Wednesday, 18 October 2017

Comparing US health plans with those of Canada  
                                                

Comparing the health plans between the US and Canada is like trying to compare apples and oranges. There simply is no comparison.

Health care in the United States

The market-based health insurance system in the United States has caused a human rights crisis that deprives a large number of people of the health care they need.  The most visible problem is the 32 million people without health insurance. What is  most distressing is the number of preventable deaths—up to 101,000 people per year  which is  simply due to the way the health care system in the US is organized.

This crisis persists despite available resources to protect the right to health, record levels of health care spending and constant repeated health reform efforts. Since social determinants, such as race, income and environment have strongly influenced who becomes ill and who receives access to quality care, the health care crisis disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups and under-resourced communities, such as people living in poverty, people of color, and immigrants.

Despite the existence of barriers to accessing care, the burden of medical debt and the shortage of primary care providers has affected all people in the US including those with employer-sponsored insurance. Overall, the health care crisis in the US is the result of the privatization and commodification of the U.S. health system, which reflects market imperatives and profit interests that devalue human needs, dignity and equality.

Has there been any improvement prior to the time when  President Obama was in power?  In that era, Americans had a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy than comparable countries in 2007, The U.S. has the highest rate of maternal mortality among high-income countries (13 in 100,000), and also the highest rate of C-Sections (32%), as opposed to a recommended (5-15%) As many as 45,000 people died each year simply because they had no health insurance according to the American Journal of Public Health (2009)


Approximately 50 million people did not have health insurance. Over half of them were African Americans, according to the Center for American Progress (2009) Of those who were insured, at least 25 million were underinsured. They had often  chosen to forgo health care because of high deductibles according to  the Commonwealth Fund (2008)  As many as 700,000 families went  bankrupt each year just by trying to pay for their health care even though three quarters of them had some form of Health insurance according to Health Affairs (2006). In comparison, the five largest insurance companies made a combined profit of approximately $12 billion in 2009.                                      


The United States had fewer doctors and nurses than other high-income countries according to the World Health Organization statement made in 2007. Unfortunately, Hospitals and doctors were disproportionately located in wealthier areas instead of being evenly spaced.  As a result,  public hospitals were closing in areas where they were most needed. The U.S. ranked lowest among high-income countries in its primary care infrastructure. There was a projected shortage of 44,000 primary care doctors within the next 15 years.

 
The rights of people of color are violated: e.g., the 10-year survival rate for Black people of people with cancer is 60% for Whites and 48% for African Americans according to the SEER cancer statistics, also the Office of Minority Health


The quality of care given to people of color was generally lower, (Is that a surprise?) including in the treatment of cancer, heart failure, and pneumonia according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, statement made in 2009.


While immigrants are generally healthier than the average citizen upon arrival in the United States, their health tends to deteriorate the longer they remain in the country according to Unhealthy Assimilation and Demography statement made in May 2006)


Women were more likely than men to forgo their needed health care due to cost-related access barriers. according to the Commonwealth Fund statement in 2007. Women’s right to non-discrimination had been violated by increasingly restricting those services to women who needed reproductive health care. Health care is a right and not a commodity that only rich whites can enjoy. 

What is happening in 2017?

There is something to be said for the concept that excessive government is a bad thing. High taxes and burdensome regulations can hold back economic growth. Some will say that Aid programs can make people dependent on government and reduce the incentive for people to work hard.

As an institution that receives revenue from taxes rather than from providing goods and services that consumers actually want, the government has little reason to spend money efficiently. Unlike private businesses, the government will keep collecting revenue whether it does a good job or not.

Republicans have been successfully making this argument for decades. Even in 2017, it has been  an argument that has put them in a dominant position at all levels of government. Americans in fact, should be thanking President Obama in particular for doing so much to help them achieve some success in helping those in need of health care. Obamacare, after all, had come to represent the ultimate example for so many conservatives of government that is out of control.

And President Trump, while hardly a traditional Republican candidate, spent much of his campaign decrying Obamacare as one of the ultimate evils of the universe. That gives support for that old adage—the pot calling the pan black.

Ever since the Affordable Care Act became law, conservatives complained about the new regulations that it placed on insurance companies, increased health care costs, higher government spending resulting from Medicaid expansion and new subsidies, and the hated individual mandate that would impose penalties on people who did not get insurance. As a general rule, they prefer a health care system that is run by the private sector as much as possible, with competition between insurance companies and medical service providers supposedly creating more choices for consumers and driving prices down. They also question the idea that health care is some sort of a human right that government must provide rather than a service that individuals must pay for themselves.

As an aside, I remember when many years ago, Canadians had to pay a relatively low fee to get government-sponsored health benefits for themselves and their families.  We didn’t really complain because it provided a large amount of benefits including hospital and medical doctor’s fees.

Donald Trump as a candidate made some of these traditional conservative arguments, complaining particularly about new regulations, higher health care costs, and the hated individual mandate. He did not, however, emphasize the argument that people should buy health care for themselves. Instead, he claimed that a better law would be crafted that would keep the more popular parts of Obamacare, such as guaranteeing insurance for people with preexisting conditions and allowing young people to stay on their parent's insurance until the age of 26, and would not cause anyone to lose their insurance. In fact, he even claimed that more people would get affordable insurance than under Obamacare. It would be the perfect plan.  It would certainly make most Americans happy since they  would get more benefits with the government spending less money and imposing fewer rules. Is that his plan in 2017?

For someone who was supposedly not a traditional politician, Donald Trump played the ultimate political game better than the seasoned politicians. He promised the moon while being vague on the details of how Americans will get there. The only problem is that those seasoned politicians who have to write actual legislation know that the Trump’s plan is a fantasy, and it's a fantasy that they are not even interested in trying to deliver.

This is why the health plan recently passed by the House will cause millions to lose their insurance. So whether you agree with the conservative ideology or not, you can at least respect House Republicans for being consistent. It is President Trump, as has often been the case during his first few months in office, who is being inconsistent. After promising that no one would lose their insurance or be denied due to preexisting conditions, he has endorsed a plan that would do both.

If something resembling the House health care bill got through Congress and landed on the President's desk, Americans will find out what Donald Trump actually believes about health care.

Is it his priority to shrink the role of government or to provide affordable health care? And if he does go along with traditional conservatives and signs a bill that causes large numbers of people to lose their current insurance, what will his supporters think? Will they be happy simply because the hated Obamacare is gone, or will they be disappointed when they eventually realize that they were naive enough to believe in his fantasy?


President Trump, after failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act in Congress, decided to act on his own to relax health care standards on small businesses that band together to buy health insurance and may take steps to allow the sale of other health plans that skirt the health law’s requirements.

Trump plans to sign an executive order to promote health care choice and competition at a White House event attended by small-business owners and others.

It is possible is that Americans are not going to get a good health care plan at all. The House created a Bill so his Republicans could get it through the Senate. The Republican majority is slim in the Senate, and Senators have to think about public opinion throughout their states, not just the constituents of heavily gerrymandered districts. So when the Senate fails to come up with something that can be reconciled with the House, Republican members of the House can tell their constituents that they tried, Republican Senators can blame Democrats for standing in the way of change, and President Trump can then do what he does best—blame everyone but himself for the nation's continuing problems. The best news for President Trump and the GOP, of course, is that they will not have to deal with the wrath of millions of people who have lost their health insurance, and if Republicans are ever unhappy about any of the complex, inevitable problems associated with health care, they will still have the evil Obamacare to blame.

Although Trump has been telegraphing his intentions for more than a week, Democrats and some state regulators are now looking at Trump’s  intentions with increasing alarm, calling it another attempt to undermine President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. They warn that by relaxing standards for so-called association health plans, Mr. Trump would create low-cost insurance options for the healthy, driving up costs for the sick and destabilizing insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act.

There are concerns that the Trump administration intends to loosen restrictions on short-term health insurance plans that do not satisfy requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

His plan would cut off healthy individuals, and cannibalize the insurance exchanges. This could leave older, sicker people left behind in plans regulated under the Affordable Care Act since premiums could increase to the extent that they couldn’t pay them.

Large employer-sponsored health plans are generally subject to fewer federal insurance requirements than smaller group plans that have coverage purchased by individuals and families on their own. They are generally not required to provide “essential health benefits,” such as emergency services, maternity and newborn care, mental health coverage and substance abuse treatment, however, many do.

Several states considered bringing in Bills to treat health plans offered to small employers through a trade association as large-group coverage, exempt from federal rules that apply to small businesses. But the Obama administration blocked those efforts, saying they were pre-empted by the Affordable Care Act. Trump administration officials are reconsidering that interpretation, in view of the president’s vow to increase access to less expensive insurance.

Large-group plans are still subject to some requirements of the Affordable Care Act. They generally must cover children up to age 26 on their parents’ plans, cannot impose lifetime limits on covered benefits and cannot charge co-payments for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies. However, they are generally exempt from the requirements to provide a specified package of benefits and to cover a certain percentage of the cost of covered services.

The Trump administration is also looking for ways to ease restrictions on short-term health insurance plans that do not meet requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Under a rule issued last October by the Obama administration, the duration of such short-term plans, purchased by hundreds of thousands of people seeking inexpensive insurance, must be less than three months. The rules previously said “less than 12 months.

The Obama administration had said that some insurers were abusing short-term plans and keeping healthier consumers out of the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. People were buying these short-term plans as their “primary form of health coverage,” and some insurers were pitching their products to healthier people.

But Trump administration officials have said that with the insurance premiums soaring in many states, consumers should be able to buy less comprehensive, less expensive coverage as an alternative to conventional plans. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said short-term policies will serve an important purpose for consumers who are between jobs. That sounds OK to me if the plan works.

Trump’s plan has some insurance experts worried. The influx of a set of plans exempt from the Affordable Care Act rules will essentially divide the market and make it increasingly unstable, according to Rebecca Owen, a health research actuary with the Society of Actuaries.

People who want or need broad coverage could find it increasingly difficult to obtain an affordable policy, according to Health Care experts While the administration’s goal may be to give people a broader choice of plans, it could have the opposite effect on people who need or want the robust coverage available under the Affordable Care Act and can’t afford it or even have access to it.

It is obvious that the easier you make it possible not to buy comprehensive coverage, the harder it will to buy comprehensive coverage later.

Meanwhile while, apprehensive health insurers wait for details of the executive order, they are still offering coverage in the online marketplaces created by the health care law.

Some Americans may already be attracted to short-term plans because of their low costs. These plans tend to limit benefits or offer policies only to people who do not have expensive medical conditions. Further, once they are in the plans, the rates may very well increase considerably.

Those insurers are most jittery about the possibility of a surge in short-term plans. Many of the large national insurers, like UnitedHealth Group, already offer these plans, and there would be little difficulty in their introducing more because of the executive order.

Short-term policies do not satisfy the coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act, so consumers who buy them may be subject to tax penalties. But with the price of conventional insurance policies rising at double-digit rates, some people say they are willing to pay a penalty so they can buy a cheaper plan.

The introduction of the new plans could take much longer to come into being according to insurers and other experts. The administration would need to work out the regulatory details, and groups would need to reconstruct those plans.

However,  these plans pose some of the same risks, and industry experts have warned since that they have a history of leaving consumers with unpaid medical bills if they are not adequately regulated.

While association health plans can be well run, they have had a spotty track record.  In the past, some plans failed because they did not have enough money to pay their customers’ medical bills, while some insurance companies were accused of misleading people about exactly what the plans would cover.

Most of this info I got from reading an article written by Peter Pear and others.

How does the proposed America health care plans compare with those in Canada?

Once again Canadians across the country have looked across the border in disbelief as to how Americans just can’t seem to come to grips with their opinions that medical care is a right for everyone, not just those who can afford it. Many Americans also resist the idea that providing medical care is a collective responsibility whether it be for someone who has been in a car accident or diagnosed with breast cancer.

In Canada, we all pitch in to the costs of operating our health care plans through our taxes so doctors, nurses, hospital beds and MRI machines etc., are there for all of us when we need them. We don’t have to pay a cent for these services.

In Canada, we can decide to go to the ER of our choice and not have to even think about how much it will cost so we will get the treatment health professionals decide we need rather than what an insurance company deems we need.

In Ontario, our health needs and care are provided by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) People in Ontario don’t have to pay a cent for that coverage.

Many years ago, a woman I knew was suffering from what appeared to be inoperable cancer in the middle of her brain.  The surgeons told her that it was impossible to operate in that part of her brain without causing irreparable damage to her brain so they refused to operate.

She told me that she learned of a hospital in Sweden that does such operations with success by using a thin laser beam. She also said that she would have to be in the hospital for at least a month so that they can begin the procedure after fully examining her brain and planning the route that the laser beam will enter her brain.

She told me that she was told that the operation and the stay in the hospital would cost her $400,ooo dollars CAD. Naturally, she couldn’t afford that kind of money. She contacted OHIP and they refused to fund the operation. She then came to me and I convinced OHIP to pay for the operation, the hospital and the trip.  Her operation in Sweden was a success.

In 1999, when I was 66 years of age, I had a heart attack. I was in really bad shape. Of my four arteries feeding my heart, one was blocked 45% the second one was blocked 90%, the third, 90% and the fourth one, 99%. Of course, I had a heart operation. The three-month stay in the hospital, the large number of tests and the operation cost me nothing—not a cent.

Despite the operation, I have been living with only 27% of my heart functioning. For this reason, I had another two heart attacks  which resulted with me spending more months in the hospital. Further since I am obviously older than 59, all my medicine which is given to me from my local pharmacy and delivered by courier are given to me without having to pay a cent. If I had to pay for my medicine each month, I would have to pay at least a hundred dollars a month. OHIP also pays for my visits to my doctors, be they family doctors or specialists.   

Are Canada’s health plans superior to those of the United States? Let me give you an answer in a way that you will appreciate by asking you a question.


Is it the moon that raises our tides on Earth? 

Monday, 16 October 2017

Canada’s plans to fight cyber terrorism                                              

Bill C-59 – the National Security Act 2017 – outlines a new vision for Canadian national security. Reading between the lines of this “anti-terror” bill, there is a clear attempt here to comprehensively rework decision-making mechanisms to enhance oversight and ministerial control over counter terrorism, surveillance and cyberspace operations. The new bill is intended to revise the much-maligned existing Anti-Terrorism Act, known as C-51, enacted by the previous government in the immediate aftermath of the October 2014 terrorist attacks in Quebec and on Parliament Hill. Curiously, the bill was passed with the support of opposition Liberals who are now in power.

While its new measures demonstrates with clarity of vision as to where Prime Minister Trudeau’s administration would like its counter-terror efforts to go, the C-59 document reveals something else that is much more interesting.

For cyber (internet) operators preoccupied with arcane details or procedures, the decision by the Trudeau government to clarify and revise its policy outlook when it comes to cyber operations is substantial. This decision is likely to have far-reaching and enduring significance for both Canada and NATO’s cyberspace operations strategies and force development. The specifics of the proposed legislation may still be revised, however the broader policy shift toward more overt planning and deliberation on cyber defense falls in line with similar developments in other Five Eyes members (UK, US, Australia and New Zealand) capitals). Note that they are the only countries where English is their main language.


Because of this important similarity, many of the same issues and factors that have emerged as cyber operations controversies for these partners may also affect Canada’s new policy approach. More than anything else, C-59 encapsulates the most relevant cyber debates and issues of our time. As such, the Bill should not be considered more than just this; a beginning to coherent Canadian policy on cyber attacks.

What does C-59 really say about cyber attacks?


The focus of cyber operations defined within the proposed Bill (C-59) covers Computer Network Exploitation (CNE), computer network attack (CNA) and Defensive Cyberspace Operations (DCO). In plain English, these different categories can be thought of as spying, sabotaging, or defending one’s respective cyberspace. Of note in C-59, it isn’t the inclusion of these capabilities but is more importantly the absence of another capability area to wit; the Defensive Cyberspace Operations – Response Actions (DUO-RA which verifies the identity of the users with a two-factor authentication.

Heavily present in the US cyber-operations doctrine, DCO-RA will amount to offensive actions taken on sovereign networks or mission infrastructure to counter an adversary’s persistent access, activities, or disruptive behavior. While sounding quite simple on paper, DCO-RA in practice is quite controversial because of its potential impact on civilian third parties who will not be too happy with their government’s intrusion.

In national or allied cyber operations, DCO-RA could also necessitate actions on foreign soil in support of non-cyber activities. Such activities are likely to pose complex oversight challenges to existing or new government plans and oversight instruments. Where in the past clear lines have been defined between involvement vs. non-involvement in coalition operations, future cyber operations could implicate Canada in actions overseas that it might wish to avoid (e.g., avoiding commitment of troops or materiel).

While norms and Rules of Engagement (ROEs) set the limits of permissible actions in cyber operations, collateral effects can make it difficult to constrain unanticipated impacts. Defensive cyberspace operations carry the risk of inadvertent escalation if an adversary misunderstands their impact, or any other Cyber partner of unintended consequences and impacts.

Offense, Dominance and Cyber Defense

It is often asserted by specialists that cyberspace is a computer setting where attack (offense) is easier than defense. The new powers that C-59 allocates for cyber-attack and exploitation must be closely coordinated with defenses of civilian data, networks and public utilities that provide vital services.

Cyber risk management and vulnerability mitigation priorities must be reconciled with defense and intelligence planning. Critical infrastructure cybersecurity is currently the responsibility of Public Safety Canada, (PSC) provincial authorities and private sector business owners. Linking these two roles together may stress existing Canadian government mechanisms for managing cyber risks and collateral effects. Unfortunately, the mechanism for achieving this is not well described in Bill C-59.


More than anything else, C-59 encapsulates the most relevant cyber debates and issues of our time.


Perhaps the bill’s proposed new review agency, NSIRA, (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency) can provide a channel for public discussions on the efficiency of current planning and coordination approaches, but with the Bill’s vague language, it is difficult to tell where NSIRA’s mandate truly begins and ends.

Established entities—respectively CSIS, the RCMP, (Canada’s federal police) DND (Department of National Defence) and CSE (Communications Security Establishment) will likely participate in interagency discussions and planning processes where missions are developed. NSIRA and the new Parliamentary oversight committee will have the opportunity to review these mechanisms and police compliance with legislative and policy guidance.

Playing it safe

Alas, C-59 allocates responsibilities in ways that are while not always clear and yet, not particularly controversial. National defense responsibilities fall to the Department of National Defense, with CSE conducting signals intelligence operations in support of allied and Canadian mission priorities.

Bill C-59 clarifies and extends these mission areas, with the addition of two new roles: Active Defense—Foreign defensive cyber operations (on foreign infrastructure in response to digital attacks) and Foreign Active Cyber Operations on foreign infrastructure with the objective of proactively disrupting a potential threat to Canada or its allies. This addition, however, raises the issue of defensive actions that can be interpreted as offensive in nature especially if they intrude on people’s privacy.

Uncertainties—Risk and Oversight

Even well planned cyber operations present risks to innocent  third parties. These can be managed but never eliminated entirely. Cyber is an uneven domain, offering opportunities for less capable entities to challenge apparently stronger adversaries. What does this mean for the early detection of cyber threats?

While participation in cyber alliances like the Five Eye nations group provides intelligence about common threats, the interdiction of these threats at the national level must still be executed in the context of national laws. However, concerns  with   privacy and civil liberties overlap with the risk management requirements of cyber operations—both at home and abroad.

This apparent overlap can lead to perceived overreach when responding to cyber threats. Enhanced surveillance of networks for detection necessarily means greater risk to personal privacy from surveillance by the government.

C-59’s proposed joint Department National Defence and Foreign Affairs (DNDF) ministerial concurrence on cyber operations is an important threshold governing future developments in cyber operations. It is here that Parliamentary oversight of strategic policies and plans developed by the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and Department of National Defence (DNS) can have its most significant impact. It provides clearances to parliamentarians so that they can achieve deeper understanding of an issue not typically shared with them in their roles as Members of Parliament is essential.


The mechanism devised in Canada tracks well with the oversight committee models adopted in other Five Eyes capitals. Liaison among these legislative oversight agencies might offer an additional means to deepen collaborative frameworks beyond executive to executive and military to military channels.

Implications

Canada’s adoption of a more transparent policy on its cyber capabilities and mission requirements is a notable achievement for the Trudeau government in this particular Bill. Also significant are the experiences of other Western countries that have traveled the same path toward institutionalized cyberspace capabilities that are in the form of national strategies, purpose-designed agencies and executive level oversight mechanisms. The interaction of national and allied cyber plans will require novel mechanisms to ensure interoperability and deconfliction of activities.

Further, oversight at the national level will be challenged by the historically closely-held relationships among Five Eyes’ nations defense and intelligence establishments, which are not frequently the subject of a parliamentary review. It is likely that the Bill C-59 vision is just the opening gambit in a more-lengthy formulation and revision process for enhanced government oversight of cyber operations and associated intelligence activities.


I apologize for the complexity of this article but that is the way I received it however, I made some word changes to simplify the descriptions without changing the meanings.  

Friday, 13 October 2017

The creeps who sexually abuse young women on their casting couches                                                       

The casting couch  is used for the trading of sexual favors by an movie or television aspirant, apprentice employee, or subordinate to a superior in return for entry into an occupation, or for other career advancement within an organization. The term casting couch  originated in the motion picture industry, with specific reference to couches in offices that could be and were used for sexual activity between casting directors or film producers or leading actors in order sexually seduce  aspiring female actresses. It is suffice to say that these sexual leaches were real creeps.

The term is now often used to refer to other industries besides entertainment, though careers which are highly desirable and traditionally difficult to break into, such as the movie, television and music industries, have been the subject of casting couch stories in popular culture. Such trading of favors can be an abuse of power—possibly even statutory rape—and can become a wider sex scandal if deemed newsworthy—which many have been.

The legend of the Hollywood casting couch coincided with the rise of the studio system in the 1910s. Many moguls were rumoured to have been enthusiastic practitioners and it has been claimed that many actresses attempted, with varying degrees of success, to attain stardom via this route. In my opinion, if they were voluntarily searching for a casting couch to further their aims, I hardly think that can be classed as some form of sexual abuse unless of course the man is having sex with an under-aged girl.


In her memoir Child Star (1988), actress Shirley Temple claimed that one producer exposed himself to her in 1940 when she was only 12. I am sure he wanted more but she wouldn’t have complied with any wishes he hoped would be fulfilled.

In 2011, Corey Feldman alleged that children were also victims of the casting couch. Paul Petersen said that some of the culprits are still in the game and Alison Arngrim claimed that Feldman and Corey Haim were given drugs and passed around in the 1980s to other pedophiles.

In her book You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town  Again, (1991), Oscar-winning producer, Julia Phillips attempted to expose many of the underground Hollywood institutions and confirmed that a "casting couch" mentality was alive and well in Hollywood.

In a 1995 article, journalist Peter Keough described Hollywood as "a town where everyone is selling body and soul for fame and fortune and all —especially women who are considered as  real commodities. In my opinion, Hollywood was becoming a brothel.`` 

In a 1996 interview, actor Woody Harrelson declared “Every acting business I ever entered into in New York seemed to have a casting couch.  I've seen so many people sleep with people they loathe in order to further their ambition.    Imagine going to bed with a man who is so loathsome, even a horny dog would run from him.

In 2003, Italian actress Asia Argento  stated that Hollywood producers expect oral sex from young starlets in exchange for roles. Her semi-autobiographical film Scarlet Diva  (2000) features a scene along these lines with painter  Joe Coleman playing a lecherous producer inspired, as revealed in October 2017, by Argento's alleged experience with Harvey Weinstein, the sexual leach I will be adding in this article later.

Robert Hofler's book The Man Who Invented Rock Hudson (2005) alleged that Hollywood agent Henry Willson was a gay casting-couch predator. Incidentally, Rock Hudson was also gay.

In her 2005 autobiography, actress Goldie Hawn stated that cartoonist, Al Capp sexually propositioned her on a casting couch and exposed himself to her when she was nineteen years old. When she refused his advances, Capp became angry and told her that she was "never gonna make anything in your life" and that she should "go and marry a Jewish dentist. You'll never get anywhere in this business.   

At a 2005 class reunion, producer Chris Hanley told his former classmates that "almost every leading actress in all of his 24 films has slept with a director or producer or a leading actor to get the part that launched her career.

In her autobiography Ich habe ja gewusst, dass ich fliegen kann (I knew I could fly—2006), Austrian actress Senta Berger (born in 1941) claimed that in a New York hotel suite in 1965 a producer (born  in 1902) exposed himself to her beneath his silk dressing gown and offered to forgive her for the atrocities of the Nazis if she slept with him. Hey, dummy. Why were you blaming her for what the atrocities the Nazis did? She was a very young child during the War with the Nazis.

In 2006, a New York City producer was accused of sexually harassing several members of the cast of the off-Broadway play, Dog Sees God.

In 2009, Megan Fox stated that leading film directors made sexual propositions while casting for film roles.

In a 2009 interview with OK! Magazine, actress Charlize Theron claimed that when she was 18, she was propositioned at an audition by a pajama-clad Hollywood director.[  "I thought it was a little odd that the audition was on a Saturday night at his house in Los Angeles, but I thought maybe that was normal. It was a normal occurrence in Hollywood and still is.  

In a 2009 interview, actor Mickey Rourke declared: "There's definitely something called a casting couch. If you take a girl from the Midwest with a pretty face and instead of inviting them in for an audition in the morning, the directors invite them for dinner at night. I can recall with certain women, we'd go out, I'd park the car on Sunset and by the time I'd got to the curb there'd be three or four producers handing them cards.  That's ways you can  get a job.”

In a 2010 interview with Elle magazineGwyneth Paltrow revealed that early in her career, a film executive suggested that a business meeting should finish in the bedroom.

In April 2010, actor Ryan Phillippe admitted on the Howard Stern Show that he had had to flee a real creepy casting-couch session when he was 18 or 19.        

In a 2010 interview with Access Hollywood, actress Lisa Rinna  said a producer had asked her for "a quickie" when she was a 24-year-old candidate for a role on a prominent television series. .At the same interview, Rinna's husband Harry Hamlin claimed that a female casting director attempted to seduce him in the late 1970s when he was 27.

In the November 2012 issue of ElleSusan Sarandon spoke of a really disgusting" casting-couch experience in New York City in the late 1960s or early 1970s. She said,  "I just went into a room and a guy practically threw me on the desk. It was my early days in New York and it was really disgusting. It wasn't like I gave it a second thought. It was so badly done.” I presume she is speaking of the sex.

Theresa Russell has alleged in multiple interviews that she was propositioned by a legendary producer Sam Spiegel during her first casting session for The Last Tycoon. According to his biographer, Spiegel had previously made liberal use of the casting couch during the making of The Chase  in 1966.

In July 2016, television executive Roger Ailes was accused of sexual harassment  by former Fox News channel anchor Gretchen.  More than twenty other women, including Megyn Kelly and Andrea Tantaros, have since come forward with similar allegations about Ailes' predatory casting couch-like behavior in the television industry over a 50-year period.

In October 2016, Cher posted on Twitter that she had had a “scary experience” with an unnamed and now deceased "gross" rich, important film producer at his house. She stated that she walked out and they never spoke to him again because "no job is worth that.”

Also in October 2016, Rose McGowan tweeted that she had been raped by a studio head who then bought the distribution rights to one of her films. She was then shamed while her rapist was adulated despite the rape being an open secret in Hollywood. A year later, the studio head McGowan accused was revealed to have been Harvey Weinstein. Now I am going to tell you about that creepy sexual predator.

Harvey WeinsteinCBE (honorary) (born March 19, 1952) is an American film producer r and former film studio executive. He was a co-founded  of Miramax, which produced several popular independent films including Pulp Fiction, Clerks,   The Crying Game, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. He won an Academy Award for producing Shakespeare in Love, and garnered seven Tony Awards for producing a variety of winning plays and musicals, including The Producer’s, Billy Elliot the Musical, and August, Osage County.


Weinstein and his brother Bob were founders and co-chairmen of the Weinstein Company from 2005 to 2017. In October 2017, the company's board of directors fired Weinstein following allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault against young women.

This sexual creep was no different than many men in power such as former president Clinton when he was first a governor and sexually abused a woman working for him and later when he was the president of the U.S. and had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, a 22-year-old employee working in his office. 

The Hollywood establishment, slow to react to the initial sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein, (age 65 at this writing) began speaking out against him more forcefully. Among those weighing in were his longtime allies and beneficiaries such as Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Kevin Smith and Judi Dench. They spoke up with a combination of disgust over his alleged behaviour and remorse or defensiveness over their own business entanglements with him. Streep, who once called Weinstein "God" while accepting the Golden Globe for The Iron Lady, condemned his alleged conduct as "inexcusable" while also saying she did not know about it before. Even the actors' labour union SAG-AFTRA joined the chorus in condemning the disgraced movie mogul, calling reports of his alleged conduct as being abhorrent and said it was unacceptable.

Similarly, Dench, whose awards and nominations have been inextricably linked for two decades to Weinstein, first at his company Miramax and then at the Weinstein Co., said in a statement that she was completely unaware of the horrifying offences.

Kate Winslet, who won an Oscar for Weinstein’s company’s The Reader" said in a statement that the alleged behaviour is  without question disgraceful and appalling.

Glenn Close had also heard the vague rumours of Weinstein’s inappropriate behaviour toward women. He said in a statement to the New York Times.  “Harvey has always been decent to me, but now that the rumours are being substantiated, I feel angry and darkly sad. I'm angry, not just at him and the conspiracy of silence around his actions, but also that the 'casting couch' phenomenon, so to speak, is still a reality in our business and in the world. The horrible pressure, the awful expectation that is put on a woman when a powerful, egotistical, entitled bully expects sexual favours in exchange for a job.”

A studio insider who was not authorized to discuss the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity told The Associated Press that the Weinstein Company plans to change its name. Weinstein's name will be stripped from the TV series Waco and Yellowstone, among other projects.

Actress Lena Dunham tweeted Sunday night, “It is easy to think Weinstein Company took swift action but this has actually been the slowest action because they always always knew


Since the Times article, more accounts of predatory behaviour have followed. In a HuffPost report, TV anchor Lauren Sivan detailed an alleged 2007 encounter with Weinstein. Sivan, then working at a New York cable channel, said Weinstein cornered her in the hallway of a New York City restaurant closed to the public and masturbated in front of her. Sivan said she had rejected an attempt by Weinstein to kiss her, and he responded, “Well, can you just stand there and shut up?”

Ms. Gwyneth Paltrow, 45, is now an entrepreneur and is no longer dependent on securing her next acting role. But she emphasized how much more vulnerable she felt at 22, when Mr. Weinstein had just signed her up for a star-making part. On a trip to Los Angeles, she received a schedule from her agents for the hotel meeting with Mr. Weinstein.

When she was 22 years old, she got a role that would take her from actress to that of a star. The film producer Harvey Weinstein hired her for the lead in the Jane Austen adaptation Emma. Before shooting began, he summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting that began uneventfully. Later it ended with Mr. Weinstein placing his hands on her and suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages.

“I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,” she said in an interview, publicly disclosing that she was sexually harassed by the man who ignited her career and later helped her win an Academy Award.

She refused his advances, she said, and confided in Brad Pitt, her boyfriend at the time. Mr. Pitt confronted Mr. Weinstein, and soon after, the producer warned her not to tell anyone else about his come-on.

Soon after, Mr. Weinstein called Ms. Paltrow and berated her for discussing the episode; she told him that she had told a few friends, family members and her agent. She said, “He screamed at me for a long time.” she said that she was that fearing she could lose the role in Emma. “It was brutal.” But she stood her ground, and insisted that he put the relationship back on professional footing. Their work relationship grew rockier over the years, she said, and she distanced herself. “He was alternately generous and supportive and championing, and punitive and bullying, Men who behave like that are classed as psych0paths—people who are indifferent to the feelings of others.

In 1984, when Tomi-Ann Roberts was a 20-year-old college junior, she waited tables in New York one summer and hoped to start an acting career. Harvey Weinstein, one of her customers, urged her to audition for a movie that he and his brother were planning to direct. He sent scripts to her and then asked her to meet him where he was staying so they could discuss the film. 

When she arrived, he was nude in the bathtub, she recalled. He told her that she would give a much better audition if she were comfortable “getting naked in front of him,” too, He said that was because the character she might play would be in a topless scene. She was told that if she could not bare her breasts in private, she would not be able to do it on film

Ms. Roberts remembers apologizing on the way out, telling Mr. Weinstein that she was too prudish to go along. Later, she felt that he had manipulated her by feigning professional interest in her, and she doubted that she had ever been under serious consideration. She later said, “I was nobody! How had I ever thought otherwise?”

Today she is a psychology professor at Colorado College in which she is  researching sexual objectification, an interest she traces back in part to that long-ago encounter with Weinstein.  She said that over the years she had had trouble watching Mr. Weinstein’s films. With a new release, “I would always ask myself, is it a Miramax movie?”

A New York Times investigation  chronicled a hidden history of sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Weinstein and settlements he paid, often involving former employees, over a period of three decades up to 2015. The newspaper’s  published report included multiple allegations of sexual assault, including forced oral and vaginal sex. The article also included accounts of sexual harassment going back to the 1990s, with women describing how intimidating Mr. Weinstein was.

In the early 1990s, Weinstein asked Rosanna Arquette to stop by the Beverly Hills Hotel to pick up a script for a role.

Born into a family of actors, Ms. Arquette had already starred in a hit film, Desperately Seeking Susan, and New York Stories.  She would go on to perform in films including Crash and television shows ranging from Ray Donovan to Girls. Her account with Weinstein also appeared in The New Yorker.

At the reception desk, she was told to head upstairs, which she found odd. When she reached his room, Weinstein was in a white bathrobe, complaining of neck pain and asking her for a massage, according to Ms. Arquette.  She said that she tried to recommend a professional masseuse, but Weinstein grabbed her hand and pulled it toward his crotch. She immediately drew her hand away.

He boasted about the famous actresses he had supposedly slept with which was a common element of his come-on, according to several other women who had encounters with Mr. Weinstein. “Rosanna, you’re making a big mistake,” he responded to her withdrawing her hand. Telling anyone the names of other women he had sex with is the actions of a creep.

 She recalled telling him on the way out. “I will never be that kind of girl.” What is most interesting to know is; if Ms. Arquette had had sex with Weinstein, would she have still been given the part she was told was available to her?

 Weinstein’s representative later pointed out that Mr. Weinstein did not produce the movie he spoke about during Ms. Arquette encounter with Weinstein.  Later, Ms. Arquette was in the Miramax film Pulp Fiction but she said that she avoided being anywhere near Weinstein.

Rosanna Arquette, a star of Pulp Fiction, has a similar account of Mr. Weinstein’s behavior, as does Judith Godrèche, a leading French actress. So did Angelina Jolie, who said that during the release of Playing by Heart in the late 1990s, he made unwanted advances on her in a hotel room, which she rejected.

Actress Ms. Jolie in her experience with Weinstein said, “I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, I chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did. This behavior towards women in any field, any country is most unacceptable.”

In 2003, Dawn Dunning was doing small acting gigs, attending design school and waitressing in a nightclub where she met Harvey Weinstein.

The 24-year-old was wary, but Weinstein was very friendly, professional and supportive when he offered her a screen test at Miramax, by inviting her to lunch and dinner to talk about films and even giving her and her boyfriend tickets to see the Producers he produced on Broadway.

Then his assistant invited her to a meal with Mr. Weinstein at a Manhattan hotel. Ms. Dunning headed to the restaurant, where she was told that Mr. Weinstein’s earlier meeting was running late, so she should head up to his suite.

There was no meeting. Mr. Weinstein was in a bathrobe, behind a coffee table covered with papers.

He told her they were contracts for his next three films, according to Ms. Dunning. But she could only sign them on a condition: She would have to have three-way sex with him

Ms. Dunning said that she laughed, assuming he was joking, and that Mr. Weinstein suddenly grew angry. He told her, “You’ll never make it in this business.  This is how this business works.”

Does anyone know what three-way sex is? Is it done when three people are involved or is it done in three different ways?

Erika Rosenbaum, 37 and an actress told CBC News accused disgraced Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment and assault. She said there were three separate instances nearly 15 years ago where Weinstein aggressively came on to her.

Rosenbaum said that she met Weinstein at a party in Los Angeles in her early 20s. Afterward, they booked a meeting to discuss her career. But the meeting's location was changed to a hotel at the last minute, she said, and when she arrived, Weinstein's tone shifted. 

She said, "I suddenly found myself fending him off, as though we were on a first date and he was making unwanted advances," Rosenbaum. She said she was trying to avoid embarrassing or angering him, because she was aware his negative opinion could sink her career. She said she protested, but he persuaded her to give him a massage.  She said, “He put an arm around me and started—as if he was a boyfriend.  He started trying to be intimate with me.” Rosenbaum later said that she left the meeting feeling disgusted but was aware that any wrong move with the powerful executive could ruin her career.  She felt trapped in his room.  
                            
In another meeting, which took place in the mid-2000s at a hotel room during the Toronto International Film Festival, Weinstein grabbed Rosenbaum’s neck while he masturbated while standing behind her in the bathroom

Actress Rose McGowan has been arguably the loudest celebrity voice condemning Hollywood’s tolerance for sexual misconduct and rape. But as accusations began to mount against Weinstein,  including revelations from high-profile actresses such as Ashley Judd, Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow.  McGowan has used her Twitter account to also call out men who know the movie mogul and have stayed quiet about his alleged misconduct.

The Times reported that Weinstein had reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity, including one allegedly with McGowan back in 1997.

In 2016, Rose McGowan made waves when she publically alleged that a studio head (Weinstein) had raped her. Using the hashtag, #Why Women Don’t Report, she said she never reported the alleged crime because she was told that she could never win such a case as told to her by a female criminal attorney who said,  “…because I had had done a sex scene in a film I would never win against the studio head,” McGowan added that her ex-partner sold the film she was working on to her alleged rapist’s company.” She said, “They shamed me while adulating my rapist.”

McGowan is among a number of women in Hollywood posting on social media in the aftermath of the New York Times report that revealed decades of sexual harassment allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein She has often spoken in veiled terms about an incident that occurred between her and the former head of Weinstein Company in 1997, of an incident between her and Harvey Weinstein which reportedly occurred during the Sundance Film Festival and resulted in Weinstein paying McGowan a $100,000 settlement.                   

According to a legal document obtained by The New York Times, “the $100,000 settlement was ‘not to be construed as an admission by Mr. Weinstein, but intended to ‘avoid litigation and buy peace.'” It certainly didn’t buy Weinstein any peace.       

The New York Times story included allegations from multiple women including actress Ashley Judd accusing Weinstein of inappropriate behavior and sexual harassment.                                  

Through his lawyer Lisa Bloom, Weinstein denied “many of the accusations” in the Times article “as patently false.” In a statement, Weinstein’s lawyer Charles Harder added the producer is preparing a lawsuit against the Times.

That would be a very stupid thing to do because once the trial begins, all the women who told the Times what Weinstein did to them would,  while giving their testimony, describe in great detail what this man really did to them. It is not unlike taking the words sexual abuse and running it through a Thesaurus for greater detail. Right now, all they are saying is that he sexually abused them.

Attorney Lisa Bloom subsequently resigned as a legal adviser to Harvey Weinstein as the film producer faces a spate of sexual harassment allegations. Bloom, who has previously represented women accusing Fox News employees of sexual harassment, announced the news on Twitter, “My understanding is that Mr. Weinstein and his board are moving toward an agreement. (probably a financial one) ” Her resignation came just a day after she appeared to play down the allegations in an appearance on Good Morning America. While she conceded that “what Harvey Weinstein has done is wrong,” she also insisted that he “has changed” in recent years and claimed the allegations against him were not of “sexual harassment” but of “workplace misconduct.” (Is there a difference between the two?) Bloom's mother, women's rights crusader Gloria Allred, had condemned her daughter's decision to represent Weinstein. 

I find it interesting that Weinstein denied many of the allegations against him that were listed in The Times.  That must mean that other allegations written in the Times are true.

 In a lengthy statement provided to the Times, Weinstein himself apologized by saying, “The way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past (was because) I came of age in the 19’60s and 19’70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.” unquote  Rape and other forms of  sexual abuse is the culture of a great many thousands of men but that doesn’t mean that men have to indulge in that kind of culture.

Weinstein said in his statement to the Times. “I have since learned it’s not an excuse, in the office or out of it. To anyone, I realized some time ago that I needed to be a better person and my interactions with the people I work with have changed. I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past (which) has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.”

If that isn’t an admission that he really did attempt to sexually some of these women and in other situations, he did sexually abuse these women, then I don’t know what is.


When this serial sexual predator was making sexual overtures  to his victims when they were hesitant in giving him what he wanted, did he imply that if they didn't comply to his demands, then their hopes of a any career in Hollywood would no longer exist.  That was in fact a form of extortion and that is a criminal offence. 

Soon after the New York Times publication, additional actresses began sharing with The Times on-the-record stories of casting-couch abuses. Their accounts hint at the sweep of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged harassment, targeting women on the way to stardom, those who had barely acted and others in between. Fantasies that the public eagerly watched onscreen, the women recounted, sometimes masked the dark experiences of those performing in them.

The encounters these women recalled followed similar stories. First, the other women said that Mr. Weinstein lured them to a private place to discuss films, scripts or even Oscar campaigns. Then, the women said that he variously tried to initiate massages, touched them inappropriately, took off his clothes or offered them explicit work-for-sex deals.

More established actresses were fearful of speaking out because they had work.  Less established ones were scared because they did not speak out.  “This is Harvey Weinstein,” Katherine Kendall, who appeared in the film Swingers and television roles, remembers telling herself after an encounter in which she said Weinstein undressed and chased her around a living room. Telling others meant “I’ll never work again and no one is going to care or believe me,” she reasoned at the time, which she later said in an interview.

Attorney Lisa Bloom subsequently resigned as a legal adviser to Harvey Weinstein as the film producer faces a spate of sexual harassment allegations. Bloom, who has previously represented women accusing Fox News employees of sexual harassment, announced the news on Twitter, “My understanding is that Mr. Weinstein and his board are moving toward an agreement. (probably a financial one) ” Her resignation came just a day after she appeared to play down the allegations in an appearance on Good Morning America. While she conceded that “what Harvey Weinstein has done is wrong,” she also insisted that he “has changed” in recent years and claimed the allegations against him were not of “sexual harassment” but of “workplace misconduct.” (Is there a difference between the two?) Bloom's mother, women's rights crusader Gloria Allred, had condemned her daughter's decision to represent Weinstein. 

The New York Times story included allegations from multiple women including actress Ashley Judd accusing Weinstein of inappropriate behavior and sexual harassment.                                  

Through his lawyer Lisa Bloom, Weinstein denied “many of the accusations” in the Times article “as patently false.” In a statement, Weinstein’s lawyer Charles Harder added the producer is preparing a lawsuit against the Times.

That would be a very stupid thing to do because once the trial begins, all the women who told the Times what Weinstein did to them would,  while giving their testimony, describe in great detail what this man really did to them. It is not unlike taking the words sexual abuse and running it through a Thesaurus for greater detail. Right now, all they are saying is that he sexually abused them.

Attorney Lisa Bloom subsequently resigned as a legal adviser to Harvey Weinstein as the film producer faces a spate of sexual harassment allegations. Bloom, who has previously represented women accusing Fox News employees of sexual harassment, announced the news on Twitter, “My understanding is that Mr. Weinstein and his board are moving toward an agreement. (probably a financial one) ” Her resignation came just a day after she appeared to play down the allegations in an appearance on Good Morning America. While she conceded that “what Harvey Weinstein has done is wrong,” she also insisted that he “has changed” in recent years and claimed the allegations against him were not of “sexual harassment” but of “workplace misconduct.” (Is there a difference between the two?) Bloom's mother, women's rights crusader Gloria Allred, had condemned her daughter's decision to represent Weinstein. 

I find it interesting that Weinstein denied many of the allegations against him that were listed in The Times.  That must mean that other allegations written in the Times are true.

 In a lengthy statement provided to the Times, Weinstein himself apologized by saying, “The way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past (was because) I came of age in the 19’60s and 19’70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.” unquote  Rape and other forms of  sexual abuse is the culture of a great many thousands of men but that doesn’t mean that men have to indulge in that kind of culture.

Weinstein said in his statement to the Times. “I have since learned it’s not an excuse, in the office or out of it. To anyone, I realized some time ago that I needed to be a better person and my interactions with the people I work with have changed. I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past (which) has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.”

If that isn’t an admission that he really did attempt to sexually some of these women and in other situations, he did sexually abuse these women, then I don’t know what is.

These brave women who spoke out—many of them at the cost of their careers and professional networks, endured years of disbelief and others years of keeping painful experiences hidden before what is now described as an ‘open secret’ that burst like pus from an infection and released to the public the stench of decades of sexual violence and harassment by men who were in power.

One would think that those women who have with embarrassment, announced to the World what Weinstein did to them, would be carried shoulder-high across the studio lots for finally exposing a man who disgraced Hollywood. But instead they are now entering the next aspect of hell that is common to so many women who report sexual violence against them. Their public accusations and their willingness to prevent that kind of sexual violence that has occurred in Hollywood during earlier years, is certainly worthy of  admiration. Unfortunately, the survivors of Harvey Weinstein’s violent, bullying behaviour are now bringing his victims to task in massive media headlines for not speaking up sooner, for not caring about one another’s suffering and even, yes, for ‘asking for Weinstein’s sexual abuse in the first place.      

At one point, Weinstein reportedly offered to go to Europe for rehab, where they have special trips to the Alps or whatever. Journalists would call that act as what it commonly referred to as “fleeing the country,” or otherwise known as “Doing a Polanski,”  This man was a film director. In March 1977, and  was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl with rape by use of drugs, lewd perversion, sodomy and a  lascivious act upon a child under 14, To escape his sentence, he slipped out of the United States and went to Europe where is still residing today. Women in whatever sex sanitarium he lands in should fear this wretched, ‘slippery as greasey-type of man.



Marchesa designer, Georgina Chapman had told People Magazine in a statement that she was separating from Weinstein with whom she shares two young children. I don’t know if the children are hers or both of them or if he molested them or not. I am sure however that if he did, they would have told their mother and since she is only leaving him with her children because of the recent revelations about molesting women, the children were probably not molested by him. There is no doubt in my mind that if Hollywood makes a movie about Harvey Weinstein's life, Georgina Chapman won't let her kids watch the movie because she doesn't want them watching monster movies. 

A great many of us men world-wide have known people like that when we were young boys. I am an expert on that subject having been sexually molested when I was both eleven and twelve years old, first by my late father and later by a man who was in charge of a boy’s group home I had been sent to.

Harvey Weinstein was catapulted into World notoriety and plummeted into a mushrooming sexual harassment scandal that has hobbled his status as a media mogul and left his future in Hollywood in jeopardyThe Weinstein Company’s board of directors soon after the disclosure, voted to remove Weinstein from the studio, leaving control of the company in the hands of Weinstein’s brother, Bob Weinstein, and chief operating officer David Glasser.

The statement from the Board of Directors stated, “In light of new information about misconduct by Harvey Weinstein that has emerged in the past few days, the directors of  the Weinstein Company, Robert Weinstein, Lance Maerov, Richard   Koenigsberg and Tarak Ben Ammar  have determined, and have informed Harvey Weinstein, that his employment with The Weinstein Company is terminated, effective immediately,”

Weinstein did not agree to leave the company and there was no financial settlement in place, according to an insider. He had been fired for cause after the board met having spent most of a weekend trying to hammer out a deal for Weinstein to leave. Weinstein still controlled roughly 20% of the company. The company may have to give him his share as one lump sum.

Weinstein’s career has been destroyed by the devastating New York Times report documenting decades of legal settlements stemming from sexual harassment allegations leveled by former employees and associates, as well as accusations of improper sexual advances from actress Ashley Judd. The allegations extend back to Weinstein’s days when he was running Miramax, an independent film studio that was then owned by the Walt Disney Company.

It’s really amazing what a man’s penis in conjunction with his brain will do to destroy his reputation and career and in some cases, even his freedom.

Harvey Weinstein was a mogul, whose tenacity and ruthlessness previously put him at the nexus of Hollywood, Wall Street, and the Beltway. He was not just a movie producer; Weinstein was also a political player and major force in New York City and Hollywood’s cultural and corporate life.

However, the scandal that shrouded him was the latest in a long line of entertainers and moguls, from Roger Ailes to Bill O’Reilly to Bill Cosby and many others who have been brought down by accusations of sexual harassment or other forms of misconduct. Now he is simply a disgusting lecherous creep who was found out.

His alleged sexual abuse became something of a Hollywood open secret. When the comedian, Seth MacFarlane announced the Oscar nominees in 2013, he joked, “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” The audience laughed. Nevertheless, Weinstein’s misconduct continued.

If you think these events are disgusting (which they are), consider the fact that they also have been part of all of our historic cultures. It goes on all over the world and has been for centuries. It is certainly unacceptable in 2017 and forever as it was in the past.   

The workplace is very dangerous place where sexual predators prowl. The problem is not money and power.  It is how some men; especially those in positions of power generally treat women. Money and power is just the way of keeping their disgusting  sexual abuse quiet. Does it not matter if they are Bill Clinton, Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein? Yes it does because men in power who take advantages of both women and/or children for sexual gratification deserve to be punished and ostracized. 

It’s always interesting as to how such behavior is ignored for decades and then suddenly it gets exposed unexpectantly. It only takes one complainant to publicly make an announcement. When that happens, there is often a flood of similar complaints suddenly opening the flood gates and submerging the sexual predator‘s reputation permanently.

In a statement made by Weinstein’s spokesperson, Sallie Hofmeister, said: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. He will not be available for further comments, as he is taking the time to focus on his family, on getting counseling and rebuilding his life.”

This movie mogul’s decision to seek professional help only came in the wake of this current massive and ongoing sexual harassment and assault scandal, in which dozens of women had come forward to accuse him of sexual abuse over the course of decades.

At one point, Weinstein reportedly offered to go to Europe for rehab, where they have special trips to the Alps or whatever. Journalists would call that act as what it commonly referred to as “fleeing the country,” or otherwise known as “Doing a Polanski,”  This man was a film director. In March 1977, and  was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl with rape by use of drugs, lewd perversion, sodomy and a  lascivious act upon a child under 14, To escape his sentence, he slipped out of the United States and went to Europe where is still residing today.




Why didn’t this sexual predator seek help years ago? Why is he seeking help now? The answer to that last question is obvious. He is trying to save his reputation. Trying to save his reputation is not unlike a drowning man clutching straws to stay afloat when there is a heavy anchor attached to his feet.

I don’t know what just kind of help this man is going to get.  Although participating in sex is considered a natural part of life, as is the case with anything else, when it’s taken to an extreme, it can produce negative consequences. Sex addiction treatment program options are available, but it’s important to understand what’s involved in this addiction and how it develops. While psychologists have struggled to arrive at a precise definition for sex addiction, it’s largely believed to include an inability to control or manage one’s sexual behavior.

 According to Medical News Today, it’s thought that sexual addictions could be associated with chemical changes within the brain. Researchers also now believe that lesions located on a specific area of the brain could result in compulsive sexual behavior. Individuals who suffer from sexual addictions often come from dysfunctional families and have often been abused by others in the past. Studies have also found a large number of sex addicts have family members who also suffer from other types of addiction. CNN reports as many as 80 percent of sex addicts have experienced emotional trauma or sexual abuse. Naturally, I have no idea about what made become addicted to sex.

An individual who’s suffering from sexual addiction might also have made multiple attempts to control his or her behavior without success. Sex addicts might also spend an extensive amount of time attempting to obtain sex. This behavior can interfere with work, recreational and social activities. In some instances, the person might experience sexual rage disorder and become anxious, distressed or violent if they aren’t able to engage in sexual activity. This may explain why Weinstein was angry on occasion when his sexual overtures were rebuffed.

Sex addiction can be difficult to spot from the outside. Most addicts become skilled at hiding their behavior and can even keep the addiction secret from spouses, partners, and family members. They will do this by lying about their activities or engaging in them at times and places where they won’t be found out.

But sometimes symptoms are present and noticeable. A person might have a sex addiction if they show some or all of the following signs such as chronic, obsessive sexual thoughts and fantasies, frequent relations with multiple partners, including strangers, lying to cover their addiction, preoccupation with having sex, even when it interferes with daily life, productivity, work performance, etc., inability to stop or control the sec behaviors,  putting oneself or others in danger due to the sexual behavior, engaging in sexual activity with prostitutes or illegally with minors, need for dominance and control in sexual encounters and feeling remorse or guilt after sex.

It is obvious that some of these signs would apply to Harvey Weinstein but certainly not all of them. But there is no doubt in my mind that he needs psychiatric help to solve his problem. He can be cured but it will take some considerable time because sex addiction is a really difficult habit to erase from one’s mind. What will be impossible to erase is his now destroyed reputation.

I hardly think that those women who had sex with Weinstein really wanted to have sex with that sexual predator.

 Harvey Weinstein must learn this valuable lesson. If a man says that he will give a woman what she desires if she goes to bed with him; this can hardly be considered a consensual sexual relationship. Such a relationship is valid when both parties participating in such a sex act actually want to have sex together.

Is Weinstein currently honest in his response to the allegations and also sincere in his claim that he will seek help? I will give you my answer after you ask yourselves these two following questions.

Is the pope an atheist?  Do Jews eat pork? There is my answer to my question as to whether or not Weinstein is honest in his response to the allegations and him claiming to be sincere. 




Right now I can hear a faint voice coming from the bottom of the sea. Can you hear it? It is Harvey Weinstein with the anchor still attached to his feet exclaiming, “I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.” 



If a man wishes to be respected, he must possess virtues that are admired by all. Does Weinstein now have those virtues?” More importantly, does any serial sexual predator  really have virtues? 


Maybe in the future, he may become a decent man. One thing is for sure. He won’t get a job where his working environment is close to women and where he is in a position where he can hire, promote or fire them.