https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwdbLu_x0gY

(careful above may be addictive.)

Let's talk about boners.

No, yeah, no, I mean I went looking for an online index of the myriad sexual misconduct accusations following and presumably consequent to the scandal engulfing Weinstein.

First of all, it needs a better name than "the myriad sexual misconduct accusations following and presumably consequent to the scandal engulfing Weinstein." But I done been on the road for a couple weeks and am totally exhaust-a-mundo, so know that truth, and feels its power. Nobody's got a good name for it yet.

Secondly, nobody's got a good index either, else you'd be checking it every morning to see if your brother-in-law or someone was on it.

The first two or three summaries listed in Google News were all weirdly incomplete... They skipped that one gymnastics coach, which is a problem, because who remembers the name of gymnastics coaches, and who will ever care enough to look it up individually? These lists are full of holes for people who've been paying even casual attention.

Also, their summaries of accusations and consequences to the accused are almost uselessly brief.

What's going on is probably that no recognized news service, not even the New York Times, can aggregate the information in digestible-yet-inclusive form without violating a whole bunch of copyright.

So we may have to wait for a book.

Remember the TV preacher scandals of the 1980's? I waited for the book on that, too, but never got around to reading it, because who cared enough to find out if it ever got written or read a book about that?

Mostly I want Hymowitz to write the article she promised the other day.

Also, it would be great if Cam Paglia could think about it for a few weeks and knock out a thoughtful essay (instead of making a kerplunk-splash/sound-bitey TV interview somewhere, which seems far more likely).

Also, it would be great if Gloria Steinem, having been duly humiliated by Caitlin Flanagan, could grow a pair 'nards sufficient to confess horrific shame for the defense she wrote for Bill Clinton in the New York Times in 1998. (I think Bill Clinton picked up a couple new accusers over the weekend, as did so many other men. I think. [See? We need an index.]) We just lost her fellow 1970 newsmakers, Manson & Cassidy, one-two buhdum-pum, and Little Miss Aviator Glasses ain't no spring chicken neither.


Cathy Young casually remarked "doomed" last week, and even if she was kidding, there does seem to be a profound change underway. We don't even know what it's called yet.

We might always have expected some dutiful journalist to mock Rose's loquacious incompetence with workmanlike elbow grease.

Hitchens draws blood —from the grave— with concision.

Miss that guy.

So this woman (unknown to me) said that, and a few people responded as we might hope they would...

...But our own Amy assisted the launch of a right & proper bitchslap.

Remember the TV preacher scandals of the 1980's? I waited for the book on that, too, but never got around to reading it, because who cared enough to find out if it ever got written or read a book about that? ~ Crid at November 22, 2017 3:43 AM

If the book comes out early in the scandal, it's probably useless and if it comes our afterward, the moment to read it has passed and the passions are enflamed with a new scandal. Look, squirrel!

After an exchange in another thread mentioned Anita Hill, I did some Internet research (can Googling links really be considered "research?") and bookmarked The Real Anita Hill to my Amazon wish list as a book that seemed interesting and possibly informative. I'll probably never get around to reading it, however, as the impetus to read it was related to the argument of the moment and not some longer-term desire for a deeper knowledge of a 20-year-old dustup. There are too many other subjects that have held my interest for far longer competing with it and too many emerging scandals to hold any short-term prurient interests.

Besides, the Clarence Thomas hearings are only relevant today in a "see, I told you" context - as the Left uses the current scandals to try and claim a victory from the grave in a contest it lost 20 years ago.

Because the internet never forgets:

http://archive.is/Flm9N

Just in case Emily Lindin decides to delete her tweets:

Amy - I love the Dr. Who link .. and yes, very addictive. Happy Thanksgiving!

Weeping angels. Why did it have to be weeping angels? I hate those guys.

First of all, it needs a better name than "the myriad sexual misconduct accusations following and presumably consequent to the scandal engulfing Weinstein."

Weinsteinian Matrix?

It's come to this?

Newly filed court documents confirm that Fusion GPS, the company mostly responsible for the controversial “Trump dossier” on presidential candidate Donald Trump, made payments to three journalists between June 2016 until February 2017.

The revelation could be a breakthrough for House Republicans, who are exploring whether Fusion GPS used the dossier, which was later criticized for having inaccurate information on Trump, to feed anti-Trump stories to the press during and after the presidential campaign. The three journalists who were paid by Fusion GPS are known to have reported on "Russia issues relevant to [the committee's] investigation," the House Intelligence Committee said in a court filing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fusion-gps-paid-journalists-court-papers-confirm/article/2641454

You know, I'm old enough to remember when girls sang songs about love and feelings, but now it's all "my vajayjay this and my vajayjay that". But frankly my dear, I don't give a cunt.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/style/my-vagina-is-terrific-your-opinion-about-it-is-not.html

Interesting piece on the The Rise of the Beta Male Sexual Harasser:

What emerges from this storm of scandal is a clearer picture of a culture that trained men not to respect women but to respect feminism. In many ways, the Beta Male sexual harasser is the squalid offspring of the unhappy marriage between feminism and the sexual revolution, from whose chaotic household he learned virtue-signaling without virtue.

AND

Al Franken, trading in the therapeutic, I-stand-ready-to-listen babble of his SNL character Stuart Smalley, says he is going to commit himself anew to believing “women’s experiences.” Never mind that he denied his accuser’s experience. He doesn’t “remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leann does,” but women “deserve to be heard, and believed.” For this act of blatantly dishonest and contradictory atonement, he is receiving praise for his “honesty” and now — in a reminder that feminism will always put politics ahead of the protection of women — a concerted effort is underway to save his career.

AND

Other figures who see themselves as male feminists, such as Charlie Rose and Glenn Thrush, have adopted a similar stance to Franken’s: apologize for making women feel “uncomfortable” while treating the underlying charge as a subjective difference of opinion.

Dies Lindin have a son or a husband?

If she is so willing to let innocent men suffer let us be sure the innocent man is someone she loves

If she is so willing to let innocent men suffer let us be sure the innocent man is someone she loves ~ lujlp at November 22, 2017 11:52 AM

That one's probably already taken care of. By default.

None of which is meaningfully distinguished from Weinstein's first comments last month, right?

It's seems like many on the left are taking this path: Our guys aren't as bad as Roy Moore.

See here and here.

This is plainly evasive...

...And I bet it won't work.

Because reasons.

This video has nothing to do with the melody, which reminds me of Rundgren in the 70's.

Here are the lyrics.

Here's another version, one with a kid's show mixed in.

And here's a substantially different arrangement.

I still think allowing girls into the Boy Scouts is a bad idea, for several reasons. Then again, I have sympathy for parents who want to put their girls into the Boy Scouts because of crap like this.

What in the everloving FUCK.

Why isn't this guy UNDER the jail? Why would YouTube host such things?

A single dad built massively popular YouTube channels by filming his young daughters screaming in fear, bathing, pretending to be babies, spitting up food, being force-fed, and "peeing" — content that millions of people watched.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/remysmidt/toy-freaks-videos

Moving piece by David French:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454010/thanksgiving-ten-years-ago-remembering-iraq-deployment-daughters-birth

Another favorite piece about soldiers for 2017.

Sheesh... The entire internet is a lie....

Internet freedom in the balance.

Cousin Dave, what, exactly, is so crappy about it?

You DO know, don't you, that the Girl Scouts didn't invent the idea that kids should not be forced to hug or kiss anyone, right?

What's wrong with that? Even the American Academy of Pediatrics supports that relatively new rule.

One thing I REALLY don't get is, why don't parents who don't agree with that simply scoop up their small children and hand them to the other relatives who can hug and kiss them? If they feel the need to ASK their kids to make such gestures, maybe the parents don't feel quite right about it begin with?

At the same time, though, we don't ask kids to hug and kiss same-age cousins they've never met before, regardless of age, so what's the difference? Refusing to shake hands with someone you're being introduced to IS rude. Refusing to allow someone to hug or kiss you after age 3 at the latest is not. Even adults in long-term couples have that right. As everyone should know by now, most molesters are known - and often trusted - by the kids they target, and often trusted by the parents as well. Even babies with no sense of privacy should not be touched by cooing strangers - they wouldn't do that to adults.

(I had maybe one sentimental relative I can remember- a great-aunt - and even SHE didn't act hurt when younger relatives didn't rush to her arms automatically.)

That said, when it comes to a PARENT's right to hug or kiss an unwilling grumpy kid or a child who's throwing a "you-don't-love-me-or-you-wouldn't-make-me-work" tantrum, that's VERY different - and I've never heard anyone argue that parents shouldn't do that.

Ann Landers had a poignant column about the importance of parental affection:

Dear Ann Landers: I'm an 18-year-old girl who would like to say a few words to "Smothered In Topeka." Her folks "embarrassed" her in front of her friends because they insisted on kissing her goodbye whenever she left the house. She said it made her feel like a baby.

I can truthfully say I cannot recall being kissed by either my mother or father. Dad died when I was 13 and I can't remember him ever touching me. It was as if there was a wall between us. When I mentioned this to my mother, she said, "He wasn't a person who could show his feelings." I then asked, "How about YOU, Mom?" Her answer was, "I guess I am pretty much the same way but that doesn't mean your father didn't love you or that I don't."

Her explanation never convinced me. All I know is I felt isolated starved for affection. It left a mark on me, a bad one. When I was 14, I started to sleep with any guy who asked. By the time I was 16 1 was pregnant, lost the baby and a social worker (bless her) got me into therapy.

I understand a lot more now than I did then. But still there's that emptiness. When I marry and have children, I'm going to hug and kiss them to pieces. They'll KNOW I care.
Hazard, Ky.

Dear Ky: Here's your letter. It contains a ton of information for both children and parents. Thanks for unloading.

Something happy:

Old Movie Stars Dance to Uptown Funk

> Even babies with no sense of
> privacy should not be touched
> by cooing strangers - they
> wouldn't do that to adults.

✓ Affirmed

I think children have an inherent sense of privacy. They don't want to be touched by barking, foam-mouthed dogs or the Wicked Witch of the North or by any other threateningly unfamiliar being.