BREAKING: Ellen hosted Meryl and Tom!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2018

Guess what they weren't asked:
Breaking! Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks guested with Ellen today. To watch one segment, click here.

All three seemed to say that they were all in for Oprah. By our jaundiced metrics, Meryl was especially self-serving, as she has perhaps been of late.

(She wants to hear from Ivanka and Melania? Has Harvey been writing her stuff?)

At any rate, Meryl and Tom were on with Ellen. Guess what question they almost surely weren't asked? Guess what question they won't be asked?

Actually, the unasked questions are two:

What did you know about Harvey's behavior? Also, when did you know it?

Meryl Streep, Hanks and Ellen are all major industry players. What did they know about Weinstein's behavior? And why they heck didn't they act?

Questions like those will rarely be asked of powerful Hollywood stars. Also, those questions will never be asked of major media players like Mika Brzezinski.

(We single her out because of her transparent non-denial denials about Weinstein, who published her female empowerment books, and about Mark Halperin, one of Morning Joe's regular panelists. Everyone knew, but no one had heard! It's funny how that works out!)

What did they know and when did they know it? Dearest darlings, such questions simply aren't asked! Weak denials are quickly accepted. Then our fatuous stars move on, mouthing the latest group slogans.

We'll say it again of the Golden Globes:

Decent people might have been embarrassed to be inside that room. Or so it almost maybe and possibly seemed to us.

15 comments:

  1. I think Bob is great. His insights are regularly original and important. But I think that he's wrong to be pushing on why Streep, Hanks, et al. didn't speak up about Weinstein. Here's why:

    First, it sets up a "damned if you do, etc." situation, where even though Weinstein has been called to account the focus now is on why it didn't happen earlier.

    Second, the nature of the conduct is that it's likely to have occurred in more private settings. Unless Streep herself was the victim of Weinstein or some victim decided to confide in her, I don't know why she would know about his conduct.

    To me, this question is a fake issue raised in bad faith by right-wing outlets in an attempt to smear all of Hollywood as hypocritical. By the way, I'm sure that Hollywood is full of hypocrites - that's human nature, and I don't know that it's a point worth harping on because it's not really news.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Added to this, Tom Hanks and Ellen Degeneres apparently never worked with Weinstein, and neither ever appeared in a Miramax/Weinstein Company film. It seems perverse that after critiquing a "witch-hunt" mentality over the treatment of Franken and (less convincingly) Roy Moore, Bob is now going to stigmatize an entire class of people simply for working in the same INDUSTRY as a serial sexual predator (and wouldn't this fatwa with equal logic apply to Weinstein's VICTIMS as well? They knew, and did and said nothing, didn't they?). Would he really take this stance, if the industry in question wasn't "Hollyweird", despised by the right-thinking "real Americans" Bob seems to now idolize?

      PS: Call me crazy, but I have a REALLY hard time believing the predeliction towards near-child marriage in some Southern evangelical communities can be laid at the feet of "Broken Arrow", "Daddy Longlegs", and other relics of Eisenhower-era Hollywood. This smacks of Rick Santorum's attemply to blame "liberal permissiveness" and "secular moral relativism" for the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals, and is a sign of the ugly turn this once-indispensible blog has taken.

      Delete
    2. The Catholic sex scandals are caused by the same thing that happens and will always happen frequently when men are allowed access to children without supervision, including as Boy Scout leaders and teachers.

      Delete
    3. 404 - believing the predilection smacks of blame and is a sign?

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not to mention Tonya Harding in attendance, a woman involved in a man beating the living shit out of a woman. Hollywood libs might be the most depraved subset of our society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smarter trolls please.

      Delete
  4. Be careful, Bob. Your new Right-wing friends are known to call it "criminalizing success" when you try to hold the rich (like Weinstein) accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meryl Streep has already stated publicly that she knew nothing about Weinstein's behavior. What more does she have to say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has she ever been asked in public?

      Delete
  6. Why don’t millionaires and multi millionaires question the behavior of their billionaire paymasters who have made them fabulously wealthy for making disempowering and degrading entertainment for the masses? Yes, let’s have that discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "What did you know about Harvey's behavior? Also, when did you know it?"

    Damn, Bob, I don't getcha. Really, I don't.

    You mock the 'moral stampede', and then suddenly you're an outraged Puritan.

    One day you acknowledge vacuity of race-mongering - and then you're salivating over idiotic black/white/hispanic "statistics".

    You criticise TV clowns' pompous rantings - and then you say the Donald is a madman itching for a nuclear war.

    It's as if you're turning into a zombie every other day, Bob. You're a strange case; Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, eh? Are there any chemicals involved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. Somerby seems to have latched onto the Roy Moore story so fervently because it furthers his negative views of liberals. It is perverse for a self-described liberal to hold such views, but I suspect Somerby feels disillusioned with liberals and is lashing out. So, rather than feel encouraged by the current "MeToo" movement, he chooses to focus on the preceding silence and apparent complicity in Hollywood, so that he can call liberals "hypocrites." Somerby must surely know how difficult large social change is, and how, in the real world, pressure mounts and momentum builds until finally the dam breaks and the will for change becomes unstoppable. I have mentioned in previous comments how long it took for black citizens to gain full civil and voting rights ( nearly one hundred years after the abolition of slavery). In a view like Somerby's, that length of time would be deemed a "liberal failure to act", when, in reality, political and popular will had to be mobilized through years of marches, sit-ins, etc.
    This also brings up a fact that Somerby willfully ignores: progressivism is always more difficult than conservatism. Conservatism resists change, so it can't be criticized when no change occurs; that is indeed the desired outcome. Somerby seems to have joined the ranks of the critics who blame progressives when things don't change fast enough, or the process of change is imperfect. In other words, progressives are blamed for not being perfect, while conservatives escape any criticism, because they stand for resistance to change. So much of the positive changes in our country (abolition of slavery, votes for women, civil rights) have been largely due to progressives, and resisted by conservatives. It's odd that a self-described progressive like Somerby takes the approach he does, but it explains a lot of his writing these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BS is not a liberal. He's an old southern conservative white guy.

      Delete