Oh, I’m sure these are unrelated occurrences, just like it was a coincidence that a progressive college professor suddenly sort-of remembered a school days attempted sexual assault by teenaged Brett Kavanaugh just in time to accuse him during his Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearings. You’re sure too, aren’t you? No progressive would be so vicious as to try to weaponize #MeToo to “cancel” an MSNBC pundit for pointing out that Bernie Sanders sounds like a crypto-Communist, right? Come on. How ruthless do you think these people are?
Hot on the heels of Chris Matthews reminding young, naive and ignorant MSNBC viewers who don’t know Khrushchev from Orange Crush that the Cold War was fought with people who have the same world view as Bernie Sanders, even comparing Bernie’s rise to the Nazis marching into Paris (THAT was a bit excessive, but Chris apologized), a progressive journalist suddenly decides that Chris’s long ago flirtatious bantering with her was, come to think of it, really unwelcome, especially coming from someone who doesn’t trust Bernie.Writing in GQ, progressive journalist Laura Bassett described a 2016 encounter with Matthews while sitting in a makeup chair to appear on “Hardball,” the program he has anchored for many years. She writes: “Matthews looked over at me in the makeup chair next to him and said, ‘Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?’ When I laughed nervously and said nothing, he followed up to the makeup artist. ‘Keep putting makeup on her, I’ll fall in love with her.’”
Why didn’t she indignantly report Chis at the time? Bassett says now that she was afraid of retaliation, but her fears magically evaporated once a fellow leftist and Presidential hopeful was being attacked. That could be true, though I suspect it was because Chris was old at the time (he was 70 then, which is around when I met him at an airport, and without make-up he looks like the Cryptkeeper’s grandfather), she took the teeny-weeny dirty old man banter as the generationally clueless compliment it was intended to be, and she wasn’t offended. I also think this is the more likely scenario because what Chris said was so low on the sexual harassment scale as to be de minimus, except to Man-hating #Me Too zealots.
Now, however, when it serves the Cause, or “The Revolution,” or the “Let’s teach old farts like Chris Matthews that he opposes our March To A Glorious Socialist Paradise” strategy, or whatever, Bassett decides it is to her advantage to decide four years later that she WAS offended, and Chris’s comments were unwelcome, and thus he is a proven #MeToo villain.
Yeah, I’m not just suspicious, I’m ticked off. Talk about retaliation: an NPR host for whom I had graciously provided free content for her show for more than five years basically blacklisted me for telling her audience that this is how sexual harassment accusations often develop. A woman does not feel harassed at the time of the episode, but much later, when the man involved becomes a political target or a controversial public figure, she retroactively decides a comment, a pat or a kiss was “unwelcome,” and #MeToo is unleashed. This is not what my feminist, anti-Trump hostess wanted to hear, and she allowed her law professor pal to rudely cut me off (“Oh come ON!”, Georgetown Law prof Paul Butler exclaimed, and I swear on my degree, if I ever run into him, he will hear about it. Later she accused me of defending the notorious pussy-grabber-in-chief, when what I was doing was accurately explicating a serious problem with the subjective standards of sexual harassment law.
Well, I was right and am right, and she was unfair and unprofessional. Chris Matthews is probably one more example of the phenomenon I correctly described.
If you want, Chris, I’d be happy to explain this to your audience too.
______________________________________
Here’s the Twitter link if you want to post this on Facebook: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1233547692908871680
Ethics Alarms 
Since sexual harassment accusations have gone so wild, when I am approached by a woman dressed in a manner that has her “chesticles” prominently displayed, I am as leery of engaging her in conversation as I would be facing a probable FBI perjury trap.
And thereby diempowers themselves and other women from even having chesticles, because people will not want to deal with that. It reduces the actual collaboration and teamwork that gets the best results. Even as a woman, I was wary of women who girded themselves in work situations like that instead of their ideas and work.
But then I tend to stubborn iconoclasm.
Well we all know it’s only sexual harassment if the guy isn’t attractive.
Sadly, this is more often the case the case than people like to admit.
Women who dress provocatively do so because they do want attention from men. They do it because it works. They’re just unhappy that it works on men they do not want to draw attention from.
Have to disagree with your assertion. Women dress well and sometimes in a particularly attractive way to promote good feelings for themselves. It is not always done to impress others. Sometimes it’s a pick me up for people regardless of gender.
As for provocation, we are all often provoked by stimuli, doesn’t mean we have to react to it.
Being polite, Jack, I think you understate it. Women show off for one of three reasons, to attract a good-looking guy, to attract a rich guy, or to attract a guy who’s rich AND good-looking. If you’re none of the above, then eyes front, soldier. If you don’t look like Brad Pitt, or you have a bank account with fewer than six or seven figures, and those eyes wander, a trip to HR is in your future.
Women also can’t stand the fact that there are some guys who not only don’t defer to them, but who they have no power over because they aren’t co-workers, so they can’t make trouble for them with HR, and they aren’t in a relationship with them, so they can’t control them by withholding sex. However, twisting a conversation, a compliment, or even a look into a weapon can do a lot of damage.
How did they get this power?
Why is there no rigorous mathematical description of sexual harassment?
Two things are interesting: one is when a lefty abandons his or her former ‘progressive’ posture and redefines himself according to the new equation. The American Center is being redefined. Left and Right of moderate sorts are coming together and work out a new platform. Those too far to the right and too far to the left are then vilified in the New Agreement. But: the centrist position being defined is hardly non-different from the General Progressive Position and is, I think, progressivist and non-conservative in its essence. The centrist position is then given *moral authority* to praise and to support, the general centrist platform. And to condemn what opposes it. I assume this New Centrism will consolidate itself around an Anti-Commie platform as Sanders et al must be resisted.
Steve Bannon said:
“You may hate my guts and you may hate what I stand for, but if we don’t allow some way for this system to spread the wealth, we’re going to have a revolution in this country. It is coming, as night follows day.”
This does imply however that the Bannon extreme and the Sanders extreme share some concerns: thus their popular appeal. And thus a looming populist movement that must be channelled back to the center.
That ‘revolution’ shows itself already in confused and contradictory form.
The other interesting thing is how the woman-sexual-abuse attack men power-tool is similar to the Black and Minority racist-abuse attack the white power-structure power-tool.
Either of these can be employed at any time by any qualified person. But they are used in the context of larger social and cultural struggles: defined as the continued displacement of majority white demographic.
The adjustments within the Political Center seem to be the beginning signs of a new centrist ideology as the new and emboldened demographic claims more power (but essentially continues the dispossession and displacement process).
It is an odd juncture, rife with contradictions.
The most effective system to spread wealth is capitalism. I can now see Noam is a ventriloquist as well as a communist.
Capitalism is power to the people one by one decision by decision. You know that whole crazy liberty and the rights of man non-sense.
The most effective system to spread wealth is capitalism.
These statements do not contradict one another.
Also: the American system of capitalism is one in which the state intervenes massively to benefit private capital interests.
Now, or so it seems, and whether you like it or not, popular will seems to demand that some way for this system to spread the wealth be devised. In Bannon’s case that will come about through a re-valuation of the American worker and helping that class to accumulate wealth. One of his observations is that ‘millennials’ have NOTHING and OWN NOTHING. And in such a situation they have non ownership-interest: a dangerous situation.
Thus again: the political center strives to devise strategies to hold the ship together.
I have no idea what program Chomsky has or doesn’t have. I am more interested in the real structure of power and how it will adapt.
Are you a sock puppet or just confused?
The state has quite literally intervened in markets to hand over trillions to people who are decidedly not capital or power and the result has been an ever increasing number of households in poverty.
Feed that to Noam for dinner.
Are you a sock puppet or just confused?
You are soooo tiresome Jim.
You may not be concerned, you certainly do not have to be, and you may not care to understand what Steve Bannon is talking about in the quote I posted, but in spite of your blustery quasi-arguments the fact of the matter is that the nation is in the crisis he refers to.
You make a continuing mistake of conflating my views with those of Chomsky. My views are very radically different from those of Chomsky. But I think it fair to say that you need a Chomsky, or someone like him, just to coalesce your anger & frustration. Anger & frustration is actually an important topic in and of itself. And anger & frustration seems to have many people in its grip.
(I am interested in Chomsky essentially essentially for his analysis of power.)
I agree with you that giving money away is not a good way to go about wealth-building (I assume you are referring to welfare programs, the sort that was given to Blacks and minorities to quiet them, or disempower them? and which all conservatives oppose because it destroys initiative?)
I am not at all interested, myself, in any particular social plan that Chomsky or the Progressives have, but wealth-building of the sort that Bannon speaks about seems profoundly important.
I mention a system of capitalism that depends on state intervention in the economy for other reasons. My understanding is that such intervention exists and is a part of the system (the swamp) because those who are captains of industry and leaders in the economic sector also ‘revolve’ to become officials and leaders in government. They have the power and influence to have their will enacted.
There is this *revolving door* in which a certain class takes care of its own needs through what is called ‘state socialism of big business’ while exclaiming that investments in public benefit are ill-advised. When private capital gets into trouble, the State intervenes and channels public money back into that sector.
One of the instances that Bannon and many of the people that were and are around Trump refer to (I am referring to the PBS FrontLine interviews which I thought very interesting and informative) was the last financial crisis the wealthy class got bailed out . . . while the average man and family lost accumulated wealth and indeed lost their homes.
This produced *anger & frustration* and also rage. That is all that I wanted to mention. I think it is a coherent observation.
Yes we are deep in a crisis of prosperity that would only be enhanced by stopping these anti-capital transfer payments.
Bannon is an attention seeker via the type of bluster and non-arguments he makes for which you chastise me. It’s just that a few of his verbal bombs thrown suit your nearly unintelligible viewpoints. Including some deep seeded issues you have about certain groups and their nefarious motives.
My sworn enemies have overtly caused the deaths of over 100 million. Many of those fit right in with Chomsky’s pro communist anti-capitalist garbage.
Enjoy the tiresom ness of reality.
Yes we are deep in a crisis of prosperity that would only be enhanced by stopping these anti-capital transfer payments.
Bias makes you stupid, unfortunately (as the saying goes, I honestly don’t want to insult you). Though what you say may have truth to it, your entire approach is far too polarized and binary. The situation in America vis-a-vis wealth (et cetera) is complex and requires a nuanced exposition. How things will get turned around, and then what really are the problems, involve discussion that EA shows itself incapable of having. Partly it is the blog-format that makes the long and continued conversations difficult. But something in the over-patriotic mind-set. A more critical stance has to be encouraged and allowed.
As I say: you set up only two poles: total ideological subservience to Americanism, or an absolute opposition. But conservatism must reclaim that middle and critical territory.
Bannon is an attention seeker via the type of bluster and non-arguments he makes for which you chastise me.
If I chastise you for ‘bluster & non-argument’, and you recognize that ‘blister and non-argument’ are not an adequate base for good understanding, then you have admitted that there is some sense to my criticism.
Bannon is more than what you seem to recognize. Bannon connects to things you are unaware of. The European Dissident Right certainly, and also to *traditionalism*. I venture to state that you might not fully understand Bannon and underestimate him.
He has had a great deal of influence on the culture through his activities. I am not mentioning Bannon because I necessary emulate him (that is how your mind works: If I mention someone, to you I must be their disciple). I am especially interested in his criticism of the Republican Party, and I am *impressed* in certain ways how he (and a group) ‘held a blow-torch to them’. He has worked to upend things. And that is what he set out to do. Where will it all land? That’s another question.
Therefore again, to speak about Bannon requires a more careful exposition.
. . . your nearly unintelligible viewpoints
Some of my viewpoints are definitely confused (because I have all sorts of confusion about what is right and good). So, I have no problem accepting what you say. But, because I am far less certain that *you* I do far more reading and research than you. So I turn a disadvantage into a potential advantage. I have chosen to investigate viewpoints that are part-and-parcel of America and Americanism that you will never understand (well). I see this as an advantage though for me, right now, it does not help me to be decisive. All I can do is to observe.
A good deal of what I write is unintelligible to you because you have no familiarity with the terms. This has relationship to Other Bill’s observations about American anti-intellectualism. You are *practical people* and you define yourself through practical endeavors. But there is a great deal more to be understood if you really want to understand the present. But you (and some others) seem comfortable to hole-up in limited and limiting perspectives.
So, again! your view of me is not wide enough, not fair enough. There is more nuance to me than you will allow.
My sworn enemies have overtly caused the deaths of over 100 million. Many of those fit right in with Chomsky’s pro communist anti-capitalist garbage.
Here I think I agree. In the end the Left-Progressive *project*, when they gain power, always seems to become totalizing and dictatorial. You can find the seeds of that in Chomsky’s reductive analysis of American power and those who read Chomsky always *recite from the list of horror* of the terrible things the US does.
My position is different. As I said (about 50 times now!) what I find useful in Chomsky is in his Machiavellian analysis of power. But he is not the inventor of that critical-realistic approach. The ‘analysis of power’ or the critical approach to American power of the sort I admire has more in common with the founding generation and their analysis of power. See, they had every good reason to develop a critical position because power had them by the throat.
In our present I believe that conservatism must recover this critical approach. It has to do this itself, as an act of will, in order to take the critical weapon out of the hands of those who do the Nation and the Republic harm.
Therefore: my position is coherent, balanced, rational and accords with Constitutional higher values. I may be inhibited getting to where I want to go, but then really so are you and many others.
Heavens! I forgot this one!
Including some deep seeded issues you have about certain groups and their nefarious motives.
I think you are referring not precisely to me personally but because I have made reference to E. Michael Jones’ critical position vis-a-vis ‘the Jewish revolutionary spirit’? I do not have an absolutely fixed position on this question (the JQ as they call it). As you can well imagine my own position is highly complexified by my own upbringing! (What part of me should I turn against…)
I do not have to go very far, nor get very paranoid at all, to at the very least suggest that *nefarious motives* are possible. So, yes, I accept that it is possible for governments and sectors within culture to have *nefarious motives*. You for example are definitely not a great fan of the Bolsheviks! And you therefore see and understand the end result of nefariousness. So, you are not closed to that conversation at least in the abstract.
My position is that Israel has faaaarrrr too much influence in America and over American policy. The reasons for this are not complex, yet they definitely are *kept hidden* and are not discussable. A very peculiar lid is kept on that conversation. I predict that this is going to turn out badly. What I mean is historically.
I also am very interested in the issue of ‘seduction’ and ‘corruption’, in all their senses, but specifically moral corruption and Marxian corruption.
Whether you like it or not, or whether you understand it or not, there is a very wide *rolling conversation* going on which delves into all these issues. You can block it all out and pretend it is not there, or you can work to understand it better. I choose understanding. (Because I really am wOnDeRfUL after all!) 🙂
I recognize that you find it impossible to continue a conversation after one or two of your predictable blustery and vain offerings, but I thought this article by Greg Johnson on Errol Morris’ (suppressed) documentary on Bannon was quite interesting.
This part:
Bannon remains an interesting figure to me despite the fact that basically everything he has done since acting as Trump’s campaign manager in 2016 has ended in failure: His tenure as Trump’s Chief Strategist came to an inglorious end after seven months; he was unsuccessful in securing Roy Moore’s victory in Alabama’s Senate special election in 2017; he was dismissed from Breitbart following his importune comments about Trump to Michael Wolff in 2018; his attempt to bolster the expected wave of Right-wing populist victories in the European parliamentary election last year bore little fruit; and the government closed down his monastic school for populists in Italy. Thus, to date, Bannon has one big win and a string of failures. His main activity these days is as a pundit, and in that he still has value — given Bannon’s connections and reputation, he’ll likely remain a prominent figure in the populist Right for years to come. And his vision still remains deeper, more incisive, and more interesting than most of what you’ll usually find in those circles — perhaps because his conservatism is rooted in his Catholicism rather than merely in civics and economics (an aspect of his beliefs that Morris ignores).
In order for you to understand me better — perhaps this will help you to sharpen your attacks and criticisms of me? Good Lord I hope it helps! — is that I pay very close attention to what you and others write here. But I do it for different reasons than you’d expect. As you jibber-jabber and chitter-chatter without any substantial understanding of things you clue me in to those areas that I need to pay more attention. What you reject & dismiss is what needs to be focused on and better understood. And when you all chime -in together like harmonizing coyotes in condemnation of something or someone, that is especially a flag.
Your shallow condemnation of Steve Bannon is a case-in-point. You have no idea who Bannon is, and you have no idea about the force and power of the nationalism that he represents. You have no idea how appropriate his attack on the corrupt Republican Party is, how necessary and therefore how *good* it is. You have no idea about the currents of dissent and anger & frustration that exist among the *original demographic* and you do not care to know. What you are up to is something else altogether.
You have no idea what sort of nationalistic and dissident-right positions are being strengthened in Europe. And you have no idea how the Trump phenomenon is influencing politics of a dissident-right variety in other parts of the world. You have no idea, and no desire to get an idea, of what the Dissident European Right thinks and how its ideas are filtering out. You have your head in a bag, and your head and the bag stuffed into a hole. You have no understanding of genuine conservatism because if you are a conservative I am a Red-Eyed Tree Frog. As I have said many times I regard you as fake, camouflaged Conservatives. When you talk about what you think and what you value your politics are thoroughly progressive. This is so obvious that it hardly needs to be proven, yet I will at any time, in any place, against you-singular or against 10,000, prove it to you.
You are part of the problem and almost no part of the solution.
I hope that you will excuse me for being somewhat forceful in what I say. I genuinely do not mean to offend you or anyone. I have received countless attacks by the likes of *you* and I have come to understand why this is. You have been conditioned to do it. But I am under no obligation to accept your discourse or your terms.