Sunday, December 24, 2017

Silencing Meryl Streep




Recent attacks on Meryl Streep do not come from activists who actually care about the #MeToo movement or about how women are being treated in the arts and entertainment field. This attack was financed by wealthy conservatives in Hollywood:

Two of the three behind the "She Knew" posters claim they are financed by unnamed wealthy conservatives who pay them $5,000-$20,000 per "mission."

In a booth on the Westside of Los Angeles sit a trio of conservative provocateurs plotting their next "street art" prank on a liberal celebrity destined to be thrust into the limelight for reasons beyond their control. The restaurant has become a watering hole for conservatives who work in Hollywood and don’t usually share their political opinions with their liberal colleagues for fear of retribution.

Friends of Abe, the private group of Hollywood conservatives, used to meet at the same place. The three artists, in fact were often spotted at FOA gatherings, where actors like Tom Selleck, Gary Sinise, Robert Duvall, Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton generously hobnobbed with others in the entertainment industry who lacked their fame and fortune.

One of the street artists usually works independent of the others, but recently they’ve banded together to focus their efforts on Harvey Weinstein and all those who, they claim, allegedly enabled his predatory behavior for decades. Their aim is to call out Hollywood for its “hypocrisy,” they say. Two of them have careers in the industry to protect so they remain anonymous, and their anonymity is fodder for detractors who take to social media to call them out for cowardice and slander.

One justifies his secrecy by noting he’d surely be fired for his very public artwork — which sometimes amounts to attacks on actors, movies and TV shows he is associated with through his full-time job. Another is a freelancer in the industry who used to design interactive media for Steven Spielberg.

This is not a grass roots attack from the left. It's a smear campaign from people who should be exposed. And while I would agree that Streep probably knew something about how Harvey Weinstein treated women, I think it's also true that she might have been insulated from that because of the very nature of what he was doing to people. He had Miramax employees who were working to keep this out of the media. He had millions of dollars at his disposal. And he targeted people who could be smeared or driven from the industry. 

Notice the pattern here? And, yes, this comes to mind almost immediately, doesn't it? 






Credible voices on the left are being marginalized and silenced. Is this designed to make sure that Streep doesn't say anything next Spring when the Oscars rolls around? What's the difference between what they're doing to her and what members of Congress are doing to high-ranking officials at the FBI?

I'm not the only one who thinks this is being put out there to divide people:






 

Streep has been a mainstream film actress of the highest caliber for forty years. Weinstein was just manipulative enough to keep his secrets from her. So, while I think it's possible she knew, I also think it's possible that she didn't know and I don't need a bunch of conservative Hollywood jackasses who are afraid their names might be known to tell me that.

If they're so sure, they should put their names on their attack. 
















Sunday, December 17, 2017

Who Was This Guy on Frasier?




It may be a personality defect of mine or completely unfair, but I fucking hate Frasier and I thought he was the worst thing about Cheers every time I saw it. I hated his fucking show and I still can't believe it was on for eleven seasons.

The guy on the end is Dan Butler, who was on the show from 1993 to 2004. I have no memory of him being on Frasier because I never watched Frasier. Isn't that weird?

Anyway, my gripe against Netflix is--quit with this crap. I don't want to see Frasier. How do I block this from showing up in my recommendations and how can I let everyone know how annoyed I am?

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Jar Jar Binks is More Popular Than Trump

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes:


You know what else is more popular than Trump? Herpes, Charlie Manson, and being run over by a golf cart.















Tuesday, December 5, 2017

What Idiot Hurt Blake Lively?




Panic attack time:

Blake Lively has been injured on the set of new film The Rhythm Section, with production temporarily suspended.

Gossip Girl star Lively appears in the movie alongside Jude Law and Daniel Mays. Directed by The Handmaid’s Tale‘s Reed Morano and produced by Bond filmmakers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film is expected for release in February 2019.

A spokesperson for the film confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter that Lively “sustained an injury to her hand while filming an action sequence” and that “filming has been temporarily suspended” as a result.
















Monday, December 4, 2017

Women Do Not Have a Reason to Lie About Sexual Harassment




In this tense exchange between John Oliver and Dustin Hoffman, one thing leaps out at you:

When Oliver quoted from an account Hoffman’s accuser wrote, the actor asked Oliver, incredulous, “Do you believe this stuff you’re reading?” Oliver said he did “because she would have no reason to lie.”

I have to come down on Oliver's side here. 

How does a woman who is not in the public eye make money by accusing a famous person of sexual harassment or sexual assault? They can sue, obviously, but the burden of proof is very high and a settlement is likely only when there's a good chance the famous person will lose in a jury trial (which would be rare enough anyway).

So, why not believe someone when they tell a story like this and stop questioning their motive right off the bat? Why does it have to be about greed? Is there some mythical country where women are making millions by falsely accusing men of sexual harassment? The women who took millions from Fox News had proof that frightened a very expensive cabal of lawyers into shelling out huge settlements precisely because they couldn't get away with calling the women liars because they had evidence that would hold up in court.

If that doesn't exist, why do the women have to be left out in the cold? Why not investigate it and see if it makes sense? Why not use healthy skepticism to reach a conclusion? I think we can give men the benefit of the doubt while believing women at the same time. When you have a preponderance of women bringing in story after story of perverted behavior, does it mean they are piling on or releasing their fear of speaking out?

The default answer for many, many years has been to put the burden on the accuser and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. We are moving to a more equalized situation where yes, you can believe women. We can believe what they are saying. We can reach a conclusion that corrects the historical record.

Oliver does get at the problem. We still don't believe women unless they're holding incontrovertible proof which doesn't always exist, but we should. Period. End of story.