Supporting role, David Boies: When the MeToo revelations started to break, we were amazed by the conduct of people like Weinstein and Lauer and Rose.
We were also amazed by the number of highly-placed people who seem to have let such conduct proceed. Everyone knew, but no one had heard! That seemed to be the party line as colleagues of various miscreants swore that they'd had no idea.
Based upon current reporting, Meghan Twohey and Jodi Kantor discuss another category of enabler in their new book, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement.
There are only two members of this particular group. The facts about their conduct aren't entirely new.
That said, their apparent conduct is especially striking because of their status as well-known alleged feminist warriors. In Tuesday's New York Times, Alexandra Alter delivers the mail about this part of the forthcoming book:
ALTER (9/10/19): “She Said” shows how some figures who have presented themselves as allies of victims have profited from financial settlements that silence them.We can't evaluate Allred's behavior. Bloom's sounds especially grimy.
The attorney Gloria Allred is one of the most vocal crusaders against sexual harassment and assault. Privately, her firm helped negotiate a settlement that muffled one of Mr. Weinstein’s victims in 2004, taking a 40 percent cut. (The firm has also worked on settlements that silenced victims of Larry Nassar and Bill O’Reilly.) In an interview for “She Said,” Allred defends her use of confidential settlements, arguing that clients are not forced to sign them and often prefer them for reasons of privacy.
Allred’s daughter, the lawyer Lisa Bloom, a prominent victims’ rights attorney, was working behind the scenes with Mr. Weinstein—at a rate of $895 an hour—to quash the journalists’ investigation and thwart his accusers. In a confidential memo to Mr. Weinstein that Ms. Bloom wrote in December 2016, which is reproduced in “She Said,” she offered to help him damage the reputation of one of his accusers, Rose McGowan, and portrayed her background as a victims’s rights advocate as an asset.
“I feel equipped to help you against the Roses of the world, because I have represented so many of them,” Ms. Bloom wrote, before laying out a multistep playbook for how to intimidate accusers or paint them as liars. One of Ms. Bloom’s suggested tactics for undermining Ms. McGowan: “We can place an article re her becoming increasingly unglued, so that when someone Googles her this is what pops up and she’s discredited.”
Ms. Bloom accompanied Mr. Weinstein on a surprise visit to the Times the day before the initial article was published, to present the journalists with information intended to portray several accusers—including Ashley Judd, the first actress to go on the record—as unreliable and mentally unstable.
Ms. Bloom has said she was crossing sides to work for Weinstein to encourage him to apologize for his behavior. She later told the reporters that she “deeply regretted” representing him, which she said was a “colossal mistake.”
That said, Alter omits one part of Bloom's reported connection to Weinstein. Consider what Alter says, as she continues, concerning David Boies:
ALTER (continuing directly): Another member of Mr. Weinstein’s legal team, the attorney David Boies, helped Mr. Weinstein evade scrutiny for his treatment of women over 15 years, working to halt reporting on the producer by news outlets, blocking the board of Mr. Weinstein’s company from reviewing his personnel file, and helping Mr. Weinstein execute a contract with Black Cube, an Israeli private investigations firm, that was promised a $300,000 bonus if it stopped the Times investigation. (Ronan Farrow, who published a separate Weinstein exposé in The New Yorker in October 2017, later broke the news of Black Cube’s work for Weinstein.) “She Said” reveals emails showing that during the time that Mr. Boies represented Mr. Weinstein, the two men discussed potential film roles for Mr. Boies’s daughter, an aspiring actress.As Boies was helping Weinstein, he was seeking film roles for his daughter. In her formal review of Twohey and Kantor's book, Susan Faludi describes a somewhat similar connection between Weinstein and Bloom:
FALUDI (9/8/19): Maybe the most appalling figure in this constellation of collaborators and enablers is Lisa Bloom, Allred’s daughter. A lawyer likewise known for winning sexual-harassment settlements with nondisclosure agreements, Bloom was retained by Weinstein (who had also bought the movie rights to her book). In a jaw-dropping memo to Weinstein, Bloom itemized her game plan: Initiate “counterops online campaigns,” place articles in the press painting one of his accusers as a “pathological liar,” start a Weinstein Foundation “on gender equality” and hire a “reputation management company” to suppress negative articles on Google. Oh, and this gem: “You and I come out publicly in a pre-emptive interview where you talk about evolving on women’s issues, prompted by death of your mother, Trump pussy grab tape and, maybe, nasty unfounded hurtful rumors about you. … You should be the hero of the story, not the villain. This is very doable.”In the midst of all that apparent grime, Weinstein apparently favored Bloom by purchasing movie rights to a book she had written. Boies wanted a movie part for his daughter. According to earlier reporting, Bloom wanted her book to become an actual film.
(This claim about Bloom's book first surfaced some time ago. If the claim is discussed in the new book, we don't know why Alter omitted it.)
"Put not your trust in princes," someone is said to have said long ago. This episode teaches a similar lesson about high-profile partisan stars or ideological players.
No one postures more convincingly than Allred and Bloom do. That said, the rewards out there are too damn high; it's been that way for a very long time. Many people will do many things to get their $895 per hour, or to see their book on the silver screen.
Many people will do many things to attain such large rewards. They may betray their apparent values. They may embellish facts on TV shows in order to please the tribe. On occasion, they may even say things which are untrue. They may forget to correct themselves when it turns out that they've misled you in some way.
Trust but verify, someone once said. We'd be inclined to stress the second part of that formula. Good jobs at extremely good pay may undermine good journalism. We'll guess that it happens somewhere on cable every day of the week!
By the way, how much are leading cable stars paid? Given the fact that we all love transparency, why don't they want you to know?
You really should watch Bitter Wheat, dear Bob. It's very funny.ReplyDelete
Sure, upper class people's games (whether they are your zombie cadillac liberals or upper class Others) do provide entertainments, but getting so deep into their stinking shit? Meh. Keep away from it, dear Bob.
What an odd take. Somerby bases his post on the hard-hitting reporting of two journalists (Twohey and Kantor), both of them working at the New York Times, both ostensibly liberal, reporting unpleasant facts about ostensibly “liberal” figures like Bloom and Boies. Both appeared last night on the One True Liberal Channel’s All In with Chris Hayes (Ali Velshi guest hosting) in a candid discussion of their findings.ReplyDelete
Somerby then goes on to accuse high-paid journalists of selling out their values for money, connecting them to people like Bloom and Boies.
Do those high-paid journalists betraying their values include Twohey and Kantor? Or Ali Velshi on MSNBC?
He's talking about Maddow, of course. Somerby has some peculiar obsession with her. Of course, Somerby also has bizarre obsessions about defending Roy Moore and Trump -- or perhaps not so strange, since Somerby is a Trumptard.Delete
Please troll better, @5:00P.Delete
Uh, oh. Somebody got triggered. This site deserves better trolls, so get down to work or head for a safe space. Max nixt to me.Delete
Macht nichts (or the ignorant version is mox nix).Delete
Weinstein committed the abhorrent acts, but it is Allred who is wrong because she took part of a settlement negotiated between Weinstein and his victim? The 40% is standard in the legal profession and Allred is not a non-profit organization but is a money-making professional attorney in business to make money (like any good capitalist does). The cases she takes are difficult to win, so you can argue there is more risk to what she does, and presumably many cases she does not win and must still pursue, funded by the ones she does win.ReplyDelete
All the nasty stuff that Weinstein, Epstein, and their ilk do but it is the women who complain who are in the wrong, in Somerby's eyes? The problem, as he sees it, is that there is too much money being tossed around.
The money is what permits these powerful men to abuse women (and no doubt others) because they use their power and money to cover up their crimes (yes, these ARE crimes). Women don't report those crimes because they do not want their own careers to be ruined. If they wait too long without coming forward, the statute of limitation passes. At that point, the negotiations under threat of exposure are the only way to redress what these guys have done, and if Allred gets 40% for knowing how to accomplish this, the women get the other 60%.
But Somerby sees only a shakedown, not the original crime. He perhaps thinks Allred should work for free. He doesn't understand that corporate attorneys now bill $800 per hour, so Bloom's fees are standard too. Maybe he thinks women should work for less? Why?
But there is no condemnation of Weinstein here. Just of the women who helped him clean up after his bad behavior. Since Allred was working for the women, not Weinstein, I cannot consider her complicit in his crimes. Bloom too attempted to profit off his bad behavior. She strikes me as more culpable. Like the "cleaner" who erases all traces of a murder.
Why are these men permitted to hide their actions via negotiated nondisclosure agreements? Because that is the only leverage available to the victims to obtain damages after the fact. Perhaps Somerby thinks their suffering is not commensurate with the damages. That wouldn't surprise me, since he entirely lacks empathy with women who have been mistreated by men. But what woman in her right mind would volunteer to make public what happened, knowing that she will be maligned by someone like Lisa Bloom (men do that job too)? That's why the women of the #METOO movement are regarded as "feminist heroes" to borrow the term that Somerby can only use ironically. They refused the money in order to take these powerful men to task.
Weinstein committed the abhorrent acts, but it is Allred who is wrong because she took part of a settlement negotiated between Weinstein and his victim?Delete
From my point of view? Yeah. If you present yourself as a feminist crusader and you negotiate hush money to cover up crimes, thus allowing your client to continue hurting other women, then you’re at the very least a hypocrite and at worst, an enabler.
But that’s just me. But TDH says he “can't evaluate Allred's behavior.” Perhaps he subscribes to your theory that it’s better for the victims to get immediate and private compensation, and Allred’s the lawyer who can get the best deal. TDH doesn’t say.
But Somerby sees only a shakedown, not the original crime.
But he does see the malfeasance. First paragraph: he says he’s “amazed” at the conduct revealed. And nowhere does he disparage the compensation as a “shakedown.”
He perhaps thinks Allred should work for free.
No, he makes no evaluation of Allred’s business.
He doesn't understand that corporate attorneys now bill $800 per hour, so Bloom's fees are standard too.
His complaint isn’t that the fees are beyond the standard, but that they’re high enough to have disabled Bloom’s moral compass.
Maybe he thinks women should work for less?
No, he thinks one woman shouldn’t have been in the victim-trashing business.
Since Allred was working for the women, not Weinstein, I cannot consider her complicit in his crimes. Bloom too attempted to profit off his bad behavior. She strikes me as more culpable.
Hate to tell you, but you and TDH are in violent agreement.
Perhaps Somerby thinks their suffering is not commensurate with the damages.
Perhaps it’s the other way around, since TDH highlights the part of the quote in which feminist crusader Allred walks off with a 40% cut of the settlements.
[T]he women of the #METOO movement are regarded as "feminist heroes" to borrow the term that Somerby can only use ironically.
TDH doesn’t use the term feminist heroes. He uses “feminist warriors,” which is employed ironically, since he’s not talking about the victims, but their lawyers.
I know you don’t like Bob Somerby, and that’s fine with me. But it’s getting in the way of your ability to read what he writes.
Allred doesn't call herself a feminist crusader. She doesn't speak for the feminist movement. She is an attorney who takes cases involving women's employment, family matters and sexual abuse. She may be a feminist but she has never worked for a feminist non-profit, not participated in feminist writing or joined the movement, is not a spokesperson, and is not considered a feminist leader. She is an attorney. In contrast, a feminist leader of the same time period is Gloria Steinem.Delete
Somerby objected to Stormy Daniels being called a feminist hero and used the term ironically.
When Somerby talks about there being too much money in Allred's payoff, and too much money going to Bloom at $835/hr (how many hours did she bill?), he is also talking about the victims being paid for their silence (which he did in no uncertain terms about Stormy Daniels) and by implication Twohey and Kantor and the unnamed journalists at the end of his piece. These people are presented as equivalent to each other and unworthy of the cash. Then he pretends it is the perpetrators who will do anything for money, but his real message is that accusers may also do anything for money. No one reading Somerby's post will get the idea that he is worried about journalists NOT reporting sexual assault accusations because they are bought off by their large salaries. Taken with his previous writing, Somerby thinks journalists rush to judgment against possibly innocent men (vis his references to Roy Moore and the Duke basketball players, and Stormy).
Once again, you are reading too literally and you rush to Somerby's defense without understanding what he is saying. I disagree with Somerby about this, as I do with much of what he writes.
Once again, you are reading too literally and you rush to Somerby's defense without understanding what he is saying.Delete
I’m sorry, but I refused to be lectured on being too literal by someone who can’t master straightforward reading:
Allred doesn't call herself a feminist crusader.
And right there on her website, gloriaallred.com, we find the following:
FEARLESS LAWYER, FEMINIST, ACTIVIST, TELEVISION AND RADIO COMMENTATOR, WARRIOR, ADVOCATE, AND WINNER
(CAPS Gloria’s; emphasis mine.)
Somerby objected to Stormy Daniels being called a feminist hero and used the term ironically.
You’re right; point taken.
When Somerby talks about there being too much money in Allred's payoff, and too much money going to Bloom at $835/hr … he is also talking about the victims being paid for their silence….
No. Somerby “talks” about Allred’s excessive fee, but he actually says nothing to characterize the settlements. You may wish to claim that TDH implies the latter, but you should make the case that you’ve not simply made a faulty inference.
These people are presented as equivalent to each other and unworthy of the cash.
No. The equivalence actually presented is between highly-paid lawyers and highly-paid media types. If you’ve got a case that TDH is presenting his views about the victims, then make it. Your bald claim that you can read between the lines is just that, an unsubstantiated claim.
No one reading Somerby's post will get the idea that he is worried about journalists NOT reporting sexual assault accusations because they are bought off by their large salaries.
Not anybody who can read for comprehension. TDH thinks highly-paid journalists “may betray their apparent values … embellish facts … may even say things which are untrue….” He doesn’t mention not reporting assault. Why do you?
Somerby thinks journalists rush to judgment against possibly innocent men (vis his references to Roy Moore and the Duke basketball players, and Stormy).
TDH thinks journalists shouldn’t have focussed on Moore’s relationship with young but adult women instead of the accusations (which TDH called credible) of sexual assault against a minor.
TDH thinks Stormy Daniels is a grifter, but he never doubted her claims about Trump.
And journalists did rush to judgment against the Duke students.
I disagree with Somerby ….
You disagree with what you think Somerby means instead of disagreeing with what he writes.
So Somerby is really saying that money sometimes causes people to betray their values, possibly the people mentioned in his post, or possibly not.Delete
The brilliance is blinding.
Power corrupts? Who knew?
Deadrat cannot read. He quotes Allred's webpage:Delete
"I’m sorry, but I refused to be lectured on being too literal by someone who can’t master straightforward reading:
Allred doesn't call herself a feminist crusader.
And right there on her website, gloriaallred.com, we find the following:
FEARLESS LAWYER, FEMINIST, ACTIVIST, TELEVISION AND RADIO COMMENTATOR, WARRIOR, ADVOCATE, AND WINNER"
There is a comma between feminist and activist and each of the other terms. That means that Allred is saying she is a feminist and also a warrior and also an advocate. She does not say she is a feminist warrior or feminist crusader or feminist advocate.
Most women are feminists. A feminist is a person who believes that women should be treated like human beings.
I said that Allred did not call herself a "feminist crusader". She doesn't. She calls herself a feminist and a crusader (later in the list). The term crusader can apply to her strong efforts on behalf of her clients and justice. It says nothing about being a crusader for feminism. Similarly, since she is an attorney, it makes sense that she would portray herself as a fierce advocate and warrior on her client's behalf. That is what people seek in an attorney. And she is also a feminist, as are most educated women who work in male-dominated professions. It doesn't make them feminist warriors.
Fuck off Deadrat. Do it now.
Can't you admit you were wrong?Delete
Of course. I did so @8:27, when you pointed out that TDH had used the term “feminist hero” to (ironically) describe Stormy Daniels.Delete
Your blizzard of words to deny the obvious merely underscores my point. Allred’s website burnishes her persona in exactly the way I describe. And your ridiculous contortions about punctuation typography can’t change that.
"That said, the rewards out there are too damn high; it's been that way for a very long time. Many people will do many things to get their $895 per hour, or to see their book on the silver screen."ReplyDelete
If I were in a generous mood, I might consider this Somerby's complaint about the high pay of CEOs and those at the top of corporations too. Somerby focuses only on those in entertainment and high-profile lawyers, as if their high pay caused those men to hurt the women they encountered. These kinds of attacks happen in business and in every occupation because this is something MEN do to women. The ones with lots of money get away with it. The ones without money get accused of rape and assault and, with luck, go to jail for it. Guys without money get fired for attacking women. Guys at the top are the ones who can keep doing the same bad things over and over. That's why there are so many victims coming forward about Weinstein, Epstein, Cosby, and others.
But saying that high pay causes sex crimes is purely wrong. Toxic masculinity causes the crimes and lack of redress for women enables such crimes to continue and escalate (because that is what sex criminals do). Despite profiting off these crimes, Bloom and Allred didn't commit them. They arrived after the fact, much as a defense attorney is hired after a person is jailed. Some people think defense attorneys are scum too, since they work for fees and profit off crime.
I do not believe that journalists are profiting off of crime, nor do I believe the NY Times profits from it, nor do I believe that simply making a high salary makes someone more likely to be a sex criminal. Men who do that stuff do it all the way up the ladder and down again, because it is what they do. And they don't do it for the money. PR skills should be available to anyone -- who needs a damage control specialist except someone encountering bad publicity, deserved in most cases. Most men can be paid extravagant salaries and they will never commit a sex crime, but they may cover one up because they too don't want to lose their jobs and put their families in jeopardy, perhaps injure their businesses and damage many innocent bystanders in the fallout of exposure. They aren't covering up for the money, as such, but because they don't want their own lives to fall apart in order to punish someone else. It is a choice most people would make -- except for a few women.
Now Somerby thinks there should be a cost paid by the women who exposed Weinstein and the victims who are coming forward. He thinks they shouldn't be paid anything because there is too much money and that was the root of the crime (not sex and power?). He wants to punish those who upended his complacency about how SOME men behave. He wants the women to be wrong and if he can't call them liars and grifters, he'll say they are overpaid and profiteering on their victimhood, and the female journalists who help them are too. And if one of the women works for an accused man, she is a grifter too because she is helping him commit more sex crimes. As long as it is the women at fault, he's happy to complain. Are there no names he might wish to list of men who enabled Weinstein, Epstein and Cosby? Maybe Trump, for example?
But saying that high pay causes sex crimes is purely wrong.Delete
Who says this? Not TDH.
Toxic masculinity causes the crimes and lack of redress for women enables such crimes to continue and escalate (because that is what sex criminals do). Despite profiting off these crimes, Bloom and Allred didn't commit them.
Who says they did? Not TDH. But don’t you think that by negotiating private settlements to cover up crimes, Bloom and Allred have some responsibility in allowing the criminals to continue hurting women at the price of affordable settlements?
They arrived after the fact, much as a defense attorney is hired after a person is jailed. Some people think defense attorneys are scum too, since they work for fees and profit off crime.
Criminal attorneys defend the guilty to keep the state in check. No such consideration comes into play for Bloom and Allred.
Now Somerby thinks there should be a cost paid by the women who exposed Weinstein and the victims who are coming forward. He thinks they shouldn't be paid anything because there is too much money and that was the root of the crime (not sex and power?).
Nowhere in this blog entry does TDH say a word about the victims who exposed Weinstein, nor does he disparage the settlements made to the women who didn’t. He writes about the lawyers who profited by helping victims get private compensation and thus let Weinstein free to continue his evil ways.
Hate Somerby if you wish. But can’t you at least criticize what he actually writes instead of what you think he writes?
When he objects to Allred's 40% he is also objecting to the victims' 60%. These women couldn't find justice by accusing Weinstein publicly. That should be obvious from Bloom's list of damage control options. The police won't investigate, the DA won't charge him, he will retaliate and ruin the career or someone who does such a thing, and they will not be able to continue in their work, and if it gets to trial, a jury most likely will not convict. That's why women pursue a negotiated settlement.Delete
When Somerby objects to Allred's private compensation, he is suggesting that the victims shouldn't even get that redress. Allred charges no more than anyone else and she is a professional attorney working for the same pay as any attorney who took such a case.
So, when Somerby disparages such settlements, he is either ignorant or misgynistic. I believe the latter, since I have nothing from his writings that suggests he should be given the benefit of the doubt. He sided with Trump, a known liar, against Stormy Daniels, after all.
Not everything I write is something Somerby said. Some of my statements are things I believe. When you say "Somerby never said that" you sound like an idiot. When I am attributing a thought or belief to Somerby, I say so. It is my right to speculate about his beliefs from the evidence of his present and prior statements. There is no law that says I am restricted to only the surface meanings of what he says today (and on no other occasion).
Please stop playing this game and talk to the people here like a human being. I think Somerby is a sexist asshole. I write here not to convince him or you of anything, but to prevent visitors from thinking that Somerby is any kind of liberal.
Shutting up women has a long, long history. The #METOO movement is about letting women speak. I plan to speak here as much as I want, and I will continue saying what I want in the manner I want, regardless of you and your self-deceptive idiocies.
When he objects to Allred's 40% he is also objecting to the victims' 60%.Delete
What makes you think that he’s not objecting to the victims failure to get 100%?
I’m the one who thinks Allred is an enabler. TDH says he can’t evaluate Allred’s behavior. It’s Bloom’s he says that sounds “grimy.”
When Somerby objects to Allred's private compensation, he is suggesting that the victims shouldn't even get that redress.
TDH doesn’t object to Allred’s compensation. He reports it. He does object to Bloom’s. What makes you think that TDH isn’t suggesting that the victims should get more?
When you say "Somerby never said that" you sound like an idiot.
Now that would hurt my feelings. If I had any. David in Cal sounds like an idiot. Because he is one. You’re free to think I’m wrong, but that doesn’t make me an idiot.
Not everything I write is something Somerby said. Some of my statements are things I believe.
And you believe lotsa things that you have no warrant to believe. And that makes you sound like TDH’s tribal thinkers, so obsessed with the correctness of their side’s positions that they can’t think critically.
It is my right to speculate about his beliefs from the evidence of his present and prior statements.
Of course it is. When did I ever say otherwise? But by your own admission, you don’t rely on evidence from TDH’s statements. You rely on your inferences about what he means in spite of his statements.
I plan to speak here as much as I want, and I will continue saying what I want in the manner I want,….
Good heavens! Do you think I have some nefarious plan to stop you? How could that even work?
Somerby probably thinks it is wrong for Twohey and Kantor to receive a salary or royalties for their book? Even though they perhaps could have been paid off too, but may have refused the big bucks.ReplyDelete
The men who enabled O'Reilly at FOX are still there. Meghan Fox had to leave and is floundering in her subsequent career. But Somerby thinks the payoffs are too large?
Typo: Meghan Kelly (not Fox). Lawyer Susan Estrich defended Roger Ailes. I'll bet she makes a lot of money too. Somerby never talks about Fox though.Delete
If a woman defends a sex predator, that makes her a traitor to womanhood, a sell-out. If a man defends a sex predator, why isn't he similarly a sleaze? Maybe it is easier to see that the man is doing a job, being a hired guy (attorney). When a woman does the same thing, she is regarded as complicit in the crime, not simply doing work as a lawyer or PR flack.Delete
Seems to be a double standard here.
If either a man or a woman negotiates settlements to cover up crimes and allow predators to continue their malfeasance, then they are enablers. You can argue justification in that they get private settlements for victims who would otherwise would get nothing (or at least nothing without a barrage of harmful publicity). But that doesn’t erase the enabling; it just possibly balances it.Delete
When that man or a woman portrays himself or herself as a crusader for feminist justice, that an additional charge of hypocrisy applies.
In no cases, can that man or woman be complicit in a past act unknown to him or her when the act was committed.
I’m not talking about criminal attorneys. The rule that even the most horrible get a defense may be distasteful, but it’s there to keep the state in line.
Criminal attorneys are not the only ones who work to keep the state in line. All attorneys, by virtue of being part of the bar, are officers of the court. Most court cases are settled these days. When an attorney arranges a settlement of a case that has not yet been filed in court, that is an extension of the justice system because the attorney is an officer of the court and member of the bar. That is why it is illegal to practice law without a license. These settlements are legal documents with enforceable consequences. Without that legal dressing, they might be considered bribes or shakedowns (as Somerby wishes to call them). You are drawing the line in the wrong place and there is no hypocrisy in seeking any kind of justice for a wronged victim, including one that preserves the reputation of the perpetrator as part of the settlement terms. Without that quid pro quo there would be no incentive whatsoever to give the victim anything. Partial restitution is better than none.Delete
But Somerby doesn't care about these women. He cares about portraying Allred and the other women mentioned as bad people. And when he does that, he puts himself on Weinstein's team, on Epstein's team, on Trump's team. Because identifying with the perpetrator in such cases is something no man should be doing. Liberals tend to support the victims in these situations. Why is Somerby on the wrong side?
For all your blather about officers of the court, the settlements in question do not involve the state. They are between private parties, and even should a disagreement over them end up in court, the state is there merely to adjudicate between the private parties. The state’s power is not implicated beyond that.Delete
Do you think that these settlements must be drawn up by an attorney for them to be legal?
When attorneys defend bad people in criminal courts, we all benefit. I don’t see an ethical problem with those attorneys’ practices. I do see a problem with the hypocrisy of a soi disant feminist like Allred taking large sums in agreements that free predators to continue to prey on women. That said, you have a solid argument that the partial restitution to actual victims outweighs the risk to hypothetical future victims.
I don’t know whom Somerby cares about. You don’t either.
Allred is in a compromising position that may be worth the risk. Somerby makes no judgment about her. I’m the one that does. Have you confused us?
Bloom is a disgrace. I can say that without being on anyone else’s “team.”
Somerby says: "They may embellish facts on TV shows in order to please the tribe. On occasion, they may even say things which are untrue. They may forget to correct themselves when it turns out that they've misled you in some way."ReplyDelete
This is exactly like Bloom's technique of portraying the victims as unreliable to discredit their statements. Somerby wants to portray liberal journalists as unreliable because of their salaries (since they are high paid just like sex predators are, and thus may be doing unspeakable things corrupted by their salaries). Then it is easier to discredit news reports as "fake news" and claim that Trump won reelection or other stupid stuff, since those journalists are all so corrupted.
Who benefits from such an argument? Conservatives do. So, why is Somerby carrying water for conservatives again today? And why is he doing it by attacking the journalists who exposed Weinstein's wrong-doing and the attorney who helps them seek redress, and the victims themselves because their settlements are too large?
We all heard what Somerby said about Stormy Daniels, in crude terms. Next thing, he'll be saying similar things about the women abused by Weinstein, the girls prostituted by Epstein, the women drugged and assaulted by Cosby. Because who knows what things women will say if there is enough money at stake? No man is safe from false accusations while women are so tempted (never mind the men who enabled sex crimes).
Wouldn't it be simpler to pay women more at their regular jobs so that they won't need to bring false accusations against all those innocent men just minding their own business? A fair, living wage might undermine the entire #METOO movement, unless it is happening because MEN can't control their impulses and stop hurting women.
I think Somerby's attitudes toward women might be more welcome at the incel.me websites. He thinks so little of them that he imagines they might concoct abuse stories and suffer the attacks on their lives for money. What an ass Somerby is.
How would a female victim obtain a settlement if there were no attorneys available to help her? Just trust Weinstein to do what's right?Delete
If you don't believe she has damages, you might be (1) clueless, or (2) a misogynist who thinks women are not hurt by rape, assault, drugging, sexual battery, etc.
How would a female victim obtain a settlement....?Delete
No one, including TDH, is saying the victims don't have a good case for damages.
Somerby says: "They [highly-paid media types] may embellish facts on TV shows in order to please the tribe. On occasion, they may even say things which are untrue. They may forget to correct themselves when it turns out that they've misled you in some way."Delete
This is exactly like Bloom's technique of portraying the victims as unreliable to discredit their statements.
Somerby wants to portray liberal journalists as unreliable because of their salaries (since they are high paid just like sex predators are, and thus may be doing unspeakable things corrupted by their salaries).
Alas, no. And you were doing so well. It’s “since they’re highly paid just like the lawyers who negotiate hush money.”
We all heard what Somerby said about Stormy Daniels, in crude terms.
TDH said Stormy was a grifter. You think he’s wrong?
Next thing, he'll be saying similar things about the women abused by Weinstein, the girls prostituted by Epstein, the women drugged and assaulted by Cosby.
In the next fever dream you’ll have about TDH. Why don’t we wait until he actually writes what you claim he will?
He [TDH] thinks so little of them [women] that he imagines they might concoct abuse stories and suffer the attacks on their lives for money.
No, that’s what you imagine what TDH thinks.
What an ass Somerby is.
Check the mirror, Sweetie. Your big ears are showing.
To quote the Pythons, "Here we see the violence inherent in the system..."Delete
I'm not your Sweetie. Your sexist bigotry is showing. Use of an endearment in a discussion like this is so glaringly inappropriate that it is an obvious device to demean the person you are speaking with.
Done talking to you Deadrat. You make me sorry I broke my own resolution to ignore your comments. Back to letting you show your dirty laundry to the world without underlining the parts where you embarrass yourself.
Up to you as always, Brave Sir Robin. But "Sweetie" wasn't a term of endearment, and I doubt seriously that you took it that way. It was an expression of contempt for your inability to think straight and your imputation of your own faults to others.Delete
And demean you? Don’t you mean your argumentation, such as it is?
Am I supposed to be upset that you’ve resolved to ignore my comments from now on? You’ve always ignored my comments, unthinkingly responding with your mind reading.
And if you’re going to quote Python, perhaps you should choose something that doesn’t undercut you. The speaker (in The Holy Grail) is meant to be ridiculous in responding that way to nothing more than Arthur’s telling him to shut up. As ridiculous as you are in your fake outrage.
But I suppose if you can’t mount a counter-argument, you can always pretend to take umbrage at someone whom you don’t know, whom you don’t care about, and who couldn’t possibly affect your life in any concrete way.
"TDH said Stormy was a grifter. You think he’s wrong?"Delete
I think he should try to understand why some people in the other tribe don't think she's a grifter. To not do so is tribal.
I don't think you're using tribal in the sense that TDH does. It would be tribal to call Stormy a grifter based solely on the fact that others called her a heroine. Is that what you think TDH is doing? Do you think she's a grifter?Delete
The goal of the METOO movement is to make campaigns like Bloom's ineffective by supporting the victims, taking women's claims seriously by investigating and prosecuting them, and not treating the women who come forward as if they were grifters, whores, or disaffected losers (the way women fear they will be treated). They hope to create a climate where women need not cover up crimes out of fear of the public reaction. And they want to hold men accountable regardless of their powerful positions and money.ReplyDelete
That is happening and it isn't surprising that men are frightened by it, including Somerby.
men are frightenedDelete
Thank goodness we still own everything, eh?
Yes, this is all a big joke, isn't it?Delete
I’m sorry that you didn’t appreciate my attempt at mordant humor.Delete
Sure, a gaggle of pathetic and powerless men’s rights activists and likely a few rich and powerful predators are frightened of the MeToo movement and the growing emergence of new social norms.
But the idea that in general “men are frightened” and specifically someone like TDH is frightened is absurd I-am-woman-hear-me-roar bullshit.
Men own everything; men run everything; and men will benefit from the misogyny unleashed in the Trump era.
For the record, I’m not laughing. At least not in an amused way.
I know that can be hard to tell from a blog comment.
This was a very straightforward statement from Somerby:ReplyDelete
“We liberals are the problem now too! We’re lazy and we aren’t very smart. We exude a moral squalor.
We’re lazy and dumb and our morals are bad. There’s little reason for people to like us. Presumably, nobody does.”
Someone can now argue that he meant something other than what he wrote.
Not me. That’s our jeremiah, judging our failure to act in concert with his vision.Delete
Nobody likes us? Presumably we like ourselves.
And is squalor something you can exude?
It’s just as ill-advised as saying all Republicans are racists. It’s too broad and it is therefore false. Somerby is guilty of the same thing he attacks liberals for, but he is too high and mighty to see it.Delete
It’s just as ill-advised as saying all Republicans are racists.Delete
In 2018, 157,676 people voted for Republican Steve King in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District. Is it OK to say they are all racists?
How about that they either are racists or that they support racists?
How about that they are racists or that they support racists or that they tolerate racists?
How about that they are racists or that they support racists or that they tolerate racists or that they are too negligent to find out they voted for a racist?
Distinctions without a difference, I’d say.
But I take your point. Overly-broad statements about groups of people are rarely literally true. Possibly a few voters in Iowa’s 4th voted Republican by mistake.
Do you suppose that TDH might be putting out some ridiculous hyperbole about “our team” to find out how much we like sweeping statements about ourselves? Do you suppose that the lesson might be that if we don’t like it for our team, perhaps we might want to refrain from doing the same thing to the opposing team?
Nah. After all, it was avery straightforward statement. And TDH is very high and very mighty. I’m sure he meant it literally.
But don’t you have a hard time believing there aren’t 157,676 racists in Iowa’s 4th?
And can you help me out with that “exudes” thing. It still bothers me.
You said two different things: Somerby is excoriating us for not living up to his vision. (He is our “Jeremiah”.) You said “not me” in response to “ someone can now argue that he meant something other than what he wrote.” That would indicate he meant it literally. Next, you indicate that he is engaged in performative hyperbole, not meant to be taken literally.Delete
Which is it?
I said one thing (that TDH is a jeremiah) and asked another thing (essentially could he be using reverse psychology).Delete
I'm pretty sure of the first thing. But there's a reason I asked about the second thing: I was looking for an answer.
Still nothing on "exudes," huh?
While MSNBC viewers and NY Times readers hear all about Weinstein and now Bloom and Boies, Fox viewers are still wondering why O’Reilly’s vacation is taking so long.ReplyDelete
“Good jobs at extremely good pay may undermine good journalism. We'll guess that it happens somewhere on cable every day of the week!”ReplyDelete
*guess* that it happens
In other words, it’s all just insinuations without evidence.
Keep up the brilliant work, Bob!
And Anonymous Ignoramuses call me too literal.Delete
He frequently used to imagine Maddow stuffing money down her pants. No doubt she is well paid.Delete
It is fair to say that he believes she does poor journalism.
However, it is not proven that her pay *makes* her a poor journalist, nor is it even proven that she is a poor journalist, since that is his opinion, but is not a universally shared opinion.
One can substitute a different profession, for example:
“Good jobs at extremely good pay may undermine good teaching.”
Would that be true?
Well, sure, since Somerby includes the word “may”, which simply allows for the possibility.
“Being a Republican may make you a racist.” Is that true? Sure, because I said “may.”
These are essentially empty statements, devoid of any real significance.
Let’s look at the converse:
Low pay may undermine good journalism. (Or teaching). That statement can also be true. A low-paid teacher or journalist may lack motivation to really work hard.
But I said “may”, so there will be conditions for which that statement is going to be true.
That’s why “may” is a weasel word. Somerby insinuates a connection, but does not prove the case, hence he weasels out with “may.”
I have to admit that I haven’t watched RM in a long time. I found her smirking and simpering intolerable. Thus my judgment is necessarily dated.Delete
The reports she read on air about Christie’s Bridgegate and about the scandal involving McDonnell of Virginia were very bad journalism, misleading and uninformed. Does that make her a bad journalist? Well, really RM is not a journalist at all; she’s a celebrity talkshow host.
Is money RM’s problem? I doubt it. She’s lazy and addicted to scandal, which means she’s in very numerous if not good company.
But suppose she wanted to do decent reporting. That might risk losing her audience, which in turn might risk losing her job. That big salary would certainly deter me from making a change.
But you’re right: that’s not proof.
And from this we know that Deadrat is no more a liberal than Somerby is and that he is indeed trolling here. I once suggested that Deadrat was Somerby. I think that possibility is stronger with this comment.Delete
deadrat is too stupid and neurotic to be Somerby. The guy is a mess.Delete
I’m not Somerby. Of course that negative is impossible to prove, but why would Somerby bother to read his commentariat? Just look at the intellectual level of the comments from the Ignorami Anonymi.Delete
No, Somerby has enabled comments so that commenters like @12:00A and @10:30A can clearly illustrate the theme of this blog: the reflexively tribal response.
“deadrat can’t be a liberal. He doesn’t like Rachel Maddow, and she’s on our team.” There’s little that’s more contemptible.
I gave examples of RM’s incompetence. Didja check for yourself? Didja ask for details? Of course not.
Are there liberal commentators that I like? Didja bother to ask? (Hint: yes)
Are there conservative commentators that I don’t like? Didja bother to ask that? (Hint: Yes, Katie. All of them.)
If you think I’m a troll, then you don’t know what a troll is. And this site is infested with them, from Mao, our Village Troll, to the jerk who posts using my nym. Hell, I even have my own personal concern troll: look for a response comment about tone.
If you think I’m stupid, then you haven’t read comments by David in Cal, our Village Idiot.
You deserve each other.
What does that mean? That I have a high opinion of myself when I'm really not worth much?Delete
And yet you took time out of your busy day to comment on such as me. Go figure.
Dude, piss off.
It means you're posts are self absorbed and annoying.Delete
Another comment that made me laugh. Here, let me fix the grammar for you:Delete
It means you're self absorbed and your posts are annoying.
That you're, your thing can be tricky.
OK, when was my last comment in which I talked about myself at length? I'll bet you can cite the last time I even mentioned myself because although my comments are "annoying," you're (not your) reading every one.
And feel the need to comment. Another Anonymous fan.
You're not doing much to damp down my self-regard, Sparky.
Thanks for proving my point!Delete
No, no. Thanks for proving mine, fanboy.Delete
Super wpis. PozdrawiamReplyDelete