Saturday, January 27, 2018

Time's up, Hillary

[This piece is written by RebeccaElaineMarciaAnnAva and C.I.]

A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.

So her pet goes on to work for David Brock and the Correct the Record (Hillary front group) and is eventually fired there.

Time’s up, Hillary.

You’ve posed forever and a day as a feminist.

Time’s up.

You covered for Bill Clinton’s behavior and continue to do so.

You ran on his record and you chose to “Stand By Your Man” despite you infamously declaring in 1992 that you weren’t a little woman standing by your man.

So his assaults are now your assaults.

You refused to speak to that.

But you stood by him and talked about how victims should be believed.

But you ignored your own husband.

Even limiting it to Monica Lewinsky alone, did you not see the abuse? 

We’re talking a very young woman.

And he wasn’t any older man, he was the President of the United States.

Bill making moves with Sharon Stone?

She’s an experienced adult.

Monica was a 22-year-old.

World of difference.

And yet where are her words of warning, where are her words of regret?

Or maybe she’d like to claim that, as with her vote for the Iraq War, this was all Bully Boy Bush’s fault?

That’s setting aside Paula Jones.

Maybe we shouldn’t?

He settled with her.  The Supreme Court disbarred him as a result of “the Jones issue.”

Maybe Hillary should have something to say there.

The affair with Gennifer Flowers was consensual, so we’ll leave that alone.

There’s Juanita Broaddrick who states she was raped by Bill Clinton and we believe her but clearly Hillary does not.

We repeatedly noted throughout 2016 that if this were any other candidate, this rape would be an issue.

Hillary was married to Bill when the alleged rape took place.

Hillary is still married to him.

Kitty Dukakis was an issue for her drinking when her husband was running.

But Hillary being married to a man publicly accused of rape resulted in no serious coverage.

To this day, no one has asked her about it in a television interview.

She ran for the US Senate.  She ran for re-election to the US Senate.  She ran for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination.  She ran for president in 2016.

Four public campaigns.

And the candidate was never asked about the rape allegation.

And, for the record, Bill has never publicly spoken.  The only ‘statement’ was one delivered by a spokesperson when he was president.

Danny Masterson and Ed Westwick both lost jobs recently based solely on rape accusations.

But a presidential candidate can run for office with a spouse that has been accused and no one asks?

The same spouse settled a harassment lawsuit and that’s not a question for the candidate?

A candidate who’s running as a feminist?

As a protector of women and children?

Hillary championed Brett McGurk for Ambassador to Iraq – despite what it would have done to Iraqi women.

He would have been the US Ambassador to Iraq.  And because of his reputation of being a playboy in Iraq previously (treating his ‘blue balls’), it would have made women interacting with him suspect.  He was branded an adulterer in Iraq, grasp that there is a conservative strain in this religious country

Hillary didn’t give a damn.

If a number of US senators – spearheaded by two female senators – hadn’t met with then-President Barack Obama and given a firm no to Brett, he would not have withdrawn his nomination.

Our ‘feminist’ Hillary didn’t care that Brett as US Ambassador would mean only Iraqi males could interact with him in a society that frowns on adultery and can still carry out so-called ‘honor’ killings.

And speaking of Iraqi women, Hillary also refused to champion them.   From the July 9, 2016 "Iraq snapshot:"

Trashy Hillary Clinton could pimp Iraq as a business opportunity.

But the alleged 'feminist' couldn't and wouldn't do a damn thing for Iraqi women.

This is most obvious in the e-mails WikiLeaks published this week.

Melanne Verveer e-mails Hillary on December 11, 2011:

We attempted to raise the issue of women's participation in the Iraq government, in their economy and more broadly when Biden was just in Baghdad.  Jeff Feltman was trying to get it into the conversations there.

You will recall the comments of the Iraqi who participated in the NGO meeting with you in Doha about how the door has been closed to women in the government.  We have had many discussions with impressive Iraqi women over the last couple years, and to a person they describe their fate as worse now than years ago.  Yet without them it will be even harder for Iraq to move forward.  To that end, we have been working with post on a action plan along the lines of the National Action Plan on women, peace and security, you will launch next week.
I hope you will find a way to raise the "women's issue" in your discussion tom'w.

And what does the 'great feminist' of all time, the woman with the highest cabinet position in the administration respond:

I raised women's issue w Maliki and Zebari.  Can't say either of them seemed interested.  But, we'll keep trying -- as always!

Despite the reality that her vote for the Iraq War destroyed the lives of Iraqi women.

And her State Dept was said to be a hotbox of misconduct. 

Philippe Reins served under Hillary and his harassment was noted in an e-mail exchange with the late  journalist Michael Hastings – a point only a few pointed out.

Patrick Kennedy reported to Hillary and vicious rumors swirled about him.

Over and over again, Hillary has taken a pass.

Yet wants to insist that she’s a champion of girls and women.


And we haven’t even noted her refusal to fire close pal Huma Abedin.

Loyalty’s good.  To a point.

When your pal’s becoming a distraction to your campaign, you cut your losses.  Failure to do so indicates you won’t be able to make hard choices should you become president.

Yet another sex scandal and Hillary can’t shut it down but thinks she can be president.

Huma’s husband (whom she’s still married to at this point) went to prison.

And Hillary wouldn’t cut her loose?

He was a danger to underage women and Hillary wouldn’t cut Huma loose.

She keeps saying she’s a friend to women and children but she keeps providing cover for predators.

THE NEW YORK TIMES has reported one more example of how you can be a predator and have Hillary’s full support.

It’s time for people to stop pretending that she’s an example of anything other than a worn out door mat.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Truest statement of the week

There is one thing missing from  the upcoming Women’s March publicity and philosophy: the urgent need for Peace not War!

The March will speak out against hate, discrimination and exploitation. That’s good.

The March will also speak out strongly in favor of equality, women’s reproductive choice and respect for all people regardless to disability, gender, orientation, etc.. That’s also good.

But the subject of US military aggression and war is essential. We hope that many marchers will include this in their signage and discussions.  Despite many antiwar groups and individuals actively advocating for “peace” to be in the platform/demands of the March, this is the second year peace is being minimized or ignored by the organizers.

-- Cindy Sheehan and Rick Sterling, "Peace Should Be Integral to the Women's March" (CINDY SHEEHAN'S SOAPBOX).

A note to our readers

Hey --

It's early Monday morning.

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?

It goes to Cindy Sheehan and Rick Sterling.
The shutdown won't effect the wars.
Ava and C.I. examine how some are returning from their winter finales.
Last week was one piece only, a piece written by Ava and C.I.  We've never had a piece read more.  It's the most read piece here ever -- and that's in one week whereas some of the others are a decade or more older.  It also resulted in a ton of e-mails.  So I discussed some of that with Ava and C.I.
We discuss a few issues.
She said it.
Why is Mira, who won't work with Woody Allen, working with rapist William Hurt?

Moses Farrow.
What we listened to while writing.
Important news from WSWS.

See you next week.


-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: There's always money for war

The shutdown, the government shutdown that the media can't shut up about?

It's not really a shutdown at all.

As Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes:

According to the Trump administration—and on this, there is no difference between the Republican president and his “opposition” among the congressional Democrats—the vast American military-intelligence apparatus must remain on duty, killing people overseas, patrolling battlefields on distant continents, and spying on the entire world, including the American population.
As Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan wrote in a memo Thursday, the US military “will, of course, continue to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and ongoing operations against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, including preparation of forces for deployment into those conflicts.”
But federal government functions that actually relate to the health and welfare of the American people will be shut down as inessential. This includes furloughing more than 60 percent of the staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (under conditions of a rampaging nationwide flu epidemic), 80 percent of the Department of Education (including supplementary funding for local public schools throughout the country), and a staggering 95 percent of the employees of the National Transportation Safety Board, (shutting down investigations into such disasters as the recent commuter rail crash in Washington state).

There's always money for war.  In fact, this country will spend its way into the poor house to continue wars -- including the Iraq War.

Iraq never attacked the US.

But we're about to hit year 15 of the Iraq War and it will keep going because there's always money for war.

Both major political parties agree, war is a necessity.

Human life?

Not so very much.

And that's why in the latest nonsense passing as 'protest' we saw yet again no speakers concerned with the ongoing wars.

The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict by Linda J.... via

TV: Returns of the season

Returns can be difficult.  One of the most infamous returns followed the Moldavian Massacre.  ABC's mega-hit DYNASTY ended season five with a wedding in Moldavia, a wedding that terrorists shot up leaving, in the last seconds of the show, every cast member (except Michael Nader, Heather Locklear and 1/2 of Linda Evans) lying on the ground in pools of blood.

a new illst

The cliffhanger became the most talked of cliffhanger of the year and only "Who shot J.R.?" rivaled it as a cliffhanger.  But the thing about epic cliffhangers?

They can be very hard to return from.

In DYNASTY's case, it shouldn't have been such a huge let down with the season six premiere.  But the producers wanted to play hardball with Joan Collins (easily the show's biggest draw) and she didn't show for the taping of that episode.  No Alexis was bad.

Worse was the dead.

In an episode with a violent cliffhanger, never tell an existing character that it's over and you're leaving after the wedding.  Lady Ashley (Ali MacGraw) ends up dead.

If you're a minor character in a same-sex relationship and your partner tells you that you two will get married right after this wedding, look out.  Luke Fuller (Billy Campbell) ends up dead.

The whole cast (except for two and a half cast members) shot up and the only ones dead are two minor characters -- one on for fourteen episodes, the other for nineteen?

They could have focused more (and should have) on Heather Locklear's Sammy Jo who wasn't at the wedding and was busy creating a con with Krystal look-alike Rita (both Krystal and Rita were played by Linda Evans).  With Joan Collins not there and the dead amounting to little more than two extras, Sammy Jo and Rita should have been the whole episode.

Instead, they tried to come back.  And in real time.

And helped destroy the series in the process.

Since then, some have learned.

November and December saw winter finales.

We're now seeing some shows return.

HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER picked up in real time from their winter finale.  And managed to do so with a tightly focused episode that resolved some questions but raised even more.  Viola Davis anchored the episode as Annalise.  Rebecca's compared Viola's work in the episode to Jane Fonda's Academy Award winning performance in KLUTE.  We agree.  Some of her finest movements were dialogue free.  And the entire cast did an excellent job.

Another return that was well handled was THE BLACKLIST.  Is Tom really dead?  Please, say it isn't so.  But the show chose to return via Elizabeth (Megan Boone) off in a secluded area, far from Red (James Spader) and the FBI.  She's dealing with her grief over Tom's death and ends up forced back into reality since she attracts misfortune the way the Bush family attracts crime.  It was a strong return that avoided the real time, pick up where the last scene of the finale left off.

GRACE AND FRANKIE also returned well.  They jumped months ahead to after Frankie (Lily Tomlin) moved off with Jacob (Ernie Hudson).  She's returned because one of her sons (Baron Vaughn's Bud) is about to become a father.  She's not happy to observe that Grace (Jane Fonda) has a new roommate (Lisa Kudrow's Sherree) or that life's gone on without her.  More importantly, she no longer feels unique and wants to come home.  It was a funny and sharp opening.  And a reminder that you don't have to pick up from the very last minute.

Not every return was so successful.

MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD was just confusing.  You might be mid-way through the episode before you grasped what was going on -- with the constant time shifting.  But then that show has never known how to plot a season.  Worse was FREE FORM's BEYOND.  An engaging series returned with two episodes and mainly left you confused as to what was going on, what had happened, where you were  and did anything from last season matter?

As bad as both of those were, they had nothing on SCANDAL which easily wins as the worst return of this season.  The winter finale, for those who've forgotten, had Olivia (Kerry Washington) going to her father's home (Joe Morton plays her father).  He wanted his bones back -- the dinosaur he's been putting together.  He had told Olivia that he would kill Quinn (Katie Lowes) if she didn't give him back his bone.  Olivia, who had reasons to want Quinn to shut up (lest the president find out that Olivia killed the president's love interest), said no deal.  Her father left the room and we heard gunshots.

When we pick up, Quinn is dead.  As the episode concludes, we learn that she somehow delivered a baby while she was kidnapped and before she was killed.  Charlie (George Newbern) discovers the baby at Eli "Rowan" Pope's home.

The episode was largely meaningless.

Outside of Guillermo Diaz's Huck, no one moved you or really seemed torn.  Charlie has the excuse of shock, Quinn disappeared on her wedding day.  No one else had that excuse.  And no one but Guillermo deserved praise for their acting.

The absolute worst part of it?

Quinn.  They used her death to manipulate us and remember how angry viewers were when FAMILY GUY killed off Brian?  And how they felt even more used and manipulated when it was all a big f-you to viewers?

Yeah, that's the sort of cheap tactics that SCANDAL resorted to.

There are ways to return and, all these years after MTM turned every genre of TV into a 'continuing drama' (soap opera), you'd think the show runners and networks would have learned.

But when do they ever?

For example, last week also saw another extreme case of Whitewashing or Whiteface: Catherine Zeta-Jones, Welsh woman, playing Griselda Blanco in COCAINE GODMOTHER.  That's right, there's nothing Latina about her but she's playing a Latina.  It's as though it was suddenly 1940 again and the Danish Gale Sondergaard is playing the Eurasian Mrs. Hammond in THE LETTER.  Hint to LIFETIME and to Catherine, when the lead is Latina, you hire a Latina to play the role.  Yes, that might deprive us from seeing Catherine star in such future projects as EDGING AND ORGASM: THE JOYCELN ELDERS STORY and NAGAKO KOJUN: FROM PRINCESS TO EMPRESS but, not only will we live, we'll also be a lot better off as a result.

Jim speaks with Ava and C.I. about last week's edition

Jim: Okay, last week's entire edition was one article, "Media: 'It's very rude of him,' she said, 'To come and spoil the fun!'" by Ava and C.I.  We had a lot of e-mails and we -- Ava, C.I. and myself -- are going to address some of them.  This will be a rush transcript.  No tears for typos.

Image result for the third estate sunday review

Jim (Con't): We have no prepared artwork for this piece because it wasn't planned so we'll toss in things after we've typed it based on what we can find that we've used before for other stories.  First off, 20 e-mails note that you accused Bryan Singer.

C.I.: That's fair.  But they might want to read what we wrote last week and what we wrote in the Singer piece.

Jim: Okay, from last week, "We've called out Al Franken and we've called out Harvey Weinstein.  We did so because we know them and we know what they did."  And now from "TV: The gifted?:"

Pattern is important.

So is response.

And, sorry, but Bryan Singer's failed both.

He's failed to condemn the issue -- despite denying that he's abused any boys himself.

He's also much too connected to abusers.

We've noted his involvement in DEM and with Marc Collins-Rector and that he was in business with Collins-Rector and socialized and tub-partied with Collins-Rector.

Then there's Brian Peck.

He's another buddy of Bryan Singer and, yes, he's another convicted child molestor.

His conviction came in 2004.

Before the conviction, Singer cast Peck in a small role in X-MEN.  After the conviction, he cast him in a small role in X-MEN 2.  Singer and Peck also teamed up to do the commentary on the DVD of X-Men.

We're not seeing any revulsion on the part of Singer.

We're seeing someone who has been repeatedly accused of abusing boys and who has repeatedly chosen to surround himself with pedophiles.

No, we're not interested in reviewing THE GIFTED.

We're not interested in being like NICKELODEAN which also employed Peck and still employs an alleged child abuser (this one a man who targets young girls).

We're also not interested in smearing someone.  David Walsh (WSWS) has expressed concern about sexual McCarthyism.

We can see his point.

We also realize that a group of people pointing and screaming "Witch!" does not make anyone a witch.

Bryan Singer has every right to defend himself.  He has every right to denounce us as "liars" and worse.

We don't deny him that right.

But we're very troubled by what is publicly known and what is personally told to us.

Ava: What we wrote was that we called out Harvey and Al because we knew personally what they had done.  We didn't with Bryan Singer.  We knew what we were told.  But we had never observed anything.

C.I.: And I believe, further in the piece, we note a friend who has spoken to us about his abuse at the hands of Bryan Singer.  We don't claim to have observed it.  We didn't want to write the article, we had avoided THE GIFTED but we tackled the issue.  We offered our belief.  That's very different from Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein whom we repeatedly called out.

Jim: Okay.  Fourteen e-mails called out Ava for the Kirk Douglas raped Natalie Wood issue -- only three of those also called out C.I.  It's pointed out that you don't know.

Ava: I do know from her family members.

C.I.: And I've long noted for years now that I knew Natalie Wood.  So I'd assume the eleven calling Ava out but not me are assuming this is something I knew through my friendship with Natalie.  They would be correct.  Natalie was a friend.  And I have something else to say regarding Natalie.  I don't know if this is the place, it's about work, not assault.

Jim: This should be the place because outside of those 14, there were hundreds of e-mails praising you two for raising the issue of Kirk Douglas and, C.I., you specifically for your posts at THE COMMON ILLS.

C.I.: I wanted to scream at The Golden Globes.  I couldn't believe so many were standing -- not everyone did, thank goodness.  But when I typed that first thing on my  phone, it was that or scream.  Anyway, I see that Robert Redford is now trying to pretend he's all for women and their representation in his films.  Strange.  Because Robert didn't want Natalie in his films.  Oh, sure, he needed her to break into films and then, later, he needed her for a cameo in THE CANDIDATE.  But when Natalie needed him, she couldn't even get an interview for BRUBAKER -- for the part that Jane Alexander eventually played -- and played poorly but that's the story of Jane.  A friend did a profile on Robert years ago.  He came to me beforehand talking about the way Robert's p.r. maiden was making demands about this being off limits and that.  I said ask him why he's afraid of strong women.  And he did.  He asked Robert and Robert stammered and tried to point to his p.r. woman, the hideous Pat Newcomb, and then finally brought up that he had made three films with Jane Fonda.  "And Jane's strong."  At that point, it was over eleven years since he'd last worked with Jane.  Not only was he a dick about BRUBAKER -- and Natalie would have been a strong addition to that film -- but his films ignore women.  Look at what he's directed.  ORDINARY PEOPLE -- a kid, a doctor and two parents are the main characters -- that's one actress in the mix.  THE MILAGRO BEANFIELD WAR?  14 main roles, only three are women.  A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT? A story about the characters played by Brad Pitt, Craig Sheffer and Tom Skerritt.  And QUIZ SHOW had 19 lead and supporting characters.  Number of women?  Two, both supporting characters.  THE HORSE WHISPERER's a romance so the six main characters are three men and three women -- well two women and a teenage girl.  THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE -- deserves mention Robert finally finds a way to cast an African-American in a lead role -- too bad the role is degrading and insulting. Also deserves noting that there's one woman in the main cast of ten people.  LIONS FOR LAMB has a main cast of eight -- only one is a woman. THE CONSPIRATOR has a main cast of 32 -- only three are women and that includes the bit character of Mary Todd Lincoln who is barely present in a movie about the assassination of Abe Lincoln. THE COMPANY YOU KEEP has 2 main characters -- both men -- and fourteen supporting characters -- 10 are men, four are women.  That's how he sees the world.  That's what he's elected to create in films he directs, films where he controls representation.  Women are not agents of their own destiny, they have no power, they aren't even very interesting -- certainly not interesting enough to have a story revolve around them.  That's who Robert Redford is.

Image result for the third estate sunday review

Jim: Okay.  We had a few e-mails arguing that you should have held your piece until everyone was finished.

Ava: It's now over two hours since we should have been asleep.  We're both tired of this s**t.  We have to be up and on a plane in less than six hours and yet here we are again wasting our Sunday nights/Monday morning.  Sorry, we wrote our piece for this edition and finished it long ago.  I'm going to be really honest, Jim, I'm getting sick of the fact that we can't get this together and under control.  It shouldn't take this long.  I'll also point out that when our pieces do not go up on time because the rest of the edition isn't finished that means we have to try to work everyone in to our Monday evening schedule and the first hour of that we'll be nonsense.  And then maybe we'll get to work on something or maybe we won't and we'll get together over the phone on Tuesday.  It's not fair.  If you'll want to do that, do it.  But we've done our part and our week has started.  I am damn tired of spending hours and hours on a Sunday and not having an edition up.  It's why I want to quit, it's why I wish the site would go dark.

C.I.: And, as Dona pointed out in this week's roundtable, if our piece had not gone up when we wrote it, we would have had to add to it throughout the week until THIRD was finally ready to publish.

Jim: Of those complaining about the edition being only your work, Gilbert offered, "You two" Ava and C.I. "seem to think you are THIRD."

Image result for "the third estate sunday review"

C.I.: Based on?

Ava: Sorry, Gilbert, you're wrong.  We're perfectly fine with doing nothing but a TV piece.  Please note, we never get a week off from this site, never. Ever.  We were supposed to be off Christmas week but then, Jim, you had problems -- family issues -- and we had to come back and oversee that edition.  We never get a week off.  If we are THIRD -- and I don't say we are -- it's because we're always here, week after week, and no one else of the core group that makes up THIRD -- that would you, Dona, Jess and Ty besides us -- can say that.  We've never claimed we're THIRD.  We'd love to take a week off.

Jim: What if Dylan is telling the truth wondered five people.

Ava: What if she is?  I don't believe the story.

C.I.: And watching her last week, it's clear that she's not so sure herself.  It was there in her voice, it was there in her movements.  For the first time ever, even Dylan's not sure.  She won't admit it yet but that day may come sooner than anyone thinks.  Mia was a lousy mother and that's something Dylan's having to deal with now.  Dylan's story has never made sense.  Until Dylan began attacking others, we ignored it.  We overlooked it.  I know Dylan.  I know Mia.  I supported both.  But by the time Dylan became an adult the story was in trouble.  It doesn't make sense.

Jim: Maureen Orth says it does.

C.I.: Tim Russert's wife is as questionable as Tim.  And she's also saying she's not friends with Mia -- this despite her passing on tidbits to Janet Malcolm and others about her friend Mia.  Tell another lie, Maureen, maybe the ones who don't know you will believe you.

Jim: ______ doesn't believe Woody Allen.

C.I.: Take her name out of the story.  I'll talk about her if you do.  She doesn't know Woody.  She doesn't know Mia.  She's come under attacks herself for the last few years.  Which is the only reason I've held my tongue.  But, Woody Allen attacker, I must be the only one in the industry who listens and everyone tells me their problems.  Point being, Woody Allen attacker that we're not naming here, I'm fully aware of pictures taken of your then-11-year-old daughter, was it, that were considered child pornography and that you were very lucky the government didn't get ahold of.  In other words, while you're acting all high and mighty riding that high horse, I'm perfectly aware that you let your man take photos of your 11-year-old daughter nude, photos that were almost turned over to the feds because they were, in fact, kiddie porn.  Don't play high and mighty.  I've held my tongue but I can only do that for so long.  There are so many people attacking Woody Allen who might want to tend to their own gardens.  And, for the record, I was Mia's friend.  I've never spoken to Woody since the two broke up.  I don't speak to Mia anymore because she's a War Hawk who doesn't support abortion rights.  But when I say Dylan's lying, I'm not saying it because I'm Woody's friend.

Jim: Kevin Spacey.  You are both defending him to the surprise of some readers.

Ava: According to media reports, there is an investigation into one case.  If that investigation concludes wrong doing on Spacey's part, so be it.  Until then, we're not seeing any incident that proves conclusively that he's some appalling person.  We noted that we believe Anthony Rapp's story.  But we also point out that Anthony should consider how it appeared to a drunken Kevin Spacey -- Rapp says he was drunk.  A party guest has gone into Kevin's bedroom.  It's after midnight, the party's over.  Kevin comes in, drunk, to find a guy on his bed.  He made a pass.  As many a drunk person -- male or female -- might.  When Anthony broke away, Kevin asked if he was sure and Anthony maintained he was.  Kevin didn't then run after him or try to stop him.  That is not a story of rape or attempted rape.  It's a story of a drunken person finding someone in their bed after midnight and wrongly assuming that the person was there wanting to have sex.

Jim: Three people e-mailed that you wrote that his statements describing what happened seemed homophobic and they want you to know that Rapp is gay.

Ava: We know he is.  That's not a secret.  But it's also true his revulsion, read his statements, about the photo of Kevin hugging a man and his description of Kevin picking him up "like a bride" are made in a very anti-gay manner.  Read them.  It's like "Let's create a frenzy around gay men!"  Kevin makes passes at adult males?  Oh my heavens! Let's clutch the pearls!  No, I don't care if he makes passes.  If he sexually harasses someone, if someone loses a job or is punished because they don't put out for Kevin, I care about that.  Otherwise, it's his business, it's not a book I care to buy or open.

Image result for "the third estate sunday review"

Jim: You two also defended Ben.

C.I.: Ben Affleck is someone we both know.  We could have done a better job of defending him but we were limited in what we could say.  What we tried to get across was that this was a guy who'd been a teenager and then a young man who felt not good looking, who felt like women looked at everyone but him, then, after a stylist gets ahold of him, women are suddenly humming around him, buzzing like bees.  And he responds in a manner that's not gentlemanly and, yes, is inappropriate.  But he dealt with it and redirected his behavior.  Did so long ago.  Grabbing a butt is not the end of the world.  There are issues surrounding his brother.  Those are issues for Casey Affleck to address.  They are not issues Ben has to address nor do they go to Ben's own actions.  Kirk Douglas is vile and disgusting.  My believing that does not mean I believe that Michael Douglas must be guilty of charges against him because he's Kirk's son.  I hope Michael's innocent of the charges and I have no reason to believe that he's not.

Jim: A woman, Margaret B., e-mailed that last week's piece seemed to be you two saying what Matt Damon said.  She writes, "Why did it take you a month to weigh in?"

Ava: It didn't.  If you go back to December, you can read "Media: Dialogue" which we wrote in our first piece after Matt Damon made his remarks.  We don't like Matt.  We did give him the benefit of the doubt.  We cover the media in some form week after week.  Our views are not fixed and they can evolve.  We try to observe trends and comment on them.  I think we've done a pretty good job.  And it's a hard job.  A lot of people thought, after we'd carved out our space online, that the could copy us.  They soon gave up.  Often quickly.  Because it's not a fun job.  You're not throwing roses, you're throwing rocks.  You're having to hit on important issues and call people out.  Sometimes that means calling out our own friends.  It's not easy.  I wish it were.  I wish it were so that people would be doing it all over the net.  But even the brief phase of intense copying of us didn't last very long.  I think the longest feminist who hung it made it 18 months.  We've been doing this since January 2005.  It's hard work.  We're not perfect, we're going to make mistakes.  But crucify us for what we've actually done, not what you mistakenly think we've done.

Jim: Two e-mailed stating they didn't know why they were e-mailing, it's not like you'd read it anyway.

Image result for "the third estate sunday review"

Ava: You yourself have said our priority is getting material up at the site not being pen pals.  We're both busy.  Unlike so many at websites today, we realize the Iraq War continues.  We're still speaking out to groups -- women's groups, students, you name it -- about the wars every week.  We do that.  I also have a young daughter to raise.  And C.I.'s got THE COMMON ILLS to take care of.  And we have our own lives.  And, no, we don't have time to read the e-mails that come in.  I wish we did.  I wish every weekend wasn't about us wondering, "How are we going to think of what to write this weekend?  What can we cover?"  But that's how it is.  And there is not time to read e-mails on top of that.  When everyone takes off and we have to steer an entire edition?  Those are the weeks we also have to read the e-mails.  And whether we read them or not, they are read.  Ty usually reads them, Jim you read some of them.  We hear about them.  But there are hundreds each week and there's no way we have time to read them ourselves every week.  Sorry.

Jim: This edition, you do a lower expectations piece.  That's your usual pattern when you feel like you've hit hard to come back with something different.

Ava: Because we can't sing the exact same song every week.  We need to do things differently.

C.I.: The only reason we had something to write this week was because of the Whitewashing of casting Catherine Zeta-Jones -- and not a Latina actress -- to play a Colombian.  That's appalling.  It's disgusting.  It's those moments, that's probably a paragraph out of the whole piece, that make it worth it to us.

Ava: Exactly.

Jim: Now the bulk of the e-mails, the majority by a landslide, were praising the piece you wrote last weekend, I don't want to give the wrong impression.

Ava: I don't think you have.  And we've had our say, we're fine with you having your say.  We want a dialogue, we're not trying to control a conversation.

C.I.: A feminist viewpoint, that's what we try to present.  Not "the" feminist viewpoint.

Jim: Okay, I guess we'll wrap up with that so we can get to work on the editorial.


Jim: It's roundtable time.   Judging by your e-mails, you're ready for one.  On the topic of e-mails, remember our e-mail address is  Participating in our roundtable are  The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.


Jim (Con't): If there's one message in the e-mails that came in last week, it's "Time's up -- for self-indulgence."  Michelle Williams has hit her sell-by-date.  Stan, you were cc'd on a number of those e-mails, so feel free to take this topic -- you covered it in "Aziz and Michelle" and, Marcia, you wrote about it with "Michelle Williams sucks" so jump in as well.  Basic issue, Michelle didn't ask for money to do reshoots of ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD and then?

Marcia: Had a hissy fit that Mark Wahlberg did ask and did get $1.5 million.  He had casting approval in his contract.  They were replacing Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plumber.  So Michelle who wanted to do the reshoot for free suddenly is sucking on sour grapes, having a hissy fit and orchestrating a shaming of Mark Wahlberg until he forks over $1.5 million.  Best public blackmail of 2018.  She should win an award for greed and extortion -- and, as I note in my post, I used to love Michelle.  But she's a money grubber and someone who has no ethics at all.

Stan: I'd agree with that.  You don't ask for money for the reshoots and then you throw a little fit because someone else did and gets it.  And there's also the fact that greedy didn't want to do her reshoots on THE GREATEST SHOWMAN.  She's so greedy.  And she's such a f**king coward.  She orchestrated the whole thing, as she made clear once Mark gave up the money, but she did it from behind the scenes like a cheap little coward.  She hid behind others.  Her career's over.  She's what, climbing to forty, she's got nothing to show for it as a leading actress.  Reese Witherspoon, by contrast, was already storming the box office with films and had an Academy Award for best actress by the time she was Michelle's age.  It's over for Michelle.  American doesn't like greedy and she hijacked the MeToo movement to blackmail someone.  It's telling, isn't it, that she went after an actor and not the studio in charge of paying them.

Marcia: Trash.  That's all she is.  And she doesn't seem to realize that, in a country where the national minimum wage, is $7.25 and here's some pampered performer whining about millions?  Did she really think America was going to be on her side?  Stupid.  And who loves a blackmailer?  She should be ashamed.  Oh, how sad, the pretty blond is suffering.  Give us all a break.

Jim: Anyone want to offer a defense?  No?

Rebecca: No.  And I'll echo Ava and C.I. from last week's "Media: 'It's very rude of him,' she said, 'To come...'," I did not want to believe Michelle had anything to do with any of this but then along comes Michelle's statement and, yeah, she was hiding in the shadows running a shakedown.  What trash she is.

Trina: And I don't need to watch a festival of political.  It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, I'm watching to (a) have some fun and (b) see acting honored.  If it has to do with your role, okay.  And I don't mind the Tibet shout outs that used to be required -- apparently, from what Richard Gere's said, a thing of the past now that Hollywood's so dependent upon China.  But I don't need your pretending how wonderful and woke you are.  Very few speeches at the Golden Globe covered it for an awards show.  I thought Alexander Skarsgard was charming.  I didn't feel that way about so many on the stage.  And it was all nonsense, the pretense to give a s**t.  They're wearing black?  Like Rose McGowan, I thought it was wallowing not standing.  Then they don't even invite Rose?  She should have been up on that stage making a statement.  That was the only one we needed to hear from, the one who showed bravery.  Third? Applauding Kirk Douglas when we all know who raped Natalie Wood.  I mean the BBC documentary couldn't say his name but they managed to cut to a theater with his name on it when Lana Wood's talking about the actor-producer who raped her sister.  But so many were standing and applauding Kirk Douglas.  It was embarrassing and shameful.

Dona: Trina, you and Ann were talking before we started this roundtable, and noting David Walsh at WSWS who doesn't appear to support MeToo or let's say he supports due process more.  And you were saying that people are now getting where he was?

Ann: Right.  I know I'd highlighted him at my site and noted I disagreed with some of his points but, like Trina and I were saying, the way so many are trying to hijack it, I'm sick of it.  I think the movement has killed itself.  I don't see anything about some whiney Michelle Williams wanting to whine that she was paid what she asked for -- which was nothing -- or this nonsense of Dylan Farrow -- which has nothing to do with the workplace, even if you believe her and I don't believe her.  It was one thing to unite around issue of the workplace.  But this nonsense is beyond stupid.  Dylan insisting she was molested by a man who, in what, 80 years?, has never been accused of molesting anyone else?  Go away, Dylan, just go away.

Kat: Oh, I'm jumping in now.  I can't believe her.  Her story doesn't make sense unless you know Mia's childhood desires which is what Mia put in 'Woody's' mouth.  Woody wouldn't tell Dylan -- as Dylan maintains happened -- that they can go to Paris together and be together.  Now it was Mia -- as Ava and C.I. pointed out, what?, three years ago -- it was Mia who wanted to go to Paris as a child.  It's all the lies she planted in Dylan's head.  I heard Dylan in that interview going on about what is more believable -- that she's telling the truth or that it was planted in her head?  And then we find out that she wanted some doll and asked if it was okay to lie because Mia wouldn't give her the doll unless she lied and then she says Woody did it and she gets the doll.  And then there's the lie that she was laying in that attic on her belly watching the train set -- the train set that wasn't in the attic but has to be in the attic for her lie to work.  I mean she's a liar.  Moses Farrow talks about how Mia would browbeat you into saying what she wanted and that's what happened here.  Mia was scorned and petty and wanted to get back -- as she'd already threatened to do.

Isaiah: The whole thing's a lie. And that answers the question of why Mia left the house.  Her lie is that she worried about her daughter and insisted Dylan never be alone with Woody.  Then in July he comes for a rare visit and she goes off shopping?  Concerned Mia's out the door to go shopping?  Of course, she went shopping.  As she constructed the con, it was clear to her that if she'd been present, people wouldn't have seen her so sympathetically.  They would have rightly been saying, if you were there, how did your ex ever end up alone with Dylan?  So she splits so that she'll be able to blame, the next day, the babysitters.  The whole thing becomes a set up and if Dylan hadn't been so damn pathetic and greedy -- I get it, Mia favored her birth children over her adopted children and she promised Dylan she'd be the star of Maureen Orth's VANITY FAIR article but instead she lets Ronan shine again.  So then Dylan starts her whining.  And, in fairness to her, she's lied for Mia for years and years, she should have been the take away from the article.

Ruth: I love how no one wants to talk about the anti-Semitism on display as these White Europeans -- Mia and Dylan -- go after the Jew boy.  I'm Jewish, maybe that's why it registers.  But Woody dealt with these charges decades ago and they were found to not be believable.  But looks who's back, Dylan Farrow, one of the ugliest women I've seen on TV this year.  And it's not enough that she lie about Woody, she has to try to shame everyone who's worked with him.  She says they are "complicit."  Whatever.  I am sick of her whining.  I am sick of her lying.  I am sick of society that indulges these baseless attacks on a Jew.  If he weren't Jewish, I doubt very seriously this would continue.  She would have been told to shut up long ago, as she should be.  There was no truth to her claims decades ago and she thinks we have to believe her and support her.  All I know about you, Dylan Farrow, is that you're ugly and you lie.  Go away.  In fact, let's hashtag that #GoAwayYouToo!

Wally: If I can jump in and get back to Michelle Williams, the whole thing about ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD is disgusting and I would hope that it would register in the artistic community.  What did Kevin Spacey do?  The first accusation, he's apologized but doesn't remember it -- no surprise, he was drunk.  That incident did not take place on the set of ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD or even while it was being filmed.  But Kevin, without any trial, was stripped from the film.  I think that's disgusting and I don't like Kevin Spacey.

Marcia: I agree with what you're saying about stripping him out of the film.  I'm more sympathetic to Kevin and I think a case can be made that anti-gay hysteria -- still  a part of our society -- played into the take down of Kevin.

Jim: And, for more on that, see Marcia's "Some thoughts on Kevin Spacey."  Okay, it's interesting how Michelle's greed has damaged the cause for a lot of people -- I mean, we probably had 700 e-mails on that alone -- and the always publicity seeking behavior or Dylan Farrow trying to latch onto MeToo has hurt it.  And then there's the attack on Aziz Ansaria.  We're getting tons of e-mails about that as well.  But to drop back to something raised earlier, Marcia and the minimum wage, I mean, when are we going to talk about the class issues shaping this?  And so many other issues but there's no discussion of class right now.  And Ruth's right, there does seem to be a targeting of a special class of men.  Jews, racial minorities and gay men.  And when Michelle decided to hijack the movement, again I believe Marcia said this, why did she go after Mark Wahlberg -- an individual -- and not the studio that paid him?

Ty: Exactly.  The fakery is getting on a lot of people's nerves.  When we go through the e-mails to our site, what I'm seeing is support for a fighter like Rose McGowan but disappointment and disgust with a lot of people trying to latch onto the movement and hijack it.  This was supposed to have been a movement that did address class issues -- what's more important than to be safe at work?  But instead it became another wallow in victimhood moment.  I'm gay and I'm completely offended to this day that a bunch of women stood up at the Golden Globes and refused to acknowledge the many men who have been harassed and assaulted and who have come forward.  I'm glad that C.I. and Ava addressed that but then they've been addressing very real issues of homophobia since they started covering the media.  A lot of the women making speeches at the Globes, I've never heard them say one thing about homophobia.

Elaine: As should be obvious, this is a work place issue.  This a workplace where the workers include children.  There are very few industries in the US that you can say that about.  And safety is important.  Dylan Farrow's claims are about what supposedly took place within her family.  How typical of that spoiled brat that she wants to come forward and try to steal the attention that should be going to the Todd Bridges, Anthony Edwards, Corey Haims of today, yesterday and tomorrow.  Which one of those self-congratulating bitches bothered to call out Nikelodian -- a children's channel -- for employing convicted pedophiles?  Rose McGowan, I agree with the ones e-mailing, she's done something and she's been a voice -- a very real voice.  These others?  No.  They've not done anything and they certainly haven't protected children.

Betty: Support!  Let me put in a Tweet:

  1. Workers are dying because OSHA can't do its job.

Betty: This should be connected with other issues of worker safety -- not with poor Michelle only got X millions for doing the film oh poor Michelle.  This is about a safe work environment.  We have a right to be safe at work -- that includes no harassment, that includes safety procedures.  But no one wants to talk about what's going on with OSHA and how many more workers are getting hurt on the job.

Rebecca: Agreed.  But I don't think it's the MeToo movement as in "me also" or "me as well."  It's become the Me! Look at Me! MeToo movement.  Class issues are being ignored, issues of work safety are being ignored, it's a bunch of campaigning to see who can pretend to be the greater victim.  And depriving or attempting to deprive someone of their ability to work?  That is what Dylan Farrow is trying to do.

Cedric:  And that's when so many went from supporting her -- or at least just rolling their eyes in silence -- to calling her out.  She has gone after Diane Keaton, Alec Baldwin, Cate Blanchett and countless others insisting that they are 'complicit' in her supposed abuse.  She's trying to make it impossible for anyone to work with Woody Allen.  We don't believe you, Dylan.  And you can't prove it.  And too many people who were present -- including your brother Moses -- contradict your lies.  But you're trying to destroy people when maybe the only one you should destroy is yourself?  If you can't find peace for a single event that you claim happened nearly 30 years ago, maybe you should consider falling on your sword to get some peace.

Jess: This was a pro-Dylan site, I want that noted.  Before she started speaking, we were pro-Dylan.  She started speaking and then we had to re-evaluate.  She's not believable and she's harmed her own case.  Why, when she had a lot of people on her side?  Because she's got a huge ego and is a narcy obsessed with herself.  She needs the whole world to say "We're with you, Dylan!"  That's never going to happen and that's before the little blond girl who didn't speak for herself emerged as the overweight, neurotic mess that honestly believes the whole world needs to focus on 1992.

Ty: And it's not just her, it's also Mia.  Her own behavior has made it clear that she's not 'the good mother' she presented herself as -- she abused her children, she beat them.  And she's also not above floating that Ronan might be Frank Sinatra's son -- which was insulting not just to Woody but to Frank Sinatra's widow.  Then there's Mia's homophobia -- she's anti-choice and homophobic.  Poor little Ronan won't come out of the closet because Mommy doesn't want to deal with the homosexuality.  It's hilarious that the closet case Ronan is urging women to 'tell your truth' while he can't even say the words "I'm gay" publicly because Mommy can't handle the gays, Mommy can't handle it.  Mia's a freak and a hate queen.

Jim:  We need to wrap up and Mike hasn't spoken yet so let me go to him.  I believe everyone's spoken otherwise except Ava and C.I. who don't want to speak in this because they might speak next time.  I also know Dona has something she wants to address.  Mike?

Mike: Meryl Streep knew.  I don't know why she's allowed to lie.  But I think it's pathetic that what remains of our unions are not holding her accountable.  For lying about Harvey Weinstein?  No, for going around promoting Katharine Graham who was a union buster.  The unions around today should be condemning her for not just her portrayal of Graham but also for her glorification of the woman in one interview after another and never calling her out for how she destroyed unions.

Jim: Good point.  Dona?  You wanted to address something.

Dona: Yep.  Last week's edition consisted of one piece only, Ava and C.I.'s "Media: "It's very rude of him," she said, "To come..." which has some insisting various things in e-mails.  Ava and C.I. think it's all about them?  We lean too heavily on Ava and C.I.  Etc., etc.  They were asked to cover a variety of topics.  The piece they wrote took hours to write.  When it went up, it was revolutionary.  Some of the points they made would be made by other outlets later in last week.  But they went out on a limb and needed it up when it was written -- this piece that they hadn't planned on writing and didn't want to write.  Had they waited, as others came forward on Monday afternoon -- say, Ashleigh Banfield, for example -- they would have to redo their piece to include these people.  It was a requested feature.  We weren't able to match their speed with other efforts so it was the sole piece from last week.  It is also our most read piece ever.  In one week, it was more read than pieces with over a million views since they went up years ago -- a million views over time.  This was huge and I'm glad they posted it when they finished it.

Jim: Okay, that's going to be it.  This is a rush transcript.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }