Several days ago, the Weinstein Effect hit actor George Takei, best known for his role as Mr. Sulu in the Star Trek TV series, when Scott R. Brunton, a former model and actor, accused Takei of sexually assaulting him in 1981 when Brunton was 23 and Takei was 44 years old. Brunton told The Hollywood Reporter that what prompted him to speak out after so many years is Takei’s hypocrisy. After actor Kevin Spacey was accused by Anthony Rapp of sexual assault, Takei went on the sanctimonious soapbox, slamming Spacey for misusing his power as “the older, dominant one” to harass and assault the younger Rapp ” in a non-consensual situation” — which was exactly what Takei had done to Brunton.
The reaction to Brunton’s accusation of Takei was swift.
(Former) fans of Takei excoriated him on his Facebook page. Takei’s reaction was twofold:
Denial that he’d assaulted Brunton.
Blaming the Facebook blowback on the Democrats’ boogeyman — the Russians. He tweeted:
The only problem with Takei denying having sexually assaulting Brunton is that just last month on the Howard Stern radio show, 80-year-old Takei had bragged about just that — grabbing men’s genitals in a non-consensual situation.
In the radio interview, Howard and his assistant Robin Quivers jokingly asked Takei if he’s ever grabbed someone’s penis. Takei was silent. Stern persisted and asked if Takei has ever sexually harassed anyone. Takei answered:
“[Laughs] Some people that are kind of, um, skittish, or maybe afraid, and you’re trying to persuade.”
Quivers asked if the grabbing happened at work, to which Takei replied it wasn’t, and that it took place “in my home.” Stern asked if Takei’s method was to give a guy who’s hesitant about having sex a “gentle squeeze” on the testicles. Takei answered:
“More than gentle.”
Takei insisted that his grabbing another man’s genitals isn’t wrong because it’s just about sex and not about power. But then he contradicted himself by bragging that he’d forced an extra on the set of Star Trek to give him a “blow job”.
What an utterly repellent, revolting creep.
Something interesting is going on with the liberal MSM — they’re turning against the Clintons, specifically Bill Clinton.
At least three mainstays of MSM — MSNBC, The Atlantic and The New York Times — are calling Bill Clinton a rapist. Finally.
Last Friday night, November 10, 2017, the rabidly anti-Trump MSNBC host, Chris Hayes, sent out this tweet:
“As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is, it’s also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”
Three days later on November 13, 2017, The Atlantic magazine’s contributing editor Caitlyn Flanaganwrites about Bill Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention:
“With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling.
When the couple repeatedly reminded the crowd of their new status as grandparents it was to suggest very different associations in voters’ minds. Hillary’s grandmotherhood was evoked to suggest the next phase in her lifelong work on behalf of women and children—in this case forging a bond with the millions of American grandmothers who are doing the hard work of raising the next generation, while their own adult children muddle through life. But Bill’s being a grandfather was intended to send a different message: Don’t worry about him anymore; he’s old now. He won’t get into those messes again.
Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied.At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.
It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.
The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party. […]
The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms. But the mood of the country has changed. We are in a time when old monuments are coming down and men are losing their careers over things they did to women a long time ago. […]
The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that. Yet expedience is not the only reason to make this public accounting. If it is possible for politics and moral behavior to coexist, then this grave wrong needs to be acknowledged. If Weinstein and Mark Halperin and Louis C. K. and all the rest can be held accountable, so can our former president and so can his party, which so many Americans so desperately need to rise again.”
New York Times
Writing in today’s (November 14, 2017) print version of the New York Times, Op-Ed Columnist Michelle Goldberg is more mealy-mouthed and protective of Hillary Clinton than The Atlantic‘s Caitlyn Flanagan. That being said, Goldberg nevertheless admits that:
“In this #MeToo moment, when we’re reassessing decades of male misbehavior and turning open secrets into exposes, we should look clearly at the credible evidence that Juanita Broaddrick told the truth when she accused Clinton of raping her. […]
Of the Clinton accusers, the one who haunts me is Broaddrick. The story she tells about Clinton recalls those we’ve heard about Weinstein. She claimed they had plans to meet in a hotel coffee shop, but at the last minute he asked to come up to her hotel room instead, where he raped her. Five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened. It’s true that she denied the rape in an affidavit to Paula Jones’s lawyers, before changing her story when talking to federal investigators. But her explanation, that she didn’t want to go public but couldn’t lie to the F.B.I., makes sense. Put simply, I believe her. […]
It’s fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick’s allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society.“
When the New York Times, for whatever reasons of their own, outed Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as a sexual assaulter/rapist although the Times had known about the brute for years, the floodgates were opened to a deluge of accusations against other denizens of Hollywood. See:
The Weinstein Effect isn’t confined to Hollywood, but has spread to journalism as well.
In an article that was updated on November 11, 2017, the New York Times names eight men in journalism who deservedly are caught in Weinstein’s undertow. Some of them are major figures in liberal journalism, including Mark Halperin and Leon Wieseltier.
The eight, in alphabetical order, are: (1) Ken Baker, E! News correspondent:
Sexual harassment of two women, including unwanted kissing and inappropriate messages.
Baker has been pulled from air while NBCUniversal investigates the charges.
Baker’s response: “I am very disturbed by these anonymous allegations, which make my heart ache. I take them very seriously.”
(2) Hamilton Fish, president and publisher of The New Republic and former publisher of The Nation:
Complaints by female employees about “certain workplace interactions [with Fish] that have created an uncomfortable environment for them”.
Fish was placed on leave, then resigned.
Fish: “Women have longstanding and profound concerns with respect to their treatment in the workplace. Many men have a lot to learn in this regard. I know I do, and I hope for and encourage that new direction.”
(3) Mark Halperin, 52, NBC News and MSNBC contributor, author of Game Change:
Sexual harassment or assault of at least a dozen women when Halperin was political director at ABC News– that Halperin placed his erect penis on the bodies of women without consent; masturbated in front of a woman in his office; and threw another woman against a restaurant window before attempting to kiss her.
Dismissed from MSNBC and NBC News and had upcoming book and HBO adaptation canceled.
Halperin: “I am profoundly sorry for the pain and anguish I have caused by my past actions. I apologize sincerely to the women I mistreated.”
(4) Knight Landesman, 67, publisher of Artforum, an international monthly magazine on contemporary art:
Sexual harassment of at least nine women, including groping.
Landesman: “I fully recognize that I have tested certain boundaries, which I am working hard to correct.”
(5) Michael Oreskes, 63, Head of news at NPR(National Public Radio) and former New York Times editor:
Sexual harassment of three women.
Oreskes: “I am deeply sorry to the people I hurt. My behavior was wrong and inexcusable, and I accept full responsibility.”
(6) Robert Scoble, 52, tech blogger and co-founder of the Transformation Group, an “augmented reality” consulting firm:
Sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual advances, of as many as 12 women.
Scoble: “I am deeply sorry and I am ashamed.”
(7) Lockhart Steele, 44, editorial director of the multinational digital media company Vox Media:
Sexual harassment of at least one person, including unwanted kissing.
Fired: Vox Media’s chief executive said Steele had admitted to “engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with our core values and will not be tolerated.” (8) Leon Wieseltier, 64, contributing editor of The Atlantic and former editor of The New Republic:
Sexual harassment of several women, including inappropriate advances.
Fired from Emerson Collective, which canceled publication of a magazine he was editing.
Wieseltier: “For my offenses against some of my colleagues in the past I offer a shaken apology and ask for their forgiveness.”