I made a card for the word emetic. It means a substance that induces vomiting. Jacobson means liberals are ridding themselves of a poison. Jacobson wonders, after holding it in for so long, why now? He thinks it might be because of an honest build-up of resentment among liberal women who have been victims of predatory liberal men. They were expected to keep quiet for the liberal cause and not call into question the icons of Democratic Party history, the Kennedy's, Clintons, key funders in Hollywood.
Then, Trump's victory over Clinton freed liberal women in a way that was not possible before. There was no way to escape the Clinton grip until Trump won.
Jacobson continues, that doesn't explain why media is so eager to air all this so something else must be going on. Media has an interest in the success of the Democrat Party and it knows that Trump cannot be defeated until there is a change of the Democrat guard so the traces of the Clintons must be purged and there is no better way to clear the decks than to face past abuses of Bill Clinton that were covered up by Hillary. So media is behaving as "truth and reconciliation commission." The Clintons are entrenched even in defeat. Purging them is necessary for the more progressive Democrats to take over.
Having the abuses among them prevents the resistance from effectiveness in pursuing its chief goal of attacking Trump.
That seems perceptive to me. Jacobson says it better than I recapped him here. Still, his astute commenters do not agree. They are more cynical than he is.
They think all this will come to nothing because the women complaining are swamped by the number of female supporters. The abusers still give the non-complainers what they want. Another thinks the whole thing will be viewed as a victory for the women's movement because they only see patriarchal men, not necessarily Democrats. They think Democrats started the witch hunt with the thought that it will take down their enemies but are now horrified that it's taking down their friends.
Just read all they say. I cannot recap it all. What do you say?
I don't say anything. Instead I'm thinking in pictures. One time I made an animation of Henry VIII wives. Their portraits pass by a buzz saw on an arm. Some pass by the saw unaffected while others get their heads sawn off. My animation is gone. It was saved on a site that kept raising their cost and I didn't re-upload it to Blogger. Now I have to do it all over again. Luckily, I just now saw a site that has all the portraits lined up. I don't even have to dig up the portraits.
How convenient.
I keep seeing pictures of present day sexual abusers in Washington and in Hollywood every day and I keep visualizing their heads being sawn off but I cannot bring myself to photoshop them because every day there's a new name.
Must I wait until it stops? Will it ever stop?
Buzzfeed had the latest on John Conyers. He settled a complaint from a woman who claimed she was fired for not accepting his advances. Buzzfeed has four other signed and notarized affidavits from former staff members alleging Conyers repeatedly made sexual advances and made requests for sexual favors, and otherwise being gross by caressing their hands sexually and rubbing their legs and back in public. And Conyers is all, "I can't believe what I'm reading."
I don't care about any of these people. I'm happy their troubles caught up to them. While all this is overlapping with dishonest attacks aimed at Republicans for political purposes. I think that is backfiring too. So much cynicism pervades that cynical attacks are out-cynicized in reaction.
9 comments:
The dark night of sexual harrassment is always descending on Donald Trump and yet lands only on Democrats and the GOPe.
Speaking of dark night....I wonder how many liberal women secretly yearn for the return of those dark days of the fascistic '50's, before sexual liberation jettisoned square restraint.
Conyers is a bigger fish than Smalley, not to mention black, so the wheeze about Harvey had to go to get rid of the Ozarks has a couple of holes in it.
It's turned into the Reign de la Terreur where the part where anyone could be denounced has merged with the turn-and-rend phase. As Ampersand notes (sort of), it's only the Lefties, not even a Grahamnesty from the Rs.
We're also seeing complaints about She-Os - female execs who have harassed man and women. Add that to the blacklisting of a prominent homosexual actor like Kevin Spacey.
It's enough to make you think women are going to start turning to Conservative men for protection.
If Conyers is your big fish; you're going to need more bait than a $27k settlement for wrongful termination. I think Conyers is more than a bit corrupt, just see his wife. But a terminated employee suing and taking $27k is weak sauce. Sure, she'll claim whatever for wrongful termination. But when you sue former employers like that, it is a beacon to future employers to not hire you. You're taking $27k to self blacklist. On the other hand, paying $27k to avoid court and lawyer fees plus the odds of losing is a small price for an employer.
Could be that the Feminazi's are doing to the workplace what they've done to higher education, creating a hostile situation for men.Some of the accusations are bad but some are the equivalent of hearing "Who put this pubic hair on my coke can?"
The nifty part is Trump is now demanding that the names of the Congresscreeps who had settlements paid with taxpayer money be released. And we're talking over 250 suits in 20 years.
I haven't had this much fun since October '84.
Leland said...
If Conyers is your big fish; you're going to need more bait than a $27k settlement for wrongful termination.
Conyers is a bigger fish than Smalley (and, as I said, a black one) and there are a number of allegations against him in which the offenses were funded by taxpayer money. Doubtless, this is where some of the 16 mil went. Conyers is also accused of harassing women working in his Congressional office.
Some? So far you've pointed out .17% of that $16 mil. At that rate, he could payoff 5 more women, and still be less than 1% of the problem.
You're nit-picking again.
Nobody said Conyers was the only one or the worst. But this is the beginning of a long hard look at the systemic and endemic culture of abuse in Congress (and I personally think we'll eventually some Congressbroads accused) and the abuse of taxpayer money.
And, yes, some of that money went to bail out Conyers.
You're nit-picking again.
Projected by the guy excited about .17% of the problem.
Post a Comment