What About Bill Cosby?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a theory out there that the Cosby issue proves the racism of liberals and progressives.

The theory goes like this:

When a famous black man abuses women (or seemingly abuses women), the liberal press howls for his head on a platter (Bill Cosby, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, etc.).

When a famous white man abuses women (or seemingly abuses women), the liberal press gives him a pass or at least goes soft on him (Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, etc.).

I don't subscribe to this theory, but there's enough correspondence in these observations as matters get partisan to suggest that those throwing stones on Cosby stop, think, and see if their own spiritual house is in order.

Also, on a story-wars level, the image of a middle-class black family like Cosby portrayed is not conducive to class warfare. This makes me greatly suspicious about the enthusiasm with which a group of people are waging war on Cosby.

I am loathe to say this, but I personally knew one of Cosby's accusers. Let's just say the person I knew and the persona of her I see in the press are quite different.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I try not to read your long posts...

such infantile chatter Bill

I responded to Brant's 'back when' notion of a witch hunt from upthread. I re-read the thread before doing so. I considered giving some reading recommendations, and I did. I gave a sketch of what I thought were adjacent issues, and I provided context for my opinions. I looked back at what I had earlier written on Cosby, and I was satisfied that I had explained my position earlier.

hat have you done here, today, Adam, in the last brief exchanges today?

I know I have long lost you as a reader, or lost your good faith, Adam.

Readers here ask themselves, what has reduced you to sniping?

If you had something to add to or rebut my opinions, links, and notions above, I guess you would do so. If you had some particular problem with my response to Brant, I guess you could express it. Since you don't express anything but contempt, no one will ever know what it is you think about Cosby, only that you think William is a purveyor of 'infantile chatter.'

Success! Reason moves on.

Michael, such infantile chatter.

Edited December 30, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

I know I have long lost you as a reader, or lost your good faith, Adam.

Readers here ask themselves, what has reduced you to sniping?

First of all, you do not know that you "have lost" me "as a reader" because that is not true, that is your assumption.

Second, you do not "speak for readers."

Finally, you use these false dichotomy choices which many of us do at times.

Factually, both of the assumptions you made about me are false.

A...

[william.scherk]

William:

I try not to read your long posts...

such infantile chatter Bill

What have you done here, today, Adam, in the last brief exchanges today?

I know I have long lost you as a reader, or lost your good faith, Adam.

Readers here ask themselves, what has reduced you to sniping?

If you had something to add to or rebut my opinions, links, and notions above, I guess you would do so.

First of all, you do not know that you "have lost" me "as a reader" because that is not true, that is your assumption.

Since you didn't ask, I will expand. Why do I believe I have lost you as a reader or lost your good faith? Well, first consider criteria for a good faith relationship with a fellow OLer and in the rest of the world. Consider the WSS Reader whose respect I know without doubt I command in this forum. Consider that cohort in my mind. Are you in it?

I know these folks respect the way I approach argument at OL because they candidly tell me so, backstage. They thank me, praise me, engage me, give me candy kisses, reassure me that I sometimes make my mark as I intended. I get fan mail. Who knew? It's not all kisses all the time, but hey. I know what side of the bread the butter is on. I have been at this for a while.

Another angle: with the readers I have not yet lost, things get heated. we disagree strongly, we take issue, we argue like mad maybe, but we don't get angry with each other. Animosity does not persist even if it rears its head in extremis. Communication stays forthright, forthcoming, responsive and direct.

I believe I have lost your good faith when you get weird as here today. It has been a struggle to communicate for some time. Signals come in as sniping. It has been a while coming, but I now think I have lost whatever respect you might have once had for the way I think, the way I construct my opinions and comments and queries, the value in my contributions. Instead of engaging with my words or argument, you tend lately to get weird or cryptic or retentive, speak of me in the third person, ascribe beliefs to me by telepathy. That's not anything like my happy relationship with fans and friendlies.

Second, you do not "speak for readers."

Oh but readers read. Readers read questions in context --'why is Adam reduced to sniping at Willliam here today? What's the story? What is his beef? What is the problem? What's with "infantile chatter"?' Questions stick in mind because there aren't rational answers immediately at hand.

Think of Ideal Reader or your fan club, Adam. What do he and they think of today's sparring with William? Maybe they have no questions at all.

Finally, you use these false dichotomy choices which many of us do at times.

Factually, both of the assumptions you made about me are false.

Okey-dokey. I won't say sorry I was wrong, but I will try to believe the subtext that I may expect good faith from you and that I haven't 'lost' you as an attentive reader. Fair enough?

Let's move the porch beyond squabbling and truncated quotes and "I try not to read your long shit, Bill" and so on. If you want to show good faith, if you want to be considered a won/lost WSS Reader ... in my mind, where I know things, change my mind. The signals must change. Show hints of respect now and then. Engage with argument. Don't be petty, be pertinent.

Back to my question marks above. Readers? NSA Obama Iran Intelligence Influence Negotiation? Further details, context, today's headlines? Open vistas? Impasse? Thread death?

"William, I am glad you think that Woody Allen was a Teamster."

I am glad those days are over. Whew! I am moving on.

First a palate-cleanser to reorient things in a fun direction. The meme entered gay culture long ago and somehow resonates more broadly still today. Who can explain evul? Who can explain mean girls and cruelty and rivalries and the slippery slope to abuse?

Edited December 31, 2015 by william.scherk

[Backlighting]

Rumor?

This Bill is seeking advice from the other Bill.

Birds of a feather?

-J

[Selene]

Rumor?

This Bill is seeking advice from the other Bill.

Birds of a feather?

-J

I think they might be sharing some special memories of acts they have engaged in that neither of them would enact with Evita.

A...

[Backlighting]

Rumor?

This Bill is seeking advice from the other Bill.

Birds of a feather?

-J

I think they might be sharing some special memories of acts they have engaged in that neither of them would enact with Evita.

A...

lol

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This just popped up on Facebook:

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Selene]

Camille Paglia this last June in Salon...

How Bill Clinton is like Bill Cosby

Right from the start, when the Bill Cosby scandal surfaced, I knew it was not going to bode well for Hillary’s campaign, because young women today have a much lower threshold for tolerance of these matters. The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was.

She makes some interesting and challenging distinctions between her "pro-sex feminism" and the nut job hate men Gloria Steinem model.

...the actual facts of the matter are that Bill Clinton was a serial abuser of working-class women–he had exploited that power differential even in Arkansas. And then in the case of Monica Lewinsky–I mean, the failure on the part of Gloria Steinem and company to protect her was an absolute disgrace in feminist history! What bigger power differential could there be than between the president of the United States and this poor innocent girl? Not only an intern but clearly a girl who had a kind of pleading, open look to her–somebody who was looking for a father figure.

She nails him in one phrase..."working class women!" Bingo.

Honing in on Evita, Camille states that...

Hillary has a lot to answer for, because she took an antagonistic and demeaning position toward her husband’s accusers. So it’s hard for me to understand how the generation of Lena Dunham would or could tolerate the actual facts of Hillary’s history.

Answering the question whether Bill Clinton would be treated like Bill Cosby if Clinton was President today, exclaims...

Oh, yes! There’s absolutely no doubt, especially in this age of instant social media. In most of these cases, like the Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby stories, there’s been a complete neglect of psychology. We’re in a period right now where nobody asks any questions about psychology. No one has any feeling for human motivation. No one talks about sexuality in terms of emotional needs and symbolism and the legacy of childhood. Sexuality has been politicized–“Don’t ask any questions!” “No discussion!” “Gay is exactly equivalent to straight!” And thus in this period of psychological blindness or inertness, our art has become dull. There’s nothing interesting being written–in fiction or plays or movies. Everything is boring because of our failure to ask psychological questions.

Speaking about the modern feminist, she sadly explains that...

Currently, feminists lack sympathy and compassion for men and for the difficulties that men face in the formation of their identities. I’m not talking in terms of the men’s rights movement, which got infected by p.c. The heterosexual professional woman, emerging with her shiny Ivy League degree, wants to communicate with her husband exactly the way she communicates with her friends–as in “Sex and the City.” That show really caught the animated way that women actually talk with each other. But that’s not a style that straight men can do! Gay men can do it, sure–but not straight men! Guess what–women are different than men! When will feminism wake up to this basic reality? Women relate differently to each other than they do to men. And straight men do not have the same communication skills or values as women–their brains are different!

Lot's more in her Salon article and well worth the read.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/28/camille_paglia_how_bill_clinton_is_like_bill_cosby/

[Selene]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The pendulum is starting to swing back.

Bill Cosby Accuser’s Defamation Suit Dismissed

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It looks like the mainstream media (fake news) crucifixion of Bill Cosby did not do so well in court.

The main link goes to here (from Deadline Hollywood):

Bill Cosby Rape Case Ends In Mistrial; D.A. Says “Will Retry” – Update

From the article:

Quote

A mistrial has been declared today in Bill Cosby’s criminal trial for the 2004 rape of Andrea Constand. The decision has for now spared the once-beloved actor from a potential decade behind bars, and comes at the end of over 50 hours of deliberation by the jury in Norristown, PA, which first went to Judge Steven O’Neill on June 15 to say it was deadlocked – at that time he told them to “try again,” which they’ve done for the past two days.

The DA said they are going to retry. Let's see what that looks like, but I have a feeling if it happens, it's going to take a long, long, time.

I got a kick out of this headline (from Fox News Insider):

Bill Cosby's Spox: Tell Gloria Allred to 'Go Back to Law School'

From the article:

Quote

After the indecent assault case against Bill Cosby was declared a mistrial, the comedian's spokesman took aim a high-profile lawyer representing several of his other accusers.

Outside the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa., Andrew Wyatt quoted a co-founder of the Black Panther Party and criticized Gloria Allred.

"In the words of Huey P. Newton, power is the ability to define phenomenon, making it act in a designed manner," Wyatt said.

"Mr. Cosby's power's back... the jurors, they used their power to speak... Mrs. [Camille] Cosby's power's back," he said.

Wyatt said Cosby's legacy was restored after Judge Steven O'Neill declared a mistrial early Saturday.

He accused Allred, a high-profile women's rights attorney from Los Angeles, of conspiring against Cosby.

"For all those attorneys who conspired - like Gloria Allred - tell them to go back to law school and take another class," he said.

It might not seem like it, but this whole show is not about Bill Cosby, nor about the women who accused him. That's just the surface.

The real show, the real reason this huuuuuuuugely expensive trial and media onslaught happened is about propaganda and destroying an American archetype of a certain kind of black man who is a family man, and replacing him with the archetype of the female victim of the patriarchy.

I have a feeling the propaganda attack on Cosby suffered a setback, too, today. Oh, there will still be the attacks. The problem will be if anyone other than a small vocal minority takes it seriously.

Michael

[caroljane]

Hmmm. Just read this old thread through.  Has the new trial now just started reinforced everyone's former views,  or caused anyone to re-examine their former conclusions? I wonder.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

Hmmm. Just read this old thread through.  Has the new trial now just started reinforced everyone's former views,  or caused anyone to re-examine their former conclusions? I wonder.

No.

[Peter]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

No.

Almost all instances of abuse are a horrible initiation of force. I had an old theory that because of birth control and the loss of Victorian culture, young people would be "satisfying" each other at a greater rate and that would lead to less rape, molestation and violence. Or maybe not, which is an opportunity lost for humanity. I do think sex education and behavior classes should be mandatory for 14 year olds. Social media should expose violators.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Social media should expose violators.

Peter,

That would be a good thing.

What happens, though, when social media presents a distorted view based on mob manipulation and political agenda?

I don't claim Cosby is a saint and he probably did some of the things he's been accused of, but I know the kind of field he worked in since I worked in it, too. I worked in it in Brazil (mostly music, but I did a lot of TV, too, and some movies). It's the same thing as here from what I have seen.

Gorgeous women constantly threw themselves at me. They were aggressive about it, too. I admit, their attentions were flattering and I did my share of hanky-panky. (Who wouldn't?  ) They thought I could benefit their careers. And I ain't never been no Adonis, if you know what I mean. For some reason, after I left the entertainment industry, my ladykiller days ended. (Not my sassiness, though.  ) What happened? Where did all that interest from the gorgeous women go? Did I suddenly turn into Jabba the Hutt?  

I, also, know the politics of personal destruction practiced here in the US. Cosby kept telling young blacks to clean up their act, learn how to talk, dress and behave right, and get an education and a job. There was no mass get-Cosby movement until young blacks started listening to him in earnest. Then the knives came out. This was back when the Black Lives Matter thing started and Cosby was gumming up their propaganda.

And then there's this--a biggie for me, I personally knew (well) one of his accusers.

Baby, she ain't nothing like I saw her saying about Cosby...

 

In other words, in my world, the whole truth would be good, not just a manipulation.

So far, social media has not been too interested in the whole truth. At least I have not found many popular social media places where you can get the whole truth...

Michael

[Peter]

Fox was reporting that Cosby is guilty and he exploded after the verdict calling someone an "asshole" and that someone "doesn't have a plane," so he may have been denied bail because he may be "a runner." But that is just speculation on my part. The victim's lawyer is about to speak. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, Bill Cosby got nailed and nailed good.

Bill Cosby Found Guilty On All Counts In Sex Assault Retrial

Potential 30 year sentence.

I have mixed feelings and thoughts on the outcome, but this case is too complicated to do a moral high-ground thing.

Like I've said over and over, Bill Cosby ain't no saint, but then again, the kind of womens-folk who surrounded him weren't exactly Mormon missionary candidates. Nor were the men hanging around, for that matter.

Trying to find clarity in this is like trying to isolate a single fish in a school of 10,000 when a shark shows up. At some point you just say to hell with it and go for the biggest one you can catch.

Still, Bill Cosby's a big boy and he's the fishy who got caught.

As the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Sad day...

Michael

[Peter]

wIt is a Hollywood cliché but guys do want their hot dates to have another drink, like Mike Myers as Gold Member saying, "Wants some more of the bubbly, Baby?"

Some of his accusers willingly took the little pills but thought it was to get high and not to pass out and be raped. So was it different from a guy plying his date with drinks? Hell yes. I saw a couple of fraternity party rapists just got into hotter water but I wasn't paying attention to the story. Does Cosby deserve to spend the rest of his life in jail? How many have accused him? Was it 42 women who have come forward? How many didn't come forward?

Cosby is just walking out of court with police protection, with a cane up in the air and Fox is saying that is more like someone who was acquitted not convicted. It looks like Cos was allowed to get into his limo so he is not going straight to jail. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

The thing that galls me is that none of the women were victims. They were playing their own games on him. This one just beat him at the game, that's the long and short of it. This is not about justice in the true meaning of the word.

I've lived and worked in that world. What's just when everybody is wrong?

I'll grant there might have been an exception or two, but 42 nuns all of a sudden? From among Playboy-level women? Gimme a break.

How many skinned Cosby? That's a question nobody is asking in the #metoo culture. The lady who just now nailed him got over three million from a previous settlement.

Someone who received that amount of money on an earlier settlement and goes back to court is not fighting for justice. I bet she wanted more and he wouldn't give it, so she went to war to show she meant business. And then there's the politics... I wonder how much she is getting from certain donors...

The rule is, politics flows downstream from culture. Bill Cosby was about as high as it gets in pop culture. The social engineers may have destroyed him as an archetype of a way of life for black men to make way for the BLM kind of resentful victim model, but new stars are coming up in the culture and starting to bear the same standard as Cosby did. (Thank you, President Trump.  ) So the social engineers lost that battle. And that means, this was an expensive exercise in destruction and nothing more.

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

 

JUSTICE

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From Rush Limbaugh.

The title says it all:

Cosby Guilty — Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton Nervous

From the transcript:

Quote

Bill Cosby has been found guilty on three counts of aggravated sexual assault with intent to screw. And of course my question is, who out there is now more nervous than you can possibly imagine, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton? And I’m sure there’s some other names you might be able to add to the list out there.

. . . 

I also understand that the #MeToo movement is trying to claim a scalp here, they’re trying to claim credit for this. You know, go ahead, if that’s what you want to do, but this Cosby stuff predates #MeToo. It may end up being that Cosby’s a piker compared to Weinstein and Bill Clinton.

That's an idea...

This just might start a thing for the #MeToo people to throw all kinds of celebrities, Hollywood and otherwise, in jail. And how about the Jeffrey Epstein crew? We mustn't forget the children...

Michael

[Neil Parille]

I didn't follow the trial, but apparently he was accused of raping one woman, but 5 other women were allowed to testify of similar conduct.  I know that isn't necessarily against the rules of evidence, but it seems unfair.

[Wolf DeVoon]

9 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

he was accused of raping one woman, but 5 other women were allowed to testify

Nope, not rape. Sexual assault.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Nope, not rape. Sexual assault.

Rape is a sub-category of sexual assault.

Legally--well, legality has its own categories and its logic flows out of its codified and interpreted suppositions.

--Brant