While I am appalled at how pervasive sexual harassment and assault appears to have been in those two specific areas, I can at least take heart that the victims now feel emboldened enough to come forth not only for their personal healing but also to spare others from being in the same position. Nevertheless, it still saddens me that said victims had to suffer in silence for so long.
When powerful men like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill O'Reilly, Louis C.K., etc. are rendered persona non grata literally overnight, it's quite clear that such abhorrent behaviors now have an absolute zero tolerance in any segment of society. But with that said, I'm certain I'm not the only one who has pondered why this behavior was able to go on for so long. And what possessed these high profile personalities to believe that their insidious behavior was beyond reproach? Was there anything that could have halted this years ago?
Matt Yglesias posed a query worth considering.
I wonder how much healthier a place we’d be in as a society today if Bill Clinton had resigned in shame back in 1998.— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 10, 2017
Is it possible that a leader of the free world voluntarily moving on due to using his position of power to do whatever he pleased would've given pause to others abusing their authority? There's no way to know for certain, but I can't imagine Clinton slinking back to Arkansas wouldn't have been a deterrent to some.
----------------------------------------------
3 comments:
How much of this is truth, how much of it is simple grandstanding, and how much of it is political poison? I mean, the Post sits on a story for months, and then just a few weeks before a critical special election, lets fly, with maximum damage based on minimum (possible) truth behind 30-year-old allegations? Who are the roaches in such a situation?
Jerry, I assume you're referring to the Roy Moore controversy? Where do you get they sat on it for months? If so, we would be having roaches scatter from under one counter simply to find another.
Which is my unease; are many people getting it because they're among the worst offenders, or because they are now "expendable"? I'm not sad that Harvey Weinstein is on the outs, or really even Roy Moore, but there is something reminiscent of the Senate offing Cicero in a lot of this, if some reports are to be believed.
And the failure of the Senate to punish obvious perjury and obstruction of justice certainly feeds this--Bill Clinton was required by the left, so he stayed no matter what he did. Don't think that the Weinsteins and Nassars of the world didn't notice. (check out Aly Raisman's 60 minutes interview--she's a natural for root cause analysis, I think)
Correct. The charges are 30 years old, and reports (I cannot quote sources) say the Post knew about it months ago. If true, the Post and testimony are suspect. If not, the allegations are suspect, simply as a matter of timing.
And I don't know whether this is a comeuppance long overdue, or if we have a bunch of women who want their 15 seconds of fame for being #metoo. In other words, I don't know whether the first accuser has more credibility, or the second, but probably not the last. But this trial by media crap needs to stop, since they are wrong so often.
Post a Comment