Weinstein scandal: What it tells us about celebs, American politics & Hollywood

The Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal which has rocked the Hollywood establishment and shocked America to its core, according to mainstream media should not have surprised anyone (if fact much of the shock and horror being expressed is typical Hollywood liberal hypocrisy.) And now the story has broken, it seems that as well as a few who were actually victims of this man, all the usual suspects are jumping on the bandwagon and shouting, “me too, me too.”

To them we can only say,”Honestly, you celebrity sheeple, we in the real world know what goes on in showbiz, the fashion game, politics and all other areas where fame and fortune are in the gift of venal individuals, you people are not as unique and amazing as you think. There have always been both women and men who would disrobe and ‘assume the position’ for the sake of short term gain. You are mummers for fuck’s sake, players in a farce, stop believing your own publicity.”

Weinstain (!) has been known as a sexual predator for years and the history of rich, powerful old men in Hollywood using their position to extort sexual favours from good looking young actors and actresses is as old as Hollywood itself. We have reported it in our blogs, HERE, HERE, AND HERE.

The latest Hollywood scandal (plus a few linked in the previous paragraph,) and the corruption endemic in Washington, isn’t only an indictment of the celebrity culture, but of America’s moral decay as well.

The story of Weinstein, the uber-powerful film producer, co-founder of Miramax Films, friend and major donor to Democratic politicians (including Hillary Clinton whose mock outrage in her condemnation of him for doing what she could not have been unaware of when he was useful to her, and behaviour similar to that she has tolerated and defended in her husband Bill for decades,) is the story of America’s moral decay in the second half of the twentieth century and on into the twenty first.

Sure Harvey was fired from his job as co-Chairman of The Weinstein Company after the New York Times ran an article exposing his serial sexual harassment of female employees, is such a perfect storm of corruption, depravity and hypocrisy that it exquisitely encapsulates the moral decay of America. Prior to that article however, the great and not o good of show business and politics had obviously known of this proclivities but had closed ranks to protect one of their own.

The New York Times piece revealed that Weinstein has, over the years, settled at least eight sexual harassment lawsuits out of court. We are told the settlements included gagging clauses. What the article reported just the tip of a really grotesque iceberg, for in its wake a plethora of other claims has surfaced.

In a New Yorker article, written, ironically enough, by Ronan Farrow, son of alleged pedophile Woody Allen, even more claims emerged of Weinstein’s predatory behavior. One of the many lowlights from that article includes Italian actress/filmmaker Asia Argento and two other women claiming that Weinstein raped them.

The most famous women among the sea of those claiming harassment at the hands of the movie mogul are Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Rose McGowan and Rosanna Arquette. Thereare of course many condemning Weinstein who had no direct dealings but are vicariously shocked and offended by the scandal.

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/406317-weinstein-scandal-hollywood-hypocrisy/video/

The repugnance of the Weinstein scandal i overwhelming, and nearly every public person is going through the pantomime of denouncing Harvey and his lecherousness, but this comes over as disingenuous at best. All the movie stars, media members, and politicians now publicly expressing their disgust at Weinstein have previously displayed nothing but admiration for his genius as a producer and promoter during the time he could influence their careers, or give them credibility as they campaigned for votes.

What strikes us is the many similarities with a showbiz scandal that shook Britain in 2014 when DJ and television presenter Jimmy Savile, about whom there had been rumours for decades but who, like Weinstein had been protected by the establishment (allegations of his bizarre and perverted behaviour were routinely deflected by reminders that he “did a lot for charity,” but as stories emerged that had been covered up for years it turned out even that had an ulterior motive.

So how do people like Harvey Weinstein and jimmy Savile get escape exposure for so long? The main reason is the deification of fame; both were shameless self promoters, Savile’s schtick was a man of the people act, the charity work was part of this, his TV shows specialised in putting members of the public centre stage for a few minutes. And he was a valuable asset to his main employer, the taxpayer funded public broadcaster The BBC. Weinstein had a knack of producing films have been nominated for Oscars for Best Picture 26 times in the last 28 years and have been nominated overall for over 300 Academy Awards. In other words, Harvey could make people rich and famous, which is why so many in Hollywood found enough felixibility in their moral compass to ignore his alternative career as a rapist and sex abuser. To quote Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Blind ambition isn’t the only reason Hollywood looked the other way regarding Weinstein, political expediency played a part as well. Weinstein has been a long time supporter of Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in particular, and has donated a lot of money to their campaigns. And so both those hypocrites, who had shamelessly played on their politically correct credentials when campaigning were quite happy to turn a blind eye to misogyny when the money was rolling in from a misogynist

A perfect example of someone making a devil’s bargain with Weinstein for political reasons is Lena Dunham, a vociferous and vocal Clinton supporter and devout feminist, who has consistently attacked Donald Trump for a crude, but private, conversation that took place years ago. Duham admitted she knew of Weinstein’s predatory reputation in regards to women, but still shook his hand and performed at a fundraiser he held for Clinton’s campaign. Dunham said she betrayed her feminist values because “she so desperately wanted to support Clinton.” Yeah, right Lena, the end justifies the means when the end is to advance your agenda.

Hollywood liberals were quick to denounce Evangelical Christians for supporting Trump despite his alleged moral turpitude and misogyny, calling them hypocrites. Well in the case of hypocrites, I guess it takes on to know one.

Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote in the seventeenth century, “Wad some power the giftie gie us, tae see ourselves as others see us, (from Ode To A Louse).

Burns was an inveterate womaniser but he knew how to behave (and it’s likely those Scottish farm girls knew how to handle a man who didn’t.) The life of a Scottish farmer and tax collector would not require the decorous manners of a Royal court, but anyone who stepped out of life could expect a visit from the father and bothers and uncles and cousins of the young lady he had offended. Perhaps we need a return to such rough justice to persuade the likes of Fat Boy Weinstein that he might be a rich and powerful movie mogul but that does not give him droit de siegneur over atttractive young women whose careers he can influence.

It is difficult to admit, but if we could find the courage to see ourselves as others see us, to borrow the line from Burns, we would recognize that Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile and all the others are the story of democratic civilisation’s decline. Both are or were in Savile’s case, totally self centred, amoral, entitled, corrupt, impervious to criticism, blindly ambitious, lacking self awareness, and willing to use power and fame to exploit the weak and indulge their darker impulses and insatiable desires. The sooner we recognize that, and recognise our own shortcomings in having been so besotted by wealth and fame we tolerated it, the faster we can try to arrest the moral decay that threatens out way of life.

Advertisements

Your Father Told You It Would Make You Go Blind.

Sad news for fans of male potency drug Viagra. Research has show that regular users incur a risk of blindness.

Coming hard (oops!) on the heels of a report that the increased stress of modern living coupled with dietary factors is causing men to experience erectile dysfunction earlier and more frequently it will be a bitter pill for the rising number of men who have relied on the drug to jack up their libido after a hard day’s work. Relationships will fail in the face of female scorn that is the standard riposte when a woman’s amorous advances are met with a limp response.

The little blue lozenge has in the years since its launch stiffened the resolve of legions of men as it provided insurance against the embarrassment of sexual failure. At first the Pfizer product had a monopoly in a tumescent market but recently it has faced stiff competition from rival products and from natural aphrodisiacs.

A spokesman for the medical regulatory body said today “we are not calling for the erection of barriers to halt trade in Viagra and do not want doubts about the drug’s safety to become a bone of contention. There is a slight risk to people who use the drug frequently and for long periods. A lot of people see Viagra as the horn of plenty but as with all drugs there are side effects. Users should exercise caution.

Well I have always found a healthy diet, regular exercise and a varied diet keeps me in trim so I am going to have six oysters and some braised asparagus before I shoot off to see my girlfriend.

(This news item was an absolute gift.)

Natural Alternatives

Prosecuting One’s Suit

Prosecuting one’s suit, or pressing one’s suit.

How archaic these phrases now seem for describing the process of courting a lady’s favour seems now. How quaint the word courting itself seems. So why do I not just talk about “copping off?” Well…
A flyer circulating in London’s legal district advertises a special speed dating event for lawyers looking for love. Call me an old cynic if you like but “lawyer” and “love” are not words I can easily associate. Surely people whose entire life is spent examining evidence in forensic detail in the hope of closing loopholes, tying up loose ends, eliminating ambiguity and negotiating compromises can have little room in their souls for anything so indefinable, so unpredictable, so illogical as love? And speed dating?
Anybody who has had the experience of dealing with legal matters will know that “lawyer” and “speed” do not belong in the same sentence, or even the same article. (unless the article refers to the case of a lawyer being disbarred for substance abuse.) Layers are people to whom “due diligence” means sitting on their arse doing nothing for long periods while us poor punters pay them by the hour. When dealing with lawyers things happen “in the fullness of time” rather than now or PDQ.
All things considered then, both de fact and de juris, I must conclude that the entrepreneur who has invested his hard – earned in this venture has behaved in a reckless and foolhardy, but not criminal manner.
What little I know of speed – dating is that people have three minutes in each other’s company after which they must decide if they are up for a casual shag with the person opposite. The idea of a lawyer doing anything in three minutes stretches the credulity of even the most credulous. It would take the speediest lawyer two and a half minutes to shuffle their papers and clear their throat before saying “My Lord, Members of the Jury…” The whole mystique of the legal profession is built on longwindedness, their speeches are full of notwithstandings and heretofores and are peppered with Latin phrases ordinary mortals cannot understand, pro bono ego. Lawyers are not equipped to formulate or respond to questions like :
“Veal or Pasta?”
“Nissan or Jaguar?”
“J-lo or Mariah?”
“Missionary or Spoons?”
but are more likely to begin “bearing in mind that you are still under oath could you tell me, in your own words and without regard to anything you may have read in the press, would Chinese or Italian be preferable for a first dinner date?” and jump on the response like so “You say Chinese, but if you cast your mind back to your divorce, did you or did you not claim that your partner’s obsession with Thai food, which I think you will agree is similar to Chinese, had bored the pants off you?”
Assuming some kind of date is eventually agreed, that would only be the start of the trouble. Imagine negotiating a pre-date contract.
“It shall be understood by both parties that the party of the first part will, on the first date, pay for dinner in full, including wine and tips without prejudice to the party of the second part’s right to withhold the reciprocal sexual favours should the party of the second part deem the party of the first part to be minging, unhygienic or in any way pervy.”
The party of the first part will then be advised that should the party of the second part exercise the withholding of sexual favours clause pending further perusal of the party of the first part’s social and sexual acceptability the party of the first part must have the right to demand that the bill be split down the middle.
Such a love affair would be certain to end in tears of course. Or lawsuits.

UK Speed Dating links.
xdate
slowdating
uknetguide
originaldating
Go on….Go on….Aw go on, you know you want to. Go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on,go-on

Love For Sale (with loyalty points)

An interesting news item reports that prostitutes could soon be touting for business in shopping centres in Budapest. Hungary’s Interior Ministry is thinking of allowing some malls where prostitutes could strike deals for sex, as long as they “move to a place of their own to enact the transaction.”

A spokesperson for the Hungarian government says there is “nothing intrinsically wrong” with an entertainment centre without gratification.”
If this is correct then the former communist state could be leading the way to a new area of commercial activity that our traditional Western capitalists have yet failed to appreciate the potential of. Free Enterprise in Britain and

America has in my opinion always been too ready to acquiesce to the moral strictures of extreme religion. How can any red – blooded capitalist be against commercial sex. OK I know it degrades women, it is exploitative, can lead to abuse and some insist it subverts the values of Christian society (I don’t recall Jesus condemning the hooker though…) Let’s stop being mealy mouthed, hell, we are talking about capitalists here, the people who are happy to profit from making bombs, land – mines and napalm and selling them to third world tyrants; people who are prepared to manipulate the financial markets and consign millions of honest, average citizens to an impoverished old age in order to line their own pockets. We are talking about the morality of the rat – pack.

If we lived in an honest world Wal-Mart would be into the brothel business like a ferret into a rabbit hole. Tesco would not be far behind and both would face stiff competition from German cut – price chain Aldi offering shoddy but heavily discounted sex thrills from Eastern Europe. And that is just the low end of the market (I was going to say “bottom end” but that would be open to misunderstanding.)

What about demand from the high class shopper. Posh people’s chain Harvey Nicholls would do well offering refined young ladies from “old money” families, a thousand pounds up front and you fund her habit. Nieman Marcus on the other hand could specialise in the exotic, a Russian Princess maybe (only a few left in the world), a critically acclaimed writer whose dreary feminist tomes do not sell, a fashion model who grew breasts whilst in rehab. thus ruinging her career. Retiring to private place to “enact the transaction” would not be a problem either.

Most malls could install travel – lodge style accommodation on a mezzanine floor without inconveniencing shoppers who merely wanted a few essential food items.

It could all be very discreet and properly organised just like buying any other goods or services. Without the fear of being arrested in a police sting or mugged by the accomplice of a woman posing as a respectable working girl the customer experience would be enhanced.

And of course the embarrassment of paying a lady of negotiable affection for her services would be lessened if you knew she was going to say “thank you sir, and do you have a loyalty card?”

Ian Thorpe, May 2005.
New humour every day from Boggart Blog