Post by robeiae on Oct 6, 2017 15:43:28 GMT -5
So, after an armageddon-like piece on Harvey Weinstein at the NYT, Weinstein has decided to step away from the movie business and apparently is going to go all-in in an attempt to take down the NRA and Trump.
From the first:
There are some details in the piece, including his attempts to "seduce" Ashley Judd. And Judd had this to say, as well:
And Weinstein's lawyer claimed many of the allegations are false (no specifics), while Weinstein seemed to apologize for everything. He claimed his leave of absence was going to be about working on his issues.
Yet, from the second link:
I'm not sure what the "anger" is to which he is referring. The anger that stems from getting publicly exposed as a lecherous piece of shit? And I don't know why the NRA and Trump needed a mention at this moment. For the record, I think Weinstein may actually have an awful lot in common with Trump. The two should get together and swap stories.
Anyway, Judd's comment bugs me, insofar as the idea that Weinstein's transgressions--which I think cross both ethical and legal lines--were something of an open secret. Yet high-powered politicians and the like--some of whom were women--had no problem taking his money and cozying up to him for photo ops, whenever necessary.
And re Weinstein's attempt to make this mess about the NRA and Trump, I found this piece interesting: www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/how-to-emotionally-manipulate-a-democrat/
Plus, it had this tangent in it, on State Street's "Fearless Girl":
From the first:
An investigation by The New York Times found previously undisclosed allegations against Mr. Weinstein stretching over nearly three decades, documented through interviews with current and former employees and film industry workers, as well as legal records, emails and internal documents from the businesses he has run, Miramax and the Weinstein Company.
During that time, after being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements.
During that time, after being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements.
There are some details in the piece, including his attempts to "seduce" Ashley Judd. And Judd had this to say, as well:
In speaking out about her hotel episode, Ms. Judd said in a recent interview, “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”
Yet, from the second link:
I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.
Anyway, Judd's comment bugs me, insofar as the idea that Weinstein's transgressions--which I think cross both ethical and legal lines--were something of an open secret. Yet high-powered politicians and the like--some of whom were women--had no problem taking his money and cozying up to him for photo ops, whenever necessary.
And re Weinstein's attempt to make this mess about the NRA and Trump, I found this piece interesting: www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/how-to-emotionally-manipulate-a-democrat/
Plus, it had this tangent in it, on State Street's "Fearless Girl":
We now know why State Street was so eager to burnish its image as an institution populated by feminist crusaders. On Thursday, the firm agreed to pay $5 million to settle claims brought by the U.S. Department of Labor that it discriminated against female employees. Three hundred and five women and 15 black executives were allegedly discriminated against in favor of their white, male counterparts. If anyone cared to look under the hood, it was obvious at the time of Fearless Girl’s debut that this was nothing more than an advertisement for a conspicuously self-conscious firm. But they had purchased Democratic indifference for a few bucks and a cheap gesture toward the identity politics that so animates the liberal left. State Street’s executives knew what they were doing.