Now that you mention it, I would like to help by expanding the list.

Meanwhile, here's a not-horrible piece on Weinstein.

Looks like not only Terry Crews has been groped in Hollywood:

https://mobile.twitter.com/moiseschiu/status/917974587870253056

Now now, Mickey Mouse still has his pants on

https://twitter.com/hotdiggedydemon/status/917854238541271040

That MM cartoon is terribull. Smoking? serially? in this age of neo-puritans?

In commenting on homophobia in Hollywood in 2000, Joel Schumacher said, "If you make money for them, they don’t care what you do. You could be screwing yaks in the street. They’ll buy you a yak. They’ll give you their yak."

Why are we shocked when the sleaze pot that gave us Fatty Arbuckle, Thomas Ince, Elizabeth Short, Brian Singer, Lee Francis, Jackie Coogan, George Reeve, Eddie Fisher, Judy Garland, studio-mandated abortions, the casting couch, Jeffrey Jones, Bob Crane, Mel Gibson, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski coughs up a Harvey Weinstein?

Why do we keep giving Hollywood this power? If the American public can bring a sports league to its knees, surely it can find something else to on the weekend besides go to the movies, at least until Hollywood cleans up its act. There are plenty of movie factories around the world with better morals then Hollywood. Hell, there are brothels in Nevada with better morals than Hollywood.

Why are we paying almost $20 to sit in a dark room to watch yet another superhero movie or a tired remake of a '70s television show?

Which brings to mind, why do we care so much what these folks wear, eat, or think? They're the court jesters, the entertainment, not the king's ministers, not scientists, not decision-makers. Most have a limited education and little experience outside Hollywood and its farm system.

And the gratuitous piling on is getting tiresome as well. Every actor and actress under the sun is now emerging with a horror story of being groped, propositioned, or even raped by Weinstein. Yet, they were all silent until now.

Ashley Judd had no qualms about speaking out publicly against Mitch McConnell's politics, but Weinstein's predations were somehow off-limits.

Meryl Streep, Hillary Clinton, and others who clamored to be photographed with or financed by Weinstein are now rushing out with self-serving publicity releases saying specifically that they didn't know and unequivocally condemning the sexual predator they once embraced. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Granted, there were reasons to keep silent if one wanted to continue in the limelight. But that says as much about them as it does about Weinstein. Was fame so important that enabling a predator like Weinstein was an acceptable cost?

Now now, Mickey Mouse still has his pants on ~ Sixclaws at October 11, 2017 6:07 AM

Yes, but Ziggy doesn't.

Youse guys is still proud of your votes, right?

He's a fucking infant. With nukes.

Conan: one hand washes the other.

Ashley Judd had no qualms about speaking out publicly against Mitch McConnell's politics, but Weinstein's predations were somehow off-limits.

That's because McConnell couldn't actually hurt Judd. Weinstein could spike her acting career, and even drip-drop salacious details of Judd's sordid sex life as an anonymous source.

Hollywood's tax breaks should be up for reconsideration. And Chris Hayes speculates that this is just the surface and will get much, much worse.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/278071/

If one is shocked at how they treat grown men and women, consider their child actors. I doubt they had the self-control to restrain their appetites.

http://cernovich.com/flashback-pedophiles-hollywood-exposed-elijah-wood-corey-feldman/

> Why do we keep giving Hollywood
> this power? If the American public
> can bring a sports league to its
> knees, surely it can find something
> else to on the weekend besides go
> to the movies, at least until
> Hollywood cleans up its act.

Dood. Why are you picking on Hollywood? Shouldn't we clean up the inner-city schools first?... Or even the inner-city families, and the suburban ones while we're at it?

One reason you have so much to resent about Hollywood is that you read so much about it. And we read about it because we want to. Basically, it boils down to the fact that we're talking about pretty girls:

Despite her injury, I think her life could still have meaning, and I must do what I can to help her!

See the comments here as well. Weinstein is a fuckup, but all these aspirant (or formerly-alluring) performers are selfish twerps as well. What exactly is the correction you'd demand of them? They're not doing holy work, they just want to get rich for having good cheekbones. What's worth the trouble of cleaning up?

Here's the most compelling truth you we will ever learn about showbiz celebrities: When you ignore them, they & their products essentially cease to exist. You will remain free to cast your imagination to other attractive, talented and poignant figures in both public and private life, but the celebrities will have no power to command your attention without consent.

To wit: Day-to-day, the public mind is not a pretty sight.

Re: the 8:48am comment, see also.

It's fun to be pissed off about trite narratives from Hollywood, whether from the scripts or from the gossip columns. These feelings are indulgent.

iPhone and iPad users, beware of this phishing scam:

https://twitter.com/KrauseFx/status/917736145353695232

I pay about as much attention to the personal lives of these people as I do to the personal lives of the folks who refine the gasoline I use in my car.

They make products I enjoy consuming and I appreciate their work. Other than that, we have no connection.

"Youse guys is still proud of your votes, right?"

Yes.

Meanwhile, here's a not-horrible piece

Another take on Cuntstein:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-the-ny-times-is-suddenly-taking-down-harvey-weinstein/

Can it be because barely a month ago, Weinstein announced his plan to direct a movie based on Leon Uris’s epic Warsaw Ghetto novel ‘Mila 18’? Can it be because Weinstein, despite his bleeding heart liberalism, despite his having shoveled truckloads of dollars into the Obama coffers, despite his blind obeisance to the Clinton corruption machine, crossed the Israel-hating Time’s red line and declared himself a Zionist and a lover of Israel?

And here I thought Windows Phone was dead years ago?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/windows-phone-is-now-officially-dead-a-sad-tale-of-what-might-have-been/

Here's a good story line:

"It remains unclear at the moment which brands or products were contaminated by Mr. Gordon’s sperm"

http://nativeamerica12.online/2017/10/11/cosmetic-lab-employee-admits-he-ejaculated-in-tanks-of-face-cream/

Gives whole new meaning to "facial"

That's because McConnell couldn't actually hurt Judd. Weinstein could spike her acting career, and even drip-drop salacious details of Judd's sordid sex life as an anonymous source. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at October 11, 2017 8:03 AM

So, doing the right thing takes a back seat to personal and career considerations? Got it.

Next time Ms. Judd wants to condemn "greedy" Republicans and hold herself up as a paragon of political liberalism, I'll just shake my head and think of all those women she could have saved but did not because she didn't want to risk her shot at fame and fortune.

Weinstein is a fuckup, but all these aspirant (or formerly-alluring) performers are selfish twerps as well. What exactly is the correction you'd demand of them? ~ Crid at October 11, 2017 8:48 AM

I don't demand anything of them. I haven't been to a theater in over 15 years and I don't keep up with the Kardashians. And I ask of the public at large that it stop lionizing the court jesters.

Um, Ashley, Meryl, Hillary, et al, if you're gonna tell me you're "appalled" at someone's recently-revealed bad behavior, don't show up tomorrow in a picture, even an old one, with your arms around them, unless you're also saying "sorry for any part I may have played in this."

And if you're gonna tell me ten years later that this person did the same thing to you and you didn't say anything then, be sure and close that statement with "so I'm at fault here, too."

"Can it be because Weinstein, despite his bleeding heart liberalism, despite his having shoveled truckloads of dollars into the Obama coffers, despite his blind obeisance to the Clinton corruption machine, crossed the Israel-hating Time’s red line and declared himself a Zionist and a lover of Israel?"

I suspect it's more fundamentally Marxist-personality-cult than that: Weinstein belongs to three of the very bottom groups on the identity contest totem pole: middle-aged white guy, straight, and Jewish. The shifting positions in the identity-league standings finally put him far enough down in the out-group second division that it made him throw-under-the-bus-able. And in this sport, when someone can be thrown under the bus, someone else will step up to the plate and do it. The NYT and the feminists have a scalp.

The fact that it's the scalp of someone they professed to revere just a few months ago doesn't matter. In Marxism, history starts over at zero every day. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.

This seems notable:

Former model Zoe Brock of New Zealand wrote in a blog post that she was “Harveyed” at the Hôtel du Cap-Eden-Roc in 1997 when she was only 23.

Haven't you been listening to the gun debates Crid? We are all children. Even you. That is the only way we can get these child death gun statistics to look gory enough. Though it is hard living in a nation protected by child soldiers and who's factories are filled with child laborers. But at least they are managed and exploited by children. Yep. That is also the only world where 23 is still a child.

> Youse guys is still proud of your votes, right?
> He's a fucking infant. With nukes.

Fake news:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918110279367643137

But Crid, as usual don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

Maybe, dear ladies, if you willingly -- yes, willingly -- let you shot at stardom include groping and sex by powerful monsters instead of finding some other means of work, then maybe you all should become escorts instead.

In the meantime, the scandal is widening.

And keeps widening.

And widens some more.

Hopefully, she IS outta here!

‘I’m Outta Here’ - Is Cher Finally Leaving the Country Due to Trump?

I would certainly hope so. #BoycottHollywood

> But Crid, as usual don't let the
> facts get in the way of your
> narrative.

I see incorrect punctuation, teenage sarcasm, trite jargon, and unyielding adoration of incoherent communiques from a game-show president who percussively stokes your personal resentments with tweets.


Again-- If you guys are "boycotting" Hollywood, why would you know --or care-- about the Weinstein scandal at all?

I'll agree with you there Crid. I've been boycotting Hollywood just because I don't really like the movies they put out. I also don't care that deeply about Weinstein. Yes he is scum and no he isn't the only one. But the only way to change that aspect of Hollywood is to massively change it's entire culture. Hollywood chews people up and spits them out. There are just too many people who want to be on TV or in movies with no cares about the consequences. The only way to weed through that many people ends up being pretty cruel and vicious. It is a great environment for exploitation. But the only way I see to fix that is for fewer people to want to work in Hollywood. Till that happens Hollywood will continue being a dirty industry.

You actually see the same thing with anthropology and dinosaur jobs. Everyone wants to work the dinosaur job. So prices are in the toilet and the work environment is very exploitative. After all, if you complain they'll just dump you and go with one of the million other people desperate for your job.