An interesting followup to yesterday’s post suggesting that if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 Harvey Weinstein would not today be exposed as the man he has been for years.
Two days ago just as I arrived for work Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi hit a two run homer off of Astro Ace Justin Verlander making his first relief appearance ever giving the Sox a 3-2 lead in the bottom of the fifth of game 4 of their series. I walked in smiling and when I told my lead the score, at he confidently predicted an Astro win so we bet a candy bar on the result.
Yesterday I was running late and found myself, thanks to Houston’s late comeback rushing into Shaw’s in Leominster to buy the bar to pay off that bet. I found myself stuck in a line behind a woman who was visiting her daughter who had just had her first child. The conversation in the line and with the cashier was Trump vs Mexico. At this point I interjected, “Well consider this, if Donald Trump isn’t elected there is no way that Harvey Weinstein is exposed by the NYT as he was a vital ally and fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.” The cashier agreed that this was true but the woman ahead of me had a slightly different take, while she agreed with my premise she stated quite emphatically: “Still isn’t worth it.”
Given that Mr. Weinstein preyed on woman (which she was) I found that opinion interesting and as I was leaving it hit me that not only would her daughter be of the age that Weinstein would go after but there is no reason to believe that if that new grandchild of hers wanted a career in movies a Harvey Weinstein or someone like him, would in 15-18 years be making the same demands on her if she wanted to get ahead in the business.
This is how crazy the left has become, a liberal women so dislikes Trump that she would have been willing to not only let Weinstein’s crime be unexposed and unpunished but would have been OK with him being allowed to obtain new victims for the sake of keeping him Trump of the White House.
So for those who you Hate Trump but are outraged over Weinstein I have two questions for you:
Would the price of Weinstein never being exposed have been worth it to you if it meant Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in 2016?
If the answer to the first question is yes: At what number of new women victimized by Mr. Weinstein would that price become too high?
I think these two question really give this story the perspective it deserves don’t you and I’d love to see a roving reporter asking these question to a bunch of women’s studies majors at liberal universities across the nation wouldn’t you?
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar.
Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia
An important point needs to be made concerning the continuing exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual crimes and the finger pointing of leftists over the wall of silence.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected none of this would have come out.
Do you think for one moment that the NYT which had killed the Weinstein story once already would have dared to move forward knowing that a friend an ally of Mr. Weinstein was in the White House, running the justice department etc etc etc. Would they have dared to expose a story that would have crippled a Hillary Presidency?
I think not.
Every single woman who now has the courage to come forward about Weinstein owes Donald Trump the man they hate, the man they demonized, the man they did all they could to defeat, a huge thank you because without his election there is no Times story and they do not have the ability to openly say the truth about Weinstein.
And I submit and suggest that every one of us in the new media on the right should remind them of this fact every single day. Update: A question for the Hollywood left and feminists: Even if it meant that Harvey Weinstein was not exposed and would still preying on women do you still wish Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 instead of Trump and why?
Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia
At first glance it’s looks like the Harvey Weinstein story, from a journalistic standpoint seems more and more like the John Edwards Story, where liberal journalists were uninterested in telling a story that might harm their allies
An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts.
Journalists saw no good in exposing the sordid acts of a former, senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate.
And while there is certainly a bit of that in the Weinstein story the more I think about it the more it seems that this was all about capitalism in the Tina Brown vein.
About five years ago I did a series of piece of Tina Brown at Newsweek and Salon and her ability to coax millions out of liberals for magazine empires that never seemed to make a buck:
Unless I’m missing something all that happened is an attractive blond managed to convince some man into spending a lot of money to stake her in a business, she used said business to enhance her reputation and when she proved unable to succeed in it dumped it on the first sucker willing to take it off her hands.
It looked a lot like liberal were willing to throw away money to advance liberalism
Alas, there’s only one Tina and probably lots of would-be media moguls out there with millions of dollars to throw away on glitzy media operations. Send me an e-mail and we’ll do lunch.
But if you decide instead to hit Vegas and blow your millions on blackjack and hookers, I’ll understand.
A while back a few of us thought that if liberals were willing to play angels to advance liberalism conservatives should think about it too:
Jimmie has calculated — and I agree with his calculations — that you could run a pretty spiffy little conservative New Media operation for $500,000 a year if you knew what you were doing. But the problem is connecting (a) people with $500,000 to (b) people who know what they’re doing in terms of online news.
If you grant that Jimmie and I are correct about this estimate, do the math yourself: For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.
Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.
But all the arguments that folks like us were a better investment than a Tina Brown presumed that the motive for such investments were to advance ideas rather than sheer capitalism. For the establishment a guy like Strange was an investment in keeping the gravy train, a very capitalistic motive and as Stacy McCain noted yesterday the whole “liberal angel” thing with Weinstein seems to be all about capitalism too. (emphasis mine)
Rebecca Traister of New York magazine recounts her own confrontation with Weinstein’s violent abusive behavior — her called her an epithet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behavior was never previously reported, including the fact that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Talk magazine, with Tina Brown as editor, was published 1999-2002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an interview with Hillary Clinton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an estimated $50 million. This was simply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was willing to throw away money on a slick magazine with a big-name editor in order to buy influence among journalists. And guess what? It worked. Contrary to their own smug opinions of themselves, the journalistic elite aren’t the most ethical people on the planet.
That fifty million makes a whole lot more sense now. Apparently this wasn’t a question of spending money as a “liberal angel” helping the cause of women, gays and the left, it was paying the price for being a “lecherous devil” buying off journalists who readily decided their silence was worth it for the job, the office, the prestige, the access , the parties etc etc etc all the while telling themselves they were fighting to save the world from the evil conservatives who were trying to oppress women et/al.
This was sheer unadulterated Capitalism and apparently Mr. Weinstein got his money’s worth for decades.
Update: accidently put a gallery from a previous post at the bottom and fixed two sentences with redundant words.
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar
This morning when I woke up I was going to write about the exchange between the Daily Caller and Stacy McCain concerning Saturday’s Event in Leominster (advance tickets still available here) so I grabbed my laptop and heading downstairs so as not to disturb my sleeping with I planted myself on he couch that Stacy would most likely be crashing on and looking out the window noticed a group of men getting siding up on the house next door.
One would think the early morning hammering would have woken me (or her) but over the last two months we have become accustomed to the sounds of Hammers generators, and saws as we’ve watched the house next door slowly and gradually be transformed.
The Author is this transformation is a 29-year-old young man named Paulo who came here as a teen from Brazil who has tirelessly been working to gut and redo the house inside and out since purchasing that foreclosed property to get it ready for a large family of tenants that he has lined up to put there.
Now I had hoped to buy that house for myself for my oldest son or co-sign with him (my finances might be thin these days but my credit score is close to 800) who will be needing a new place soon but Paulo got there first. Anyone watching him in action since he first turned up in late May should not be surprised that he got anywhere first. His whole attitude has been Horatio Nelson’s “Lose not a moment.”
Every single day I’ve watched him in that house, I’ve seen long dumpster after dumpster filled as old carpet, old wood, old appliances continue to be stripped away. I’ve come home to the sound of an electric generator as he’s worked late into to the night, usually alone, sometimes with a team, to get things done and the whole neighborhood has seen the transformation as the abandoned and overgrown house that began its life as a tiny company house for workers who had come from Finland or Sicily back in the 19th century when Fitchburg was industrial hub to a more modern and an attractive home that despite the small plot of land that it sits on will to fit a family of six by November if Paulo’s plans work out.
This week he took a few minutes away from his work to talk to me about his work on Camera:
I can’t help think as I watch Paulo in action that I’m seeing a young version of my Father. Dad had left school at 13 to work during the depression getting every hour he could in local factories, picking up every hour he could, doing the dirty jobs that needed to be done and joining various building crews learning how to build. In 1942 during World War 2 he entered the Navy as a ship’s carpenter and by the time the war had ended left as a chief petty officer. And at Paulo’s age he was doing pretty much the same thing, building or fixing small houses with his brother-in-law until he bought a bar called the Mohawk Club in Shirley and went into the restaurant/hospitality business. The two houses I lived in from the day I was born to the day I got married were built by him and when I watch Paulo in action I can’t help but think that if I had in my youth been more interested in my father’s skills and less interested in books and history that might be me next door fixing up that house for my son (and I’m sure DaWife watching Paulo hard at work fixing things might have liked it if her husband was a quarter as handy as the young fellow next door with a hammer as he is with a keyboard.)
But while I didn’t recognize the advantages of my Father’s way in my youth with the benefit of years I see the wonder of what’s going on. A young man born half a world away coming to America, earning and honing a skill over a decade and sacrificing hour after hour to get the seed money to get a mortgage to buy a beat up house, spending 70 hours or more a week, days night and weekends to get it to a point where he can get it in a good enough condition to rent it out for enough to cover that mortgage and his expenses and start the whole process again.
To be sure there are a lot of risks. There is always the possibility of getting problem tenants who trash a house that you might have to evict if they decide not to pay. Furthermore all of this involves laying out money for wood, and materials out front, not to mention the various legal hoops involved in buying a house and getting permits or construction. Finally there is a lot of hard labor involved. A single accident could stop things cold and if it does the bank or banks that hold the mortgages on the property will still expect their payments on time each month.
I’m also sure his young wife and kids would like to see more of him nor do I doubt that his kids might have enjoyed it if this Sunday morning he had been at home during this labor day weekend rather than putting up siding early in the morning.
But when those kids are 18, Paulo’s hard work today will almost certainly mean he’ll have the assets to send them to college if they wish, or if they are smart enough to follow in his footsteps might be in a position to have their dad co-sign for their first home to fix up or at least know how to fix anything in sight. And I suspect that if he has a daughter who wants a big wedding someday, the willingness to be hard at work on a Holiday weekend will be the reason he can afford to pay for one or two or more.
Put simply Paulo is what makes America great, but he’s also a symptom of the greatness OF America which provides a system by which a person can freely reap the benefits of their labor without the heavy hand of the state to smother them or the outstretched hand of the powerful or the connected demanding their cut. A system under which a person can, if they are willing to take the risks and regardless of race or class make more of themselves then they ever could elsewhere.
Paulo will likely never be as rich or as famous as the president but he is no less an American success story for it.
Do you know of an American success story that you’d like me to share with my readers and possibly include in a future book on the subject? Drop me a line and if I can get to where you are I’d be delighted to learn it and tell it.
Update: Paulo rather than Paolo should have stuck with my first instict
My own American success story depends on the willingness of you dear reader to like what you see here and support it, so if you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a weekly paycheck.
