dargis.

  18. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Since one of Antifa’s own was involved in that Texas church massacre, that Commie-loving outfit has gone to ground, hiding in the shadows while they train with ISIS, recruit more imbeciles and plan their next uprising.

    The Oakland radicals are apparently seeking help with creating bombs as well as acquiring toxic chemicals and gasses, the report claims, while revealing several ties between high-profile terrorist organizations and the so-called “Oakland group.”

    So it seems more than curious that when Antifa goes silent, another mechanism rises up to strike at white males.

    The guilty should get the full brunt of the law, but the way this is going, ALL white males are now guilty until proven guilty.

  19. The methods of the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s…

    The author is clueless. Thanks for letting us know so soon in the screed.

    Before McCarthy, the Red sympathizers went on more than one witch hunt themselves. Look what starts such smears.

    …The Philadelphia Record is owned and published by Mr. David Stern. Because of my humble efforts to keep this country out of war, Dave Stern evidently determined to injure me through Allen and Pearson. I know that if I would change my position, within a very short time the “Merry-Go-Round” would hold me up to the nation as a great statesman and a great patriot.

    - ROBERT R. REYNOLDS, Belief in Press, Built by Honest Men, Is Periled.
    Social Justice , May 29, 1939, p. 18

    Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the [Chicago] mob.

    While Annenberg ran his publishing empire as a business, he was not afraid to use it for his own ends. One of his publications, The Philadelphia Inquirer, …attacked McCarthyism in the 1950s,[9] and campaigned for the Marshall Plan following World War II.[10]

  20. It’s a pity to destroy the credit of an article that has some points worth making by over the top nonsense in the first three paragraphs.

    Defamation of individuals, even when alleging criminal conduct, is not a deniaĺ of constitutionsl riights, the presumption of innocence or of due process. These criminal law concepts are irrelevant to libel for which the NYT and other publishers and broadcasters can be sued for damages. True the big media corporations can afford to beat up the relatively poor who cannot easily afford the costs of taking legal action. But that isn’t relevant to the cases under discussion.

    The comparison with McCarthyite slanders is equally misguided because McCarthy was protected from civil suits for damages by the Senate committee context in which he misbehaved.

    • Replies: @Johann
  21. A brilliant article from Mr. Walsh that cuts through the fog of identity politics to reveal our latest media-manufactured moralistic witch hunt distraction from genuine politics.

    • Replies: @Orwellian State
  22. wayfarer says:

    The New York Times: ” Your Source for Bogus Tabloid Journalism!


    American Pravda, NYT Part I: Slanting the News & A Bizarre Comey Connection

    American Pravda, NYT Part II: Exploiting Social Media & Manipulating the News

    American Pravda, NYT Part III: Senior Homepage Editor Reveals Biased Political Agenda at NYT

    American Pravda, NYT Part IV: New York Times Company Culture Revealed: “Everyone hates Trump”

  23. I wondered how far I’d have to go before Russiagate popped up! It was an odd subject for the World Socialist Web Site and the only logic I could see to it was they fear that women will start coming forward to accuse Trump. Trump is (oddly!) the darling of the far left because they think he wants to capitulate to Putin in Ukraine and they think Putin is a closet communist just waiting until Trump lets him grab half of Europe to “come out”. Such is the American political cloudcuckooland!

  24. @Authenticjazzman

    Amazing that these leftist scumbags have the audacity to rant about “Guilty until proven innocent” and “McCarthyism” and “Reactionary”and yet they are the assholes who convict anyone and everyone who does not fit into their progressive mold, simply based upon assertion…

    Well, they have to be audacious; they certainly don’t have the truth on their side, and if they did, they’d pervert that as well.

    The same can be said about the “righties” as well. For example, their continuous whining about the Black and Muslim “threats” which are relatively minor, and their avoidance of naming the worst threats such as the international banking cartels, neocons, Ziopervs, cucked politicians and the presstitute media.

  25. @Brabantian

    E.g., with their Trotskyite pro-migrant-wave positioning, the ‘World Socialist Web Site’ does not like people pointing out that Karl Marx himself in his writings, denounced ‘weapons of mass migration’ as a major tool of oligarchs to destroy the morale, lives and livelihoods of working-class labourers, Marx saying back in the 1800s, that induced migration is a tool of conflict creation to distract from oligarchs’ own schemes of oppression

    thanks for that. I didn’t know it but certainly believe it.

  26. Z-man says:

    As long as it disrupts the Joo power structure this witch hunt shit is OK by me!
    On a more conspiratorial level though all this gives the Joo press a pass to continue going after Donald J Trump, my liege.
    Trump 2017-25!!!

  27. Johann says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I believe that McCarthy was eventually proven to be correct; see the Verona Papers. To continue to slander Senator McCarthy has been the crusade of the very powerful American Communist culture which controls the media , the educational industry (K to post graduate),the entertainment industry, the liberal Christian Churches , etc.

  28. DaveE says:

    I offer the simple theory that the NYT is simply trying desperately to regain readership, maybe even credibility, probably in vain.

    Everyone knows Weinstein and his entire Hollyweird Mob are the scum of the earth, and have been since Hollywood was dredged up from Hades. This ain’t news. But for the New York Times to actually print something TRUE, well, that is very much NEWS.

    As far as due process goes, a person needs to be charged with a crime and the case prosecuted in court, for “due process” to happen. So, talking about “due process” before ANY “process” has even occurred is simply BS…. a cheap shot at the “anti-Semites” for daring to speak the truth about the scum who run Hollywood.

    At most, the NYT is guilty of tabloid-style innuendo and defamation.

    But, in this case, the defamation is entirely deserved and everyone knows it, even if it hasn’t been proven in a court of law (lately).

    In the meantime, Hollywood knows (including the NYT) that gossip and innuendo sells product, bigtime.

    • Replies: @DaveE
    , @Miro23
  29. MBlanc46 says:
    @Eagle Eye

    You may suffer significant monetary penalties if “your right to say” takes you into the territory of libel or slander.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  30. @Brabantian

    Again, thanks for the link to Gearóid Ó Colmáin. He makes many excellent points and writes extremely well (in contrast to the whining author of at least the first part of the above article, which was much too sappy to plow through.)

    The journey across the Mediterranean to Europe can normally cost up to 11,000 dollars, more money than most European workers manage to save from years of hard labour, yet we are told that millions of war-ravaged Iraqis and Syrians are suddenly able to pay this colossal sum to make the journey to Europe. How is this possible?

    - Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe, January 16th, 2016

    But it is not only the pauperised inhabitants of Green Erin [Ireland] and of the Highlands of Scotland that are swept away by agricultural improvements, and by the “breaking down of the antiquated system of society.” It is not only the able-bodied agricultural labourers from England, Wales, and Lower Scotland, whose passages are paid by the Emigration Commissioners.

    -Karl Marx , Forced Emigration , New York Daily Tribune of March 22, 1853

    • Replies: @utu
  31. DaveE says:

    Another theory:

    1.) Somewhere, somehow there is a major lawsuit brewing against Weinstein, et al., not yet known to the general public.

    2.) Weinstein’s lawyer says, Look, this is serious. Things could get ugly for you if we don’t act preemptively.

    3.) But, I got a plan. We’ll call our pals at NYT and tell them to generate stories, as many as possible, about the vile and depraved nature of Hollywood.

    4.) When trial rolls around, we’ll scream PERSECUTION, like we always do. “Look how can we possibly get a fair trial? The media has been so poisoned against us, for years, these stories have biased ANY potential jury….”

    5.) Mistrial. Harvey takes a long vacation in Israel.

  32. Joe Hide says:

    So many big words that lead nowhere. Are they meant to distract from the very real abusive sexual exploitation by pyschopaths on children and the vulnerable? I find this article extremely repulsive because it does so little to offer solutions to stopping the evil that has been hidden for so long. Of course its a no-brainer that the controlled media will exaggerate the display of degeneracy of those considered disposable by the globistic deep state in order to shift the inevitable bringing into the light the vastly more evil acts of those at the top.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  33. “This may outrage the Times’ editors and surprise a large portion of the newspaper’s readership but Weinstein, Brett Ratner and James Toback—not to mention Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Franken and countless others being drawn into the dragnet of yellow journalism—are owed the legal protections due every citizen.”

    Those individuals have not been denied those legal protections. As far as I know, none have been jailed for anything related to the accusations. They are however, all public figures, and subsequently they all come under the judgement of public opinion, positive or negative.

    As far as losing their jobs over accusations, it is the right of every PRIVATE entity to make decisions based on what’s best for the entity. The Constitution was meant to limit the powers of government, not hamstring certain private parties to the advantage of other private parties. If I work for Acme, I still have the right to publicly criticize Acme, but Acme has the right to terminate my employment for casting the company in a bad light.

    If the allegations are false (as many of them are certain to be) the accused can pursue damages in the civil courts. They certainly all have the resources.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @EliteCommInc.
  34. Heros says:


    “The methods of the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s have been taken out, dusted off and brought to bear without any serious opposition within the artistic world.”


    McCarthy was right. So was Patton.

  35. The Constitution was meant to limit the powers of government…

    Um, no it wasn’t.

    That claim’s a myth and a fallacy, and the opposite of the truth which is why the anti-federalists objected to it and why some delegates boycotted it, some never or rarely showed up, and why Rhode Island even refused to send delegates to the Cornstitutional Cornvention.

    The whole ruling aristocracy is and was corrupt from the beginning. Plenty of rot at the top even (?especially?) today.

    • Agree: Alden
  36. Avery says:

    Good argument.
    Well said.

    Don’t know who Brett or James are, but Spacey, Louis C.K., and Franken have pretty much admitted what they have done, minus some details.
    Weinstein was audio-taped by one of the victims and admitted on tape that he is used to that sort of thing, i.e. grabbing breasts (or words to that effect).
    Franken was photographed cupping the breasts of a sleeping woman: clearly, no consent.

    And as Post #9 noted, Roy Moore is strangely absent from the author’s defense of the group: wonder why.
    And Moore is the only one that I know of who is denying the accusations and vigorously challenging the accusers to provide evidence. One piece of alleged evidence presented by attorney Allred on behalf of her client is being convincingly challenged by Moore’s team as possibly being a forgery.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  37. utu says:
    @jacques sheete

    From what I saw and read Gearóid Ó Colmáin is pretty good but has one fatal flaw which is a total denial of Stalin and SU crimes. So one may wonder why somebody so insightful and smart has such a poor judgment. As if somebody paid him to tell the true story but at the same time to discredit it so the true story will not be believed with exception of wackos who do not find anything wrong in Stalin or perhaps don’t even know who Stalin was.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  38. Thirdeye says:

    Wuss-wuss is descended from an orthodox Marxist tendency that dissented from the left’s embrace of identity politics in the late 1960s. They tend to be dogmatically doctrinaire, but their critique of identity politics is on the money. It’s a red herring that plays into the hands of the elite and their handmaidens in academia, media, and bureaucracy.

  39. Thirdeye says:
    @Orwellian State

    The article is in response to NYT articles focused on the arts and entertainment industry, which Moore was never a part of.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Forbes
  40. @TonyVodvarka

    What does defending the indefensible make you, morally bankrupt? Most of the accused have admitted what they did. What “genius art” did Kevin Spacey ever gave us, House of Cards? A complete piece of morally bankrupt garbage, just like Mad Men. What “genius art” did Al Franken ever gave us? What a joke. Brett Ratner…you call Rush Hour and X Men “high art”? Hollywood has been producing nothing but garbage for decades. You don’t get high art out of the soulless and depraved. Depravity is their only inspiration and source of “creativity”. Now we know why.

    Notice he didn’t once mention how Roy Moore was also entitled to due process.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Art Deco
  41. Megs says:

    I agree that a topic that should be addressed has become a witch hunt, and the allegations made by these women should be handled in a court of law. There is also the assumption the women who have come forward with their allegations are all telling the truth, also unacceptable.
    Certainly one of the reasons this has gotten so much coverage is that sex sells, and who knows that better then mainstream media. One also can see it as a follow up to Trump’s remarks, described as anti-feminist, which further justifies their outrage at his winning the election, and Clinton’s loss. Hillary has certainly used her female gender as one reason for her loss, and played on the sympathy of women who too often will view it that way, as opposed to her militarism, Wall Street ties, and being on the elitist side of the democratic party that gave up their base of the working class decades ago.
    There is no distinction made between groping, braggadocio, and actual rape, all listed under one category of sexual misconduct. That in itself is offensive, and legally unsustainable, yet the sentence is the same, the destruction of a career, and a life’s work, while at the same time creating careers by destroying people’s lives without due process.

  42. Thirdeye says:

    Marxists have adopted contradictory doctrines on the migration issue – “proletarian internationalism” and “self-determination” – that they’ve never really resolved. Self-determination doctrine was ascendant during Marxism’s alliance with anti-colonial movements in China, Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, etc. Now the doctrine of “internationalism” is invoked in ways that largely serve the interests of the capitalist ruling class. Colmáin’s piece is a good read.

  43. Avery says:

    {The article is in response to NYT articles focused on the arts and entertainment industry, which Moore was never a part of.}

    From the first paragraph of this article:

    [The New York Times has been at the forefront of the campaign over sexual misconduct in the entertainment industry in particular, which has now been extended to the political arena (preposterously in the case of Sen. Al Franken).]

    Yeah, Moore, like Senator Franken, is in the political arena.
    Nice try, no cigar.
    Try again.

    (Psst, hint: Moore is a Republican, from the South, and horror of horrors……..a Christian. Ouch.)
    (Three strikes and he is out).

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  44. Thirdeye says:
    @Joe Hide

    There’s a history of concocted sex scandals being used as a weapon to destroy some far left groups, so the current situation may be rubbing old wounds.

  45. Thirdeye says:

    Franken was an entertainer before he entered politics.

    • Replies: @Avery
  46. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I am not sure you grasp the meaning of that is intended in spirit here as well — hair play, prudence . . .

    And your last sentence actually suggest you have no idea of the magnitude these kind of allegations have. The repercussions alone cannot be recouped by legal redress. I think the outstanding case here is that of Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle. No amount of rehabilitation legal or otherwise could untangle that mess.

    I get no solace from a contention that says, they can afford it. Not only does it shrift the fairness it suggests that most people who are so accused who don’t have aid resources deserve it because they are unable to pend either the time, money or effort in elf defense. That’s why so many middle income and poor “plea bargain” or and end up in jail or broke beyond repair.

    What I find interesting here is that Hollywood, obviously well aware of accusation, suggestions, recriminations set up system to pre-empt the matter by providing redress. It was no secret, that in dealing with the history of “couch” auditions true or false, they created a means by which there was remediation. And they did so to protect themselves and those involved. Anyone who settled, has little cause to complain as though they were ignored or dismissed — the payouts say otherwise. If anything the entertainment industry setup what might be called a means of redress for what appears to be the typical rigors of the artistic community involving men and women.

    It’ hard for m to believe tat given the scope that women didn’t know how to respond to offensive behavior. Most of u have to shrug off offensive behavior as part of living among people. In a community rife with hearsay, gossip, jealousy, competition, back biting, and caverns of self esteem issues engaged in exploring the best and the most vile of humanities conditions — I am not sure how distraught or righteous I need be on behalf of women demanding equality but wish to be given a pas for everything from military service to killing children in the womb. I am jut now where women want to draw the line of accountability in a relative world they demand.

    They want to get intoxicated so they don’t know what they are doing and yet expect an intoxicated male to more cognizant.

    Context matters — the Hollywood environment created by men and women matters.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  47. @utu

    Why does World Socialist Web care whether some rich fucks are liquidated or not?

    1 Because they’re Trots, not Stalinists. (Trotsky hoped to rehabilitate the American rich, or failing that, giving them an island to live on.)

    2. Because (most importantly) injustices practiced within the ruling class are a prelude to inflicting them on the masses.

    • Disagree: utu
  48. Forbes says:

    Then the paragraph on WMDs (not) in Iraq is wildly misplaced.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  49. Forbes says:
    @Orwellian State

    If it weren’t for double standards, prog-left/socialists wouldn’t have any standards.

  50. Thirdeye says:

    It was a rant-tangent the article could have done without.

  51. unit472 says:

    Oh come on! The presumption of innocence applies to criminal proceedings not public opinion and the fact that the New York Times has joined the National Inquirer in the gutter is wonderful. They used to only find sexual wrong doing if it was a Republican politician or Christian preacher who came under suspicion. Now Hollywood and National Predator Radio bigwigs are getting the same treatment.

    For once the New York Times is doing the right thing.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  52. Art Deco says:

    One piece of alleged evidence presented by attorney Allred on behalf of her client is being convincingly challenged by Moore’s team as possibly being a forgery.

    Allred’s client was a party to a divorce action which came before Judge Moore in 1999. To some of the documents in that case was affixed a signature stamp which use was attested to by Judge Moore’s secretary, Delbra Adams, with her initials ” / D.A.”. Funny how Roy Moore’s signature on that yearbook supposedly inscribed in December 1977 was rendered “Roy Moore DA”. Judge Moore hired Delbra Adams in 1989.

  53. Yes, what will we do without Kevin Spacey in the latest forgettable Netflix nonsense he’s involved in?

    Give me a break. Television sucks, Spacey sucks, and we’ll all be fine without him. When he disappears, as he should, there will be 100 fresh pieces of meat to replace him.

    Now, if Larry David were to be Weinsteined, that would be different. Hasn’t happened though.

  54. iffen says:

    moving sharply to the right, toward support for censorship, political or moral witch-hunting and outright repression.

    This can be either left or right. In this instance it is the left that is moving that direction, not the right.

    What if the moral criteria advocated by Hess and Dargis were to be applied retroactively?

    I think you have stumbled upon an important point, actually the main point.

  55. Eagle Eye says:

    You may suffer significant monetary penalties if “your right to say” takes you into the territory of libel or slander.

    Technically true. That’s why American Constitutional law severely limits the ability of “public figures” to sue for defamation.

    Truth of the defamatory statement is a defense in a defamation action (which is NOT the case in the UK or Europe).

    By contrast, any modest notions of freedom of speech that once existed in EUtopia was washed away long ago through vaguely worded “hate speech” laws and powerful defamation laws favoring rich plaintiffs and deterring regular people through draconian damages awards and readily granted injunctions, including “super injunctions” whose very existence the victim may not disclose on pain of imprisonment.

    Of course, Muslims defaming infidels enjoy de facto immunity in EUtopia.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  56. Art Deco says:
    @Orwellian State

    Does Spacey have to be a ‘genius’ to go on working?

  57. @Eagle Eye

    Free speech has nothing to do with it, and neither do your hang-ups about what non-Americans do or do not understand. No one is denying the right to free speech. The point is that the principle of the presumption of innocence should be applied in the court of public opinion as well as in the court of law and for the same reasons.

    I admit, however, that by apologizing, Weinstein, Rose, Franken, and many others have in effect pleaded guilty before the court of public opinion. So in many cases, the question at hand is not one of determining guilt but one of meting out punishment. And given the monumental hypocrisy of many of the accused, it is hard to sympathize with them.

    So, on second thought, I must agree with your saying that the article is a misdirection. All the more so, as others have pointed out, given the absence of Roy Moore’s name from the article – Roy Moore being one of the few who have denied wrongdoing.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  58. @EliteCommInc.

    I’m repeatedly amazed at how making an objective observation, purposely absent of my own actual opinion on the matter, will trigger someone into banging out a massive, semi literate lecture about CONTEXT! and GRASPING THE MEANING! You actually passed over dozens of other comments taking sides in the matter but my comment was so desperately in need of a reply that you couldn’t even spare a single moment for proofreading it. I am typically not the grammar police, as I make plenty of my own errors and sometimes miss them during the proof read, but you have a quite a few sentences in there that are impossible for me to translate into a coherent thought:

    “I am jut now where women want to draw the line of accountability in a relative world they demand.”

    I ran that ‘sentence’ through google translate and the only thing that came up was a line of dialogue from the movie Blade Runner, where in the background an extra is arguing with a bank teller in pidgin. Care to try again?

    As for context, you are taking my comment way out of it. The article suggests that these individuals mentioned are being denied “legal protections”. That is false, regardless of what I think personally of those involved. Those same individuals have civil options, as they can file suit for slander and or defamation, and they have the money to do it. Those are facts. The “deeper meaning” or whatever you’re getting at is irrelevant to my point, which is a rebuke of the article’s contention.

    Now, if you want to offer an opinion on the deeper meaning of this overall issue, I’m happy to read it as well as all the others here. But if you’re just going to take 3 paragraphs of broken English to essentially call me a moron you can take a flying phughk at a rolling doughnut. Have a nice day.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  59. After 5 decades of unchecked power, the degeneracy of the left is finally passed the breaking point. The left and in particular Hollywood has been selling us depravity as “creativity” for at least 5 decades. Even they have had enough of their own bullshit.

    HBO in particular needs to be called out for producing the sickest and most depraved garbage in the last 3 decades. Each new series is sicker and more depraved than the last. Every single one of their shows glorifies wanton degeneracy, often wrapped up in sickening violence and gore, like every Quentin Tarantino movie, appealing to the darkest side of human nature. Utter depravity. The depraved garbage that they produced like Sex and the City, Sopranos, Entourage, Six Feet Under, Game of Thrones further inspired other depraved garbage like Mad Men, House of Cards, Breaking Bad. Not surprisingly, it is run by a Jew.

    Hollywood just cannot sink any lower. And the main reason is because it’s run by depraved degenerates like Harvey Weinstein who want us to aspire to a hedonistic lifestyle like theirs, pill popping, coke sniffing, hard liquor for breakfast, casual sex all day long with anything with 2 legs, nothing is off limits. Perhaps Hollywood was always soulless and depraved to begin with, but in the hands of these hedonistic depraved Jews it is now a true bottomless cesspit.

    Perhaps it has finally gone too far. Women are finally waking up and realizing that no, they cannot enjoy casual sex like men, that the whole sexual revolution and sexual lewdness have benefited men far more than women, and that they do not want their daughters to grow up like Amy Schumer in Trainwreck. Perhaps Hollywood women have finally had enough of the hypocrisy. They cannot continue to play the female heroines on screen while still have to sleep with the producers to get the parts. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy. Thank God somebody’s finally had enough. We need to applaud and support these women, and I’m thankful the NYT is at least getting a shred of integrity back and stopped protecting these degenerate men of the Left as they have been.

    David Walsh wants to preserve the status quo. He wants Hollywood to retain its depravity and vileness, so it can continue to pump out more soulless, depraved garbage to drag our society further down their bottomless cesspit. He’s no different than all the creeps, rapists and child molesters thus far called out. He’s another piece of human garbage that that all need to be swept out of Hollywood, Wall Street and the DNC into the black hole and never heard from again.

    It’s time for the left to clean house, they no longer have any moral high ground to stand on.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  60. joe 7 says:

    ‘toward support for censorship, political or moral witch-hunting and outright repression.’

    Sounds like what the modern LEFT does.

    Of course the wsws thinks the Bolshevik Terror was a good thing..

  61. @unit472

    Sure, but that is playing a game of technicalities. The law is intended to reflect an ethos of hutice that exists beyond legal gamesmanship –

    fair play, resting on actual data not just accusation context etc.

  62. ia says:
    @Eagle Eye

    Freedom of speech? You can lose your job expressing hate thoughts. Police are being murdered. Whole cities, metro systems, counties, school systems are being destroyed because white men are terrified. In a few years there won’t be enough white men left to clean up the mess. And your constitutional rights will be a remote dream.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  63. I stumbled on this piece while looking for something else. I have next to no opinion on it, but throw it out for others’ takes.

    Here’s a quote that I found interesting tho I know nothing about Franken.

    As for Weinstein, he became disposable, simply there to provide deflection and to turn the pressure on the liberal media, Hollywood, people like Charlie Rose and eventually after longstanding Mossad targets like Senator Al Franken, seen as a dangerous anti-Zionist. Burning Franken was “huge.”

  64. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I neither gasp, nor need of grab for meaning. I understand your position you clearly stated it.

    I have no idea if I passed over comments, I am responding to yours. If their comment reflect similar observations, I think my responses apply to those I may have missed. I did not purposely target you. But your comment caught my attention. It is no reflection about you or others.

    I would not defend any errors in writing, if that is the route you chose to go — I am more than willing to admit, I could stand better proofing. No issues. Acknowledging as much, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

    I am just not sure where women want to draw the line of accountability in a relative world they demand. For example, drunkenness is excuse to forgo their accountability but a man must be held to account despite his own drunkenness. As a matter of fairness someone seeking to be treated as an equal would not impose a different standard – based on something such as biology. Fairness would demand similar accounting based on both parties being intoxicated.

    don’t like that double standard here’s another,

    a women gets pregnant, man doesn’t want t care for the child despite all of the cries of equality and her body, the expectation that the male pays child support. If it is her body and he chooses to carry the child to term and he want no part of it — that is her choice and her problem. Unless the purpose was to have a child, I am unclear why our society should press the matter on the man.

    Note: I am categorically opposed to killing/nurering children in the womb.

    A woman must be believed which mean in any dispute the man must be lieing — that smacks of a definitive bias

    If equality is a women demands it — then chivalry is out or must men continue to carry their equals.

    Now to your response about the law. My responses make it clear that certainly understand the context of the law as a means redress — I am sure I acknowledged as much. And then stated, the spirit of the law is not merely about the court room. That’s legal gaming. But long before one gets to court, the principles of fair play, prudence, matter.


    You clearly get my deeper meaning , though I wouldn’t call it that. I would call it fostering an atmosphere of fair play. I not only acknowledge the legal press you make, I provide an example of why your advance is problematic — surely the Roscoe Arbuckle article was clear enough. It demonstrates a deep flaw in the legal process regarding such matters as well as the utter abandon of fair play outside the legal process. He had money, wealth, fame, generally considered an all round nice guy. Yet, he never could redress his reputation. So the more difficult for those with less.
    Your complaint by hiding in my lousy writing is dismissed. You know full well that context in both legal and nonlegal exchanges are vital.

    That it goes to our fundamental practice of a fair hearing without gossip, rumor, hearsay, exaggeration, salacious accusations, via the press of anyone else, that would prejudice a jury and when I say jury I mean

    the jury of public opinion as well the trial jury. That prejudice, bias and unfair play begins outside the courtroom . . .

    Note: I am not defending coercive relational conduct, of even offensive free expression of similar discourse . . .

  65. @ia

    The number of police officers killed in the line of duty averages out to about 200 per year. I am being generous, its lower. That’s the total of our law enforcement officers that pass and that total includes all manner of mean. When considers those killed by homicide — it drops substantially. Again being generous it’s about 70 to 100. That amounts to a homicide rate of less than 0.019285714285714287%. I used a total of 700,000 law enforcement officers on duty nationally. I think the number is closer to 900,000.

    While public support for law enforcement is a required practice. The numbers suggest that there i not a war on police. Criticism may be higher, but the general public is not making war on the police, including African Americans.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @ia
    , @Hank Rearden
  66. @Eagle Eye

    Would you care to say when and how truth (justification) ceased to be a defence to a libel action in the UK? Are you perhaps confusing the situation with what applied to criminal libel which, as I recall it, was supposed to have a public interest element and only capable of being prosecutwd by or with the fiat of the Attorney-General? I am not sure when a criminal libel case was last brought. Was the Jeremy Thorpe case in the 70s such a one?

  67. Eagle Eye says:

    The point is that the principle of the presumption of innocence should be applied in the court of public opinion as well as in the court of law and for the same reasons.

    So based on your “should” law, Americans are not allowed to say that politician H, C, W or O committed crimes under U.S. law, e.g. by starting a pointless war in country I, Y, A, or I (again)?

  68. utu says:

    2016 Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted in the Line of Duty

    Felonious Deaths
    The 66 felonious deaths occurred in 29 states and in Puerto Rico. The number of officers killed as a result of criminal acts in 2016 increased by 25 when compared with the 41 officers who were feloniously killed in 2015. The five- and 10-year comparisons show an increase of 17 felonious deaths compared with the 2012 figure (49 officers) and an increase of eight deaths compared with 2007 data (58 officers).

    17 were ambushed (entrapment/premeditation);
    13 were answering disturbance calls (seven were domestic disturbance calls);
    nine were investigating suspicious persons/circumstances;
    six were engaged in tactical situations;
    five were performing investigative activities (such as surveillances, searches, or interviews);
    four were conducting traffic pursuits/stops;
    three were investigating drug-related matters;
    three were victims of unprovoked attacks;
    one was answering a burglary in progress call or pursuing a burglary suspect(s);
    one was answering a robbery in progress call or pursuing a robbery suspect(s); and
    four were attempting other arrests.

    Accidental Deaths
    Fifty-two law enforcement officers were killed accidentally while performing their duties in 2016. The majority (26 officers) were killed in automobile accidents. The number of accidental line-of-duty deaths increased by seven when compared with the 45 officers who were accidentally killed in 2015.

    26 died as a result of automobile accidents;
    12 were struck by vehicles;
    seven officers died due to motorcycle accidents;
    three were accidentally shot;
    two officers drowned;
    one died in an aircraft accident; and
    one officer died in another type of duty-related accident.

    Use of Seatbelts: Use of seatbelts was reported for 21 of the 26 officers killed in automobile accidents. Of these 21 officers, 10 were wearing seatbelts, and 11 were not wearing seatbelts at the times of the accidents. Of the 11 victim officers who were fatally injured in automobile accidents and were not wearing seatbelts, two were seated in parked motor vehicles at the times of the accidents.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  69. ia says:

    Blacks are always at war with police. Police have been used as scapegoats forever. The only reason the rest of the world doesn’t have African levels of anarchy and corruption is because blacks can’t gain enough power. Correction: the rest of the world has near-African levels of corruption. They just aren’t into African levels of casual mayhem.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  70. The NYT is probably over-reacting because it has known a lot of these stories for years, but declined to publish or even investigate them. The zeal of the denunciations serves several purposes. It assuages NYT employees’ guilt; it gives the paper a (belated) track record of being on the “right side of history”; and, the longer the campaign continues, the less likely it is that anyone will stop and ask the embarrassing question “When did the NYT first learn about Harvey Weinstein’s abuse of women?”

  71. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Orwellian State

    What is wrong with Game of Thrones?

    A lot of violence and sex for sure, but quite entertaining!

  72. @jimbojones

    Many good points in your comment.

    A bunch of replies to other comments:

    1) David Walsh’s article is in response to an NYT article about art and artists.

    2) on Roy Moore: How not to fight Judge Roy Moore

    3) and censorship: wsws has moderated comments, refer to The Saker to find out why:

    4) The two themes of the article are the essential democratic right of the presumption of innocence, refer to Nancy Pelosi on John Conyers:

    5) The other theme is the dichotomy between the artist’s personality and their work.

    6) Walsh’s stance is courageous.

  73. @ia

    I think it’s best, if avoid road you’d like to kip to and just stay where I came in.

    Police are not being targeted by citizens of any blend in some orchestrated cause of war by shooting them a your comment suggests (in my view). Police rarely experience death by the hand of citizens for any reason. While tragic, it is rare. Whatever the hazards more in some communities than others, citizen by and large either accept, tolerate or assist the police in doing their job and do so regardless of other tensions.

    • Replies: @ia
  74. @utu

    I am not sure what your point is. That officers on rare occasion get killed . . . I think we are on the same page. A nationwide death toll of 70 plus officers may be tragic, but if that constitutes a war —–

    — then the threshold has dropped catastrophically. I think the numbers are clear. I am generally fairly generous in discussions about numbers I would say 0.019 . . .% is not an indication of crisis or war against the police. As I stated, I am generous with the numbers. I was sure I made that clear initially.

    I have no issue using your numbers . . . 0.008% of officers are killed via some act of homicide. Targeted attacks based on your numbers. I am still only using 700,000 officers. Generally with respect to the ultimate sacrifice, officer are fairly protected and not much of a target by nearly anyone.

  75. iffen says:

    Authors: … the political arena (preposterously in the case of Sen. Al Franken).

    Sen. Al Franken: “embarrassed and ashamed”

  76. Avery says:

    {Franken was an entertainer before he entered politics.}

    I know what he _was_: a comedian on SNL.

    Again: read the first paragraph of the article; the authors do not identify Frankel as an entertainer.
    They identify Sen Frankel as a politician.
    What part of that sentence is not clear to you?

    Here you go:

    {….which has now been extended to the political arena (preposterously in the case of Sen. Al Franken).}


    You lose.
    Give it up.

  77. ia says:

    My point was that if it weren’t for white men who are still in the majority in the USA we would and will see Brazilian and African levels of violence, towards police or citizens. Your attempt to nit pick numbers with utu and make vague politically correct generalities with me is a red herring. Obama and his Justice Department attacks using the ludicrous disparate impact ploy to knee-cap police bolster my point. You are aware of the term “disparate impact?” Of course, the Democrats aren’t going to openly say, hey let’s start killing cops. They’re not that stupid. Modern anarcho-tyranny doesn’t operate that way. But the race card is always played in one form or another. The fact is, blacks are unable to self-correct and stand up to their own corruption and violence. If you were honest you’d admit it.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.

    Lois Gold wrote SUCH GOOD FRIENDS, made into a movie by Otto Preminger.

    It shows a lot about the change in sexual mores that led to current problems. Now we have 50 shrieks of grey.

  79. @EliteCommInc.

    Numbers aren’t the sole definition of war. Just because blacks aren’t very good at prosecuting their war on police doesn’t mean they aren’t at war with the police.

  80. @Hank Rearden

    I was fairly specific about why I made the reference I did.

    I cannot and will not speak for the gentleman in question. Suffice it to say, he is entitled to engage in protests as a US citizen. He is even entitled to use animal references about members of law enforcement as has been done since law enforcement has existed in this country.

    But the decreased in attendance has very little to do with players taking a knee. It’s probably the growing acceptance that the sort causes brain damage regardless of a players skin color. Millions of parents are suddenly questioning the risks . . .

    No comment on is more telling than that of Dodgers player Jackie Robinson (US Army Lt.).

    “Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first world series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey’s drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made.”

    For some people, dignity has no price.

    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
  81. Eagle Eye says:
    @Hank Rearden

    It seems I slightly misremembered long-ago research on this. Based on a cursory search, it appears that technically, truth of the statement is still a defense.

    However, the defendant has to prove the truth of his statement which in many cases is impossible. (How do you prove that politician X accepted a quid pro quo in return for mysteriously changing her vote on an important project?)

    As noted, U.S. law makes it very difficult for a “public figure” to sue successfully for libel. This is as it should be – any other rule would create an elite with the power to hush up unpleasant truths through the threat of libel actions.

  82. I think my point was made and the reference to who was being killed in referenced to war makes it clear — the police are not significant targets.

    From a sociological perspective, from historical data set, yikes!!!! I am not sure why any person much-less a white person would want to engage in that discussion. For the evidence is mountains in support of a case that blacks have been on the defense. in every category: criminal justice, financials, employment, education, housing, faith and practice . . .

    Goodness, I am not going to make a case that pits me against blacks who for two hundred years had to fight to fight for the country and routinely had to meet a much higher standard. . . that’s a loop to loop counter intuitive, I am going to avoid.

    As for the gentleman in question, I cannot speak for him, but I am certainly not going to challenge his right to hold views of officers that have been around since there was law enforcement about untoward police conduct in the US. Here’s a comment by by Dodger’s player,

    “Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first world series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey’s drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made.” US Army Lt. Jackie Robinson

    For some people, dignity has no price.

    Most blacks are probably just relieved for a break from Mr Cosby’s woes with members of the opposite sex.

  83. theMann says:

    Perhaps this is tangential to a thoughtful article, but

    1. Film aint art.

    2. Anybody who thinks Louis C. K. is funny has their head so far up their a$$ they can self examine their molars.

    3. GOT follows the novels closely. The first four seasons had a lot of gratuitous soft core porn thrown in, but it has disappeared as the show got better.

  84. Eagle Eye says:
    @Hank Rearden

    In a few years … your constitutional rights will be a remote dream.

    Sadly, you may well be right. Certainly our “elites” are moving full speed ahead to undermine, concrete over and circumvent what is left of our Constitution.

    Meanwhile, we should still continue to fight them every step of the way in whatever manner works best in each situation.

  85. @EliteCommInc.

    Pigs in a blanket. Fry ‘em like bacon!

    What do we want? Dead cops!

    “Protest,” my ass. Those are war chants meant to demoralize what they consider to be the enemy forces.

  86. The purpose of the Hollywood sex scandals is to make everyone forget the ATF gun-running operation in Las Vegas that someone hijacked for reasons unknown. The ATF and the FBI are involved in the cover-up.

    Forgot about it, did’t you? That’s the point.

    Forget this deliberate sex scandal distraction and get back on the track of who really killed the 58 innocent people in Vegas. There was no “bump stock”. They were automatic military weapons.

    Remember Oliver North and his Iran- contra gun running scheme? Paddock was nowhere near the profile for a crazy lone gunman, nor do the other publicly known facts fit that fake narrative. Look at Paddock’s life style and tax records and you will see he fits the profile of a professional gun runner. Obviously, the hotel, the ATF, and the FBI knew what he was doing.

    Which is the more important story – that all men are pigs, or that the ATF and FBI are covering up the murder of 58 innocent Americans. Do we protect our citizens or don’t we?

  87. @Hank Rearden

    As noted, I am not going to challenge protest speech that has been in existence since the country’s founding. As I recall authority figures have been routinely burned in effigy. . . hung from lamp pot . . . etc.

    To date there is no war against the police and I am not going to advocate making speech, even said inflammatory speech illegal. Even those who advocate for hold officer to account to the extreme. The founders agitated for war against their mother country over taxes and more liberties . . .

    Not a euphemistic war of words, but actual war or a war in which the civil liberties of officers are denied, I may not agree with such language, but until someone starts taking up arms — for actual war, I am going to side with the founders on matters of speech. I am concerned that so many are yelling fire in a crowded theater

    . . . when there is no fire.

    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
  88. @Hank Rearden

    As noted, I am not going to challenge protest speech that has been in existence since the country’s founding. As I recall authority figures have been routinely burned in effigy. . . hung from lamp posts . . . etc.

    To date there is no war against the police and I am not going to advocate making speech, even said inflammatory speech illegal. Even those who advocate for hold officer to account to the extreme. The founders agitated for war against their mother country over taxes and more liberties . . .

    Not a euphemistic war of words, but actual war. I may not agree with such language, but until someone starts taking up arms — for actual war or the rights of some group, in this case the police, are abridged or denied, I am going to side with the founders on matters of speech. I am concerned that so many are yelling fire in a crowded theater

    . . . when there is no fire.

    excuse the double post, I was in the midst of corrections when it posted.

  89. @EliteCommInc.

    It’s a racial war of genocide. Police are just one popular target, as enforcers of the White man’s law.

    “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    They hate you for the very simple reason that you are not them. And they will attack you, unprovoked, every chance they get. Your skin is your uniform. War has been that way for the last 2 million years of human history; get used to it.

  90. There is only a simple response here,

    Thomas Jefferson should have been the first in line to deny the value of slavery that would the cause of the wrong to be remembered. It’s strange call to be the cause of the wrong and then complain about the animosity.

    On that end, it is clear that the african american community has been on the receiving end of Pres Jefferson and companies’ wrongs. I think it is safe to say, Pres Jefferson was as wrong in his fortune telling as he is in his bid for revolution while maintaining slaves. If one wants to wrap hypocrisy in the cloak of skin color, I tend to think blacks are more disturbed by the wrongs and the seeming hypocrisy than skin color.

    In other words, if said people were green and had behaved as Pres Jefferson, the issues of wrong and hypocrisy would yield the same bitter fruit color aside.

    It is the same plague on the issue concerning relational inappropriateness. Hollywood women was to hang Justice Thomas, and embrace Pres Clinton.

    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
  91. robt says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    And so it goes on: The 2005 movie Good Night and Good Luck is a fairly recent example, but anyway the ‘McCarthy Era’ has become an epithet simply by endless repitition in media and the ‘arts’.
    This well written, well directed and beautifully filmed movie attempts to perpetuate the myths of the McCarthy era while ostensively telling the story of Edward R Murrow. For the knowledgeable viewer however, no case is really made against McCarthy, truly a tragic victim himself.
    Certainly, George Clooney, as writer and director could not make the case honestly. Surely with all the thousands of victims we are told about is it really necessary to work the bogus cases featured in the movie and discussed below into the screenplay?
    Milo Radulovich, discharged from the Air Force, is presented at length as a victim of McCarthy, but of course, McCarthy had nothing to do with his case. This was a security issue that was handled by the Air Force itself.
    Annie Lee Moss is presented as a victim of McCarthy in her appearance before the committee. Ms Moss was being questioned as a witness in trying to determine who had promoted Ms Moss, who worked in the cafeteria for many years, to a position as a code clerk handling classified messages in the Pentagon. In McCarthy’s questioning, he asks her if she’s ever been a dues paying member of the Communist Party (no), whether she subscribes to the Daily Worker newspaper (no), has attended Communist party meetings (no), and so on (no,no,no). She’s not very convincing in the film clips when giving her testimony, and the folks at CBS try to convince themselves that maybe one of the other Mosses in the phone book is the party in question. Four years later, of course, all the testimony she has given under oath is shown to be false (but not in the movie), and one wonders indeed who did promote Ms Moss, and why.
    The case of Lawrence Duggan, journalistic mentor of Murrow runs through the film, with Duggan always looking worried and nervous, until he finally commits suicide.
    No wonder: he was a Soviet spy, as revealed later (but not in the movie).
    Edward Murrow seems to look very worried a lot of the time, too. What is the meaning of the furtive glances exchanged between Murrow and Duggan? Is Clooney trying to tell us something? Did Murrow know his friend was a Soviet spy?
    The release of the Verona transcripts of intercepted Soviet code in 1995 provided the evidence that most all of what McCarthy said was true, and most all of what his detractors said was not. His attackers typically nit-pick with denunciations such as claiming one of his lists of communists in government was bogus: there were only 107 on his list, not 110, therefore everything McCarthy said was false. This movie extends and pretends the myths for a new generation who overwhelmingly will accept it as true without delving into the research, or even read an objective history of the period. Even the ‘Have you no decency’ money shot which was the beginning of the end for McCarthy has been later discredited by the facts.
    Trivia: Check the background in the historic film clips shown in the movie of the hearings for Robert Kennedy (yes, that Robert Kennedy) – he was the junior counsel on McCarthy’s committee.

  92. F Batts says:
    @Orwellian State

    It is not a matter of taking sides as the entire point of this article is 1) the lack of due process without which our society is doomed and 2) the implications of the loss of due process is fascism.

    Case in point there are a number of men, one a Rabbi, accused of sexual abuse whose career was destroyed and a year later it was discovered the charges were false. Not excusing people like Weinstein but America thrived as a nation as due process was accorded to everyone and disregard for this process does not bode well for us all….

  93. @ia

    You may not like the numbers, but they squarely challenge the assumptions about a war on police. And they do so dramatically.

    The next bid was for a discussion about sociological warfare which by the data empirical, rhetorical or otherwise, firmly rebuts the notion of a substantial war on whites by blacks but rather the revers. The historical is complete on the matter that I am embarrassed for anyone who contend otherwise. Because the volume and breadth of antagonistic behavior and consequence i squarely to african americans as targets. Furthermore, the numbers were in no manner cherry picked as my ue of the numbers provided to me in detail indicate the same result.

    You applied the rhetoric of Pres Thomas Jefferson, in which he squarely states, we are going to blamed for wrongs done against . . . and so the record shows. Thus far his predictions about the peoples involved incapable of living together has been demonstrated false. Despite the struggle against the wrongs, trying to figure how to redress them, should they be redressed, etc. whites and lacks have successfully managed to be as citizens despite the one being disadvantaged. Even a policy such as affirmative action was demolished to benefits whites by 60+ percent.

    I am not going make any attempt to justify criminality. I am a conservative. that means a healthy distrust of government, that includes the police. And all government needs to be checked or they will as a matter of course do as they see fit as expedient and that means the constitution take a back seat –

    Again history rebuts your entire advance here. As back people have since man was on the planet engaged in legal and social mechanism for orderly society — even egalitarian societies. The race card was played when the first colonists arrived on these shores for our history, it has never not been played and played most effectively by whites. We are where e are largely because the founders were afraid to act on their integrity of principles they claimed to be fighting for — at every opportunity they raced the matter.

    The history of the democratic party is to use the same color card for the benefit of whites in just a different form in my view. But until, we start hauling police off into isolated fields, beating them up, hanging them as practice, until we start making laws or engage in practices that deny them access to education, housing, employment, the courts, finance, or any manner deny them due process, I think it is safe to say –

    there is no war on police aside from a war of words and rhetorical discourse. There is increasing pressure to hold police to account for excessive behavior as government agents and tools of government run by the people – but that can be owed more to technology and camera phones and access to the internet. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the studies completely recently only confirm the volumes of studies conducted under republican and democratic admin.

    The history of 43 million blacks are no less capable of self correction where need be and be part of society than whites

    I would be cautious of using small indices to draw larger generalizations about entire population with such a serious charge.

    Now should you respond to this comment — do not take my possible choice of not responding further a disrespect or a for lack of a response. I think we have just reached an end and I have nothing new to add. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that there is a war on police or whites. More social push back does not constitute a war. The country is just used to blacks most of them anyway being politically correct – by avoiding anything that might upset the majority, occasionally things pop/explode, but mostly blacks have a long history of political correctness.

    Again should I not respond it is a choice based on seeing nothing new to add to the conversation, it is not anything but that.

    • Replies: @IA
  94. IA says:

    Wow! You are a seriously status-marking Eloi if you’re white.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  95. @IA

    I have no idea what that means . . . not sure I want to. But I find it curious that someone concerned about the color card is concerned about color rather than what is on the table. I am a huge fan of George Orwell’s science fiction though some of his social theory is problematic.

    Get data sets from where I can find them and have a comfortable sense that they are legitimate. You seem to have a problem with data regardless of where it comes from.

    It has been interesting.

    • Replies: @ia
  96. ia says:

    The data, I’d say, is that you have never spent much time living around blacks.

  97. Correction —

    H. G. Well’s.

  98. @EliteCommInc.

    Like every other progressive leftist, you attack the founders of our nation. (Go on, try telling us you’re conservative again.)

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  99. @Hank Rearden

    That has got to be one of the strangest comment in a series of strange comments. The founders made mistakes. They were intelligent men but they were not perfect men. But in either case, Thomas Jefferson’s word’s speak for themself and i just point that out.

    His prediction referenced to date has not come true.

    I have no idea who us is. My comments are generally noted to a specific comment

    One need not have rose colored glasses to be positive, or conservatism. I would hazard a fairly safe bet you don’t have a firm grasp of what it means to be conservative.

  100. Your words—attacking the founders like a typical progressive leftist—speak for themselves, as I just pointed out. I would hazard a guess that your picture accompanies the dictionary definition of RINO.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  101. @Hank Rearden

    I am a conservative, though I vote Republican. Republicans many if not most, well most, left the field of conservative thought a long time ago. Even I have to admit that being a conservative demands serious rigor in thought, action not only in polity but living. A kantian ethos, to integrity and truth — it’s sometime very tough work to be consistent.

    Jame Madison was an intelligent astute thinker, a man by all standards ahead of his time at the sounding, I consider his campaign into Canada a huge and peculiar error. In fact his decision to go to war was a mistake. Here’s a conservative, the revolutionary war was a wholly unnecessary and if one is a scripturalist — in violation of God’s word. This article and the issue if due process, order, stability, holding to traditions that foster community, maintain/sustain community, just does not include raiding ships and tossing over other;s property. It sets a bad precedent for change and wholesome intellectual discussion and stable change when change is required.

    (But I am way ahead of myself and I think I may be taking advantage.)

    Buy this author’s position is a call for a fair hearing. It shuns the idea of kangaroo public tribunals, and careless methodology. Conservative polity cannot guarantee a fair trial or even justice as history demonstrates repeatedly, good order and due process cannot subdue the ills of human mind and intent or even “honest error.” In my view no era more than the Vietnam era embraced the worst of what the founder’s give us in tradition — that of violent and or disorderly protest. Even the Declaration of Independence on paper cannot hide that fact. Nor can your incorrect expectation that being a conservative means being politically correct about the founders as opposed to accurate observation, especially when others have made their polity an issue as is the case.

    Before I die, I would like to think if I had a son, he would honor me and even revere and no doubt as his father, I might even hope that he hold my very essence in awe and adoration — but the truth is find in me fault. All the better he acknowledge it and move to avoid the same and teach his children the same.

    It has been interesting.

  102. Bischkva says:

    You are confusing constitutional protections during legal proceedings with behavior by private individuals and observers. Due process is exactly that, consideration and treatment that is *due* or called for under specific circumstances. A company has the right to fire anybody for any type of behavior, real or imagined. It can institute speech or behavior codes for employees that prohibit perfectly legal acts.

    The deeper issue here is how cavalierly we now deem to ruin someone’s life based on accusations. Back in Stalin’s USSR you could get shot for telling a joke. Today your reputation can be ruined, and all your life’s work flushed down the drain, because of what someone says you did decades ago.

    We can be smug when the left cannibalizes blowhards like Garrison Keilor, whose capital offense was putting his hand on some hysterical broad’s back. I never thought I’d ever feel sorry for that guy. Actually, my sorrow is for a society that entertains, celebrates even, such madness.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  103. @Bischkva

    I have been repeating this refrain most of the week . . .

    Garrison Keelor !!!!!!! Come now.

    As for our country — we have a lot of angry women about the election among other issues and A cohort of avenging angels among various groups — and they intend to purge the country. Even if that means sacrificing Mr Keelor for his embarrassing inability to successfully navigate a woman’s attire, such as it was in a show of a woman’s

  104. jack ryan says: • Website

    Agreed. Let’s do a booming business in selling New York Times toilet paper.

    And it’s obviously an unpleasant subject, but it is true that the New York Times is a very biased, dishonest and hateful, very Jewish News Paper.

  105. Miro23 says:

    Everyone knows Weinstein and his entire Hollyweird Mob are the scum of the earth, and have been since Hollywood was dredged up from Hades. This ain’t news. But for the New York Times to actually print something TRUE, well, that is very much NEWS.

    Yes, this is very odd. It’s no problem for the MSM to bury this kind of news, as they’ve done it many times before, which sort of suggests that it’s a deliberate attack on Weinstein.

    It looks more like some kind of factional insider fight about something, with Hollywood on one side and the NYT on the other. A don’t believe for a moment that the NYT is genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of the actresses around Harvey.

  106. I think all those groupies who harassed the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and other rock icons should come clean, admit their sexual predations, and resign immediately from their current jobs to loud public condemnation. And I also think The New York Times should expend whatever money and time is necessary to ferret out these social barbarians.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.