The Harvey List

[Bob Juch]

Add "Rich Rod". University of Arizona football coach Rich Rodriguez was fired Tuesday for sexual harassment of his administrative assistant. She claims he regularly walked around her in his underwear, made many sexual comments, and forced her to hide his extramarital affair. She's seeking $7.5 million for emotional distress.

[Pastor Fireball]

New year, same story. Another state legislator has committed suicide amid sexual misconduct allegations--this time, in Idaho.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/former-c ... /506545934

Oh, and we can also add Paul Haggis, Stan Lee, and Ben Vereen to the list.

[silverscreenselect]

James Franco has come under fire as well, but these accusations are somewhat iffy. There are two women, one who admitted to having a relationship with Franco and the other whose complaint is that Franco didn't pay her enough for doing a nude scene in a film.

As far as Stan Lee is concerned, depending on how recent this is, it might be a case that he's not all there anymore. The man is over 90 years old.

[flockofseagulls104]

Maybe, some sanity, at long last some sanity. Some intelligent women of acceptable celebrity status are signing this letter. I guess that gives it some traction with the media. Whether that will calm down the hollywood crowd or the political weapon cartel is questionable. They will probably demonize anyone who signs this letter.

PARIS — Rape is a crime. But trying to pick up someone, however persistently or clumsily, is not — nor is gallantry an attack of machismo.

The Harvey Weinstein scandal sparked a legitimate awakening about the sexual violence that women are subjected to, particularly in their professional lives, where some men abuse their power. This was necessary. But what was supposed to liberate voices has now been turned on its head: We are being told what is proper to say and what we must stay silent about — and the women who refuse to fall into line are considered traitors, accomplices!

Just like in the good old witch-hunt days, what we are once again witnessing here is puritanism in the name of a so-called greater good, claiming to promote the liberation and protection of women, only to enslave them to a status of eternal victim and reduce them to defenseless preys of male chauvinist demons.

Ratting out and calling out

In fact, #MeToo has led to a campaign, in the press and on social media, of public accusations and indictments against individuals who, without being given a chance to respond or defend themselves, are put in the exact same category as sex offenders. This summary justice has already had its victims: men who’ve been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman’s knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest.

This frenzy for sending the "pigs" to the slaughterhouse, far from helping women empower themselves, actually serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom, the religious extremists, the reactionaries and those who believe — in their righteousness and the Victorian moral outlook that goes with it — that women are a species "apart," children with adult faces who demand to be protected.

Men, for their part, are called on to embrace their guilt and rack their brains for "inappropriate behavior" that they engaged in 10, 20 or 30 years earlier, and for which they must now repent. These public confessions, and the foray into the private sphere or self-proclaimed prosecutors, have led to a climate of totalitarian society.

This frenzy for sending the "pigs" to the slaughterhouse [...] serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom.
The purging wave seems to know no bounds. The poster of an Egon Schiele nude is censored; calls are made for the removal of a Balthus painting from a museum on grounds that it’s an apology for pedophilia; unable to distinguish between the man and his work, Cinémathèque Française is told not to hold a Roman Polanski retrospective and another for Jean-Claude Brisseau is blocked. A university judges the film Blow-Up, by Michelangelo Antonioni, to be "misogynist" and "unacceptable." In light of this revisionism, even John Ford (The Searchers) and Nicolas Poussin (The Abduction of the Sabine Women) are at risk.

Already, editors are asking some of us to make our masculine characters less "sexist" and more restrained in how they talk about sexuality and love, or to make it so that the "traumas experienced by female characters" be more evident! Bordering on ridiculous, in Sweden a bill was presented that calls for explicit consent before any sexual relations! Next we’ll have a smartphone app that adults who want to sleep together will have to use to check precisely which sex acts the other does or does not accept.

The essential freedom to offend

Philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother as indispensable to sexual freedom.

Today we are educated enough to understand that sexual impulses are, by nature, offensive and primitive — but we are also able to tell the difference between an awkward attempt to pick someone up and what constitutes a sexual assault.

Above all, we are aware that the human being is not a monolith: A woman can, in the same day, lead a professional team and enjoy being a man’s sexual object, without being a "whore" or a vile accomplice of the patriarchy. She can make sure that her wages are equal to a man’s but not feel forever traumatized by a man who rubs himself against her in the subway, even if that is regarded as an offense. She can even consider this act as the expression of a great sexual deprivation, or even as a non-event.

The difference between an awkward attempt to pick someone up and what constitutes a sexual assault.
As women, we don’t recognize ourselves in this feminism that, beyond the denunciation of abuses of power, takes the face of a hatred of men and sexuality. We believe that the freedom to say "no" to a sexual proposition cannot exist without the freedom to bother. And we consider that one must know how to respond to this freedom to bother in ways other than by closing ourselves off in the role of the prey.

For those of us who decided to have children, we think that it is wiser to raise our daughters in a way that they may be sufficiently informed and aware to fully live their lives without being intimidated or blamed.

Incidents that can affect a woman’s body do not necessarily affect her dignity and must not, as difficult as they can be, necessarily make her a perpetual victim. Because we are not reducible to our bodies. Our inner freedom is inviolable. And this freedom that we cherish is not without risks and responsibilities.

[Bob Juch]

Maybe, some sanity, at long last some sanity. Some intelligent women of acceptable celebrity status are signing this letter. I guess that gives it some traction with the media. Whether that will calm down the hollywood crowd or the political weapon cartel is questionable. They will probably demonize anyone who signs this letter.

PARIS — Rape is a crime. But trying to pick up someone, however persistently or clumsily, is not — nor is gallantry an attack of machismo.

The Harvey Weinstein scandal sparked a legitimate awakening about the sexual violence that women are subjected to, particularly in their professional lives, where some men abuse their power. This was necessary. But what was supposed to liberate voices has now been turned on its head: We are being told what is proper to say and what we must stay silent about — and the women who refuse to fall into line are considered traitors, accomplices!

Just like in the good old witch-hunt days, what we are once again witnessing here is puritanism in the name of a so-called greater good, claiming to promote the liberation and protection of women, only to enslave them to a status of eternal victim and reduce them to defenseless preys of male chauvinist demons.

Ratting out and calling out

In fact, #MeToo has led to a campaign, in the press and on social media, of public accusations and indictments against individuals who, without being given a chance to respond or defend themselves, are put in the exact same category as sex offenders. This summary justice has already had its victims: men who’ve been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman’s knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest.

This frenzy for sending the "pigs" to the slaughterhouse, far from helping women empower themselves, actually serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom, the religious extremists, the reactionaries and those who believe — in their righteousness and the Victorian moral outlook that goes with it — that women are a species "apart," children with adult faces who demand to be protected.

Men, for their part, are called on to embrace their guilt and rack their brains for "inappropriate behavior" that they engaged in 10, 20 or 30 years earlier, and for which they must now repent. These public confessions, and the foray into the private sphere or self-proclaimed prosecutors, have led to a climate of totalitarian society.

This frenzy for sending the "pigs" to the slaughterhouse [...] serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom.
The purging wave seems to know no bounds. The poster of an Egon Schiele nude is censored; calls are made for the removal of a Balthus painting from a museum on grounds that it’s an apology for pedophilia; unable to distinguish between the man and his work, Cinémathèque Française is told not to hold a Roman Polanski retrospective and another for Jean-Claude Brisseau is blocked. A university judges the film Blow-Up, by Michelangelo Antonioni, to be "misogynist" and "unacceptable." In light of this revisionism, even John Ford (The Searchers) and Nicolas Poussin (The Abduction of the Sabine Women) are at risk.

Already, editors are asking some of us to make our masculine characters less "sexist" and more restrained in how they talk about sexuality and love, or to make it so that the "traumas experienced by female characters" be more evident! Bordering on ridiculous, in Sweden a bill was presented that calls for explicit consent before any sexual relations! Next we’ll have a smartphone app that adults who want to sleep together will have to use to check precisely which sex acts the other does or does not accept.

The essential freedom to offend

Philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother as indispensable to sexual freedom.

Today we are educated enough to understand that sexual impulses are, by nature, offensive and primitive — but we are also able to tell the difference between an awkward attempt to pick someone up and what constitutes a sexual assault.

Above all, we are aware that the human being is not a monolith: A woman can, in the same day, lead a professional team and enjoy being a man’s sexual object, without being a "whore" or a vile accomplice of the patriarchy. She can make sure that her wages are equal to a man’s but not feel forever traumatized by a man who rubs himself against her in the subway, even if that is regarded as an offense. She can even consider this act as the expression of a great sexual deprivation, or even as a non-event.

The difference between an awkward attempt to pick someone up and what constitutes a sexual assault.
As women, we don’t recognize ourselves in this feminism that, beyond the denunciation of abuses of power, takes the face of a hatred of men and sexuality. We believe that the freedom to say "no" to a sexual proposition cannot exist without the freedom to bother. And we consider that one must know how to respond to this freedom to bother in ways other than by closing ourselves off in the role of the prey.

For those of us who decided to have children, we think that it is wiser to raise our daughters in a way that they may be sufficiently informed and aware to fully live their lives without being intimidated or blamed.

Incidents that can affect a woman’s body do not necessarily affect her dignity and must not, as difficult as they can be, necessarily make her a perpetual victim. Because we are not reducible to our bodies. Our inner freedom is inviolable. And this freedom that we cherish is not without risks and responsibilities.

The problem is that some men make a clumsy attempt at picking up a woman by walking around in their underwear.

[silverscreenselect]

men who’ve been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman’s knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest.

And, in the United States, all of these are sexual harassment. There are probably some women who enjoy the attention. There are a larger number of women who put up with it to get ahead or to keep their jobs. But they shouldn't have to, any more than people should have to put up with racial or religious harassment in the workplace.

There are a lot of heterosexual men who would get very upset if a male supervisor kept touching their knee or tried to steal a kiss or sent them sexually-charged messages.

What these cases have established is that men who do things like this don't just do it once. They keep doing it because they can.

[Bob78164]

men who’ve been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman’s knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest.

And, in the United States, all of these are sexual harassment. There are probably some women who enjoy the attention. There are a larger number of women who put up with it to get ahead or to keep their jobs. But they shouldn't have to, any more than people should have to put up with racial or religious harassment in the workplace.

There are a lot of heterosexual men who would get very upset if a male supervisor kept touching their knee or tried to steal a kiss or sent them sexually-charged messages.

What these cases have established is that men who do things like this don't just do it once. They keep doing it because they can.

The definition of sexual harassment (in a hostile work environment setting, as opposed to the much-less-common quid pro quo harassment fact pattern) is conduct that is either "severe" or "pervasive." To me, it seems pretty easy to stay on the right side of this line unless you're quite a jackass. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

men who’ve been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman’s knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest.

And, in the United States, all of these are sexual harassment. There are probably some women who enjoy the attention. There are a larger number of women who put up with it to get ahead or to keep their jobs. But they shouldn't have to, any more than people should have to put up with racial or religious harassment in the workplace.

There are a lot of heterosexual men who would get very upset if a male supervisor kept touching their knee or tried to steal a kiss or sent them sexually-charged messages.

What these cases have established is that men who do things like this don't just do it once. They keep doing it because they can.

The definition of sexual harassment (in a hostile work environment setting, as opposed to the much-less-common quid pro quo harassment fact pattern) is conduct that is either "severe" or "pervasive." To me, it seems pretty easy to stay on the right side of this line unless you're quite a jackass. --Bob

But when the burden of proof is the existence of an accusation, we have a problem. Women can be jackasses too. I know it's hard to believe, but I've known one or two.

[Bob78164]

And, in the United States, all of these are sexual harassment. There are probably some women who enjoy the attention. There are a larger number of women who put up with it to get ahead or to keep their jobs. But they shouldn't have to, any more than people should have to put up with racial or religious harassment in the workplace.

There are a lot of heterosexual men who would get very upset if a male supervisor kept touching their knee or tried to steal a kiss or sent them sexually-charged messages.

What these cases have established is that men who do things like this don't just do it once. They keep doing it because they can.

The definition of sexual harassment (in a hostile work environment setting, as opposed to the much-less-common quid pro quo harassment fact pattern) is conduct that is either "severe" or "pervasive." To me, it seems pretty easy to stay on the right side of this line unless you're quite a jackass. --Bob

But when the burden of proof is the existence of an accusation, we have a problem. Women can be jackasses too. I know it's hard to believe, but I've known one or two.

My firm has a significant employment law practice. We spend a lot of time investigating these claims when they're reported to Human Resources. That means our clients spend a lot of money investigating them. It would be much cheaper for employers to simply take accusations at face value (firing someone based on an honest but mistaken belief that he or she committed an act of harassment is not actionable), but that's not what our clients do. I really do think that most people would prefer choosing the right action to the expedient action. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

That means our clients spend a lot of money investigating them.

And some clients pay a lot of money to encourage accusers to come forward to smear people for political reasons.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... p-accusers

[silverscreenselect]

That means our clients spend a lot of money investigating them.

And some clients pay a lot of money to encourage accusers to come forward to smear people for political reasons.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... p-accusers

Flock, are you suggesting that donors are trying to suborn perjury here?

For what it's worth, Trump and his companies have been defendants in hundreds of lawsuits over the years. Were all those people trying to smear him for political reasons as well, or were they just innocent schnooks who were defrauded and trying to get some of their money back?

[Bob Juch]

And now we can add Steven Seagal.

[Beebs52]

Pretty sure this list can go backwards and forwards for centuries. Enjoy the thread.

[flockofseagulls104]

That means our clients spend a lot of money investigating them.

And some clients pay a lot of money to encourage accusers to come forward to smear people for political reasons.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... p-accusers

Flock, are you suggesting that donors are trying to suborn perjury here?

For what it's worth, Trump and his companies have been defendants in hundreds of lawsuits over the years. Were all those people trying to smear him for political reasons as well, or were they just innocent schnooks who were defrauded and trying to get some of their money back?

Read the entire story I attached earlier. What Allred and her daughter do is despicable. (IMHO).

[silverscreenselect]

Read the entire story I attached earlier. What Allred and her daughter do is despicable. (IMHO).

I've already mentioned how objective John Solomon's reporting is and this is another example. Here's a key quote in his rather slanted look at things.

And while she noted she represented sexual harassment victims for free or at reduced rates, she also acknowledged a standard part of her contracts required women to pay her commissions as high as 33 percent if she sold their stories to media outlets.

“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.

Bloom and Allred do work in an unusual manner because they have an unusual clientele. But they still run law firms that have a staff and have overhead and need to pay bills, so they look for funding any way they can get. Unlike Donald Trump's legion of attorneys, they don't have a multi-million dollar real estate tycoon writing their checks.

I'm not a fan of how a lot contingency fee lawyers solicit clients and get paid. But it's an unfortunate consequence of a legal system in which people who are injured, either physically or emotionally, are usually lower or middle class people who have to do battle with major corporations and insurers that have the wherewithal to fund the defenses of many, many cases. Over the years, Trump has used legal strongarm tactics to crush dozens of lawsuits against him because of the financial disparity between him and those he injured. You might show some sympathy to them (or the women he assaulted) rather than get yourself in a dither about two lawyers who are trying to even the odds a little.

[flockofseagulls104]

I've already mentioned how objective John Solomon's reporting is and this is another example. Here's a key quote in his rather slanted look at things.

It is rather convenient that all reporting you disagree with can automatically be put in the 'slanted' category. The major beef I have with the MSM is not that they report things inaccurately all the time, it's that they pick and choose what to report based on their narrative. To get a complete view, you need to consider reporting by people who don't use that filter, and not knee-jerkingly disregard it. At least that is what Hannity told me in our daily phone call.

[Vandal]

From Twitter:

Larry Nassar sent letter to the judge saying he is struggling to deal with victim statements and is uncertain in "my ability to be able to face witnesses these next four days, mentally."

[BackInTex]

From Twitter:

Larry Nassar sent letter to the judge saying he is struggling to deal with victim statements and is uncertain in "my ability to be able to face witnesses these next four days, mentally."

He further was quoted as saying "If you could, perhaps, ask the witnesses to go topless and wear very tight yoga pants while testifying, I could probably manage."

[ghostjmf]

More on Keillor than an unsolicited backrub. Nothing at the level of Weinstein, Lauer, Cosby. Meaning no physical attacks. Or, as in the cases of CK, Rose, Piven, body-part displays & manipulation.

Mostly women being fired & replaced by younger women. Having their work crumpled up & thrown at the wall before then.

Various "I will have to supress how attractive I find you" remarks at employees & potential employees.

One X-rated limerick on a board at his bookstore, which store is not part of any deal/ownership w/ MPR, aimed at a specific woman.

Women who worked on his "Writer's Almanac" show being told to stop touting women authors.

One admittedly consensual affair where the woman says her on-the-job treatment depended on how the affair was going.

This goes back many years, but previous head of MPR didn't wanna kill the chicken that laid the golden eggs, though I should probably find a male metaphor.


https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/01/2 ... -workplace :

[silverscreenselect]

One admittedly consensual affair where the woman says her on-the-job treatment depended on how the affair was going.

"Consensual" affairs between supervisors and subordinates whose job status depends on "how the affair was going" is quid pro quo harassment under employment laws.

[Vandal]

From Twitter:

Larry Nassar sent letter to the judge saying he is struggling to deal with victim statements and is uncertain in "my ability to be able to face witnesses these next four days, mentally."

He further was quoted as saying "If you could, perhaps, ask the witnesses to go topless and wear very tight yoga pants while testifying, I could probably manage."

[silverscreenselect]

I somehow doubt he's going to last 40 years in prison, let alone 175.

[ghostjmf]

SSS:

Of course consensual sex with your employees who you then downgrade at work when the affair isn't making you happy at isn't really consensual. There's just this weird scale out there of "from 1 to 10" how much of a scumbag is this guy really.

What a sad scale to have to deal with.

[ghostjmf]

Steve Wynn, of casinos fame. Its too hard to do links on this tablet, though I've gotten it to work twice. But it took about 18 minutes to get 2nd link to replace 1st. So someone else get it.

He's supposed to have made at least one big hush-$$ payoff, as well as being long the source of many bad stories.

Big news in Boston 'cause he's building (well, not him personally; his company) the long- delayed casino in Everett, MA. Which could be delayed forever, as far as I'm concerned. It will be horrible for traffic, but that's not only reason.

[Bob78164]

Pat Meehan is retiring. Secretary Clinton won his District in the Philadelphia suburbs in 2016. Maybe I can get one or two of my sisters to do some canvassing for the Democratic nominee. --Bob