#doublestandards

Hollywood hypocrites exposed by the Weinstein scandal

8A16DD9C-7570-4181-AE9D-F6FC3595CBBA.jpeg

Most Hollywood celebrities are a hypocritical mob, a claim CM has made countless times. Grandstanding about all of the social injustice in the world but in most cases doing nothing personal about it, Whether it be Leo DiCaprio telling us that climate change is the biggest threat of our time as he flies his eyebrow stylist half way around the world on a private jet to Meryl Streep speaking of her utter disgust at the President and his lack of respect for women. Now we have a thermonuclear scandal within their own ranks  – Harvey Weinstein. His career now appears so sullied, all celebrities can act (being the operative word) as paragons of virtue and exemplary behaviour because he has lost his career-influencing mojo and now serves no purpose. He is a sacrifice.

True to form celebrity double standards come shining through. All of a sudden, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett and others come out of their bubble and condemned his actions of which they claim they had no idea. Of course his actions, if proven true are abhorrent. Presumably in all of the drug and alcohol fueled benders that in and out of rehab celebrities – who spend their lives boasting, boosting then denying self made rumors to gain the spotlight – attend, not one of them got a whiff of what was going on? Puhlease. How obvious is it to spot an office romance at your company Christmas party? Doesn’t take an Einstein to work it out.

After all these celebrities are the most switched on of all enlightened beings when patronizing us with their wisdom on politics, refugees to the environment. Many would never let a moment pass to provide their guidance or opinion. Yet, they somehow managed to miss what must have been a pretty obvious behavioural pattern if it has been as widespread over decades as reported. Not one of these up and coming fame seeking stars confided in one of the established Hollywood A-listers that they were pressured to watch him supposedly pleasure himself or presumably participated in sex acts or became victims of rape?

So who has come forward?

ANGELINA JOLIE (1998) Jolie said she rejected Weinstein’s sexual advances in a hotel room during the release of 1998’s Playing by Heart.

GWYNETH PALTROW (1996) Weinstein met 22-year-old Paltrow for what she thought was a work meeting at a Beverly Hills hotel. He suggested they head to his bedroom for massages. She refused.

HEATHER GRAHAM (early 2000s) Graham says Weinstein called her into his office and said he wanted to put her in one of his movies. He mentioned an agreement he had with his wife where he could sleep with whoever he wanted while he was out of town.

MIRA SORVINO (1995) Sorvino said Weinstein “harassed her” and pressured her to have a sexual relationship while she acted in Miramax films, massaged her shoulders and chased her around

ROSETTA ARQUETTE (1990s) Arquette took a business meeting with Weinstein that escalated into her being sexually propositioned.

ASHLEY JUDD (1990s) Judd was summoned to Weinstein’s hotel room to talk about roles in his movies. Instead, Weinstein asked her for a massage, and after she declined, he asked her to watch him shower. “I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times.”

ROSE MCGOWAN (1997) McGowan had reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an unwanted encounter in a hotel room during Sundance Film Festival in 1997.

LAUREN SIVAN (2007) Weinstein trapped the journalist in the hallway of a restaurant, tried to kiss her, then blocked her path and masturbated.

TOMI-ANN ROBERTS (1984) Roberts was waiting tables in New York and hoping to start an acting career. Weinstein urged her to audition for him saying she would give a better audition if she were comfortable “getting naked in front of him”.

LOUISE GODBOLD (1990s) Godbold, co-executive director of the non-profit Echo Parenting & Education said during an office tour she got trapped in an empty meeting room, where Weinstein begged for a massage.

LAURA MADDEN (1991) Madden, a former employee of Weinstein’s said he would ask her to give him massages in hotel rooms.

KATHERINE KENDALL (1993) Actress Kendall said Weinstein gave her scripts and invited her to a screening, which turned out to be a solo trip with him. He emerged from the bathroom in a robe, asking for a massage and chased her and asked to at least see her breasts.

LIZA CAMPBELL (1995) The British artist and writer started working with the Weinstein Co in 1995. He invited her to his hotel room and suggested they take a bath together.

JUDITH GODRECHE (1996) Weinstein invited Godreche to breakfast at the Cannes Film Festival in his hotel suite to see the view and discuss her film’s marketing campaign. Instead he asked for a, started “pressing against me and pulling off my sweater”.

ROSE MCGOWAN (1997) McGowan reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an encounter in a hotel room during Sundance Film Festival in 1997.

ASIA ARGENTO (1997-1999) The Italian actress was 21 when she met Weinstein, whose company was distributing her film. She said she entered a “consensual” relationship afraid of what would happen if she refused. During the first encounter he forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop.

ROMOLA GARAI (2000) The British actress claimed Weinstein had her privately audition for him in a hotel room while he was wearing a bathrobe. “I was only 18. I felt violated by it, it has stayed very clearly in my memory.”

DAWN DUNNING (2003) Dunning met Weinstein when she was waitressing and he offered her a screen test. When she arrived, he was in a bathrobe and said he had contracts for his next three films, but she could only sign them if she would have three-way sex with him.

LUCIA EVANS (2004) Actress Evans said she was forced to perform oral sex on Weinstein. She says she tried to resist but was overpowered.

EMMA DE CAUNES (2010) At Cannes Film Festival, Weinstein told the French actress she would be perfect for an adaptation of a book he had in his hotel room. He emerged from his hotel bathroom naked and demanded that she lie on the bed. She left petrified.

JUSSICA BARTH (2011) Barth met with Weinstein in his hotel room for a business meeting. Instead, the meeting “alternat[ed] between offering to cast her in a film and demanding a naked massage in bed”.

EMILY NESTOR (2014) Nestor was an assistant at Weinstein Company when Weinstein offered to relocate her to the London office so she could be his girlfriend. The two got coffee, which Nestor said was “the most excruciating and uncomfortable hour of my life”.

AMBRA BATTILANA GUTIERREZ (2015) Gutierrez filed sexual assault charges in 2015 after Weinstein grabbed her breast during one of their meetings. The charges were dropped by NYPD, but initially, Gutierrez worked with the police to try and catch Weinstein confessing to the crime on tape.

Are we to believe that these were the only ones affected by his indecent proposals? In all the time she worked with Weinstein, Kidman never came across his lecherous advances? Are we to think that nothing happened just because he is not into redheads? If these shenanigans had been going on for over a decade in Hollywood, one cannot help but think that such a high profile person’s antics weren’t just urban myths by a long shot. If indeed some of these Hollywood stars in the making were true victims of sexual impropriety, surely many of the production crew, managers, other stars and make up artists must have noted changes in their behaviour or manner off set.

Sexual harassment and/or assault are serious crimes. Let us make no bones about this.  Should Weinstein be found guilty in a court of law for his actions then may the book be thrown at him with full force. Not even the best actors can hide the side effects of such despicable behaviour.

Yet, the celebrities who had a chance to expose Weinstein in public since 20 years ago for his supposed actions chose not to. Presumably chasing stardom for multi millions a film ended up more important than raising a red flag and protecting multiple other people from a fate they need not have faced at the risk of their own careers. Hypocrites indeed.

On the flip side as much as we might not like to admit it, it is also not hard to believe that some will gladly sell their souls for fame and fortune. With power comes inevitable corruption and false belief in one’s own infallibility. Perhaps Weinstein thought his elevated status granted him the ability in his own mind (however warped) if a few responded positively to his advances? An intoxicating drug which kept him in a state of continually seeking reconfirmation of his massive ego. That does not excuse any claims about what he did in anyway but I won’t be the least bit surprised if the psychological assessment in any trial confirms this mental state.

We don’t condone violence but we want to fund the guy that headbutted the former PM because he deserves it

12D498E7-7F43-4557-A5C6-A01444A6DAA3.jpeg

Talk about double standards. This is the chap who has already pleaded guilty to headbutting former Australian PM Tony Abbott yet fellow ferals want to fund his court costs. Of course for the left, it is not the principle but the side. Unsurprisingly the Twitterati have  applauded his actions however if he was the true hero they make him out to be he wouldn’t resort to the type of cowardice he did. Then again it speaks volumes about their willingness to fight with foreheads rather than facts.

Read the rationale for the  gofundme campaign for yourself.

I propose we raise some funds which will most likely be needed in the near future for court fees and lawyer fees plus any possible fulines coming the way of Astro Labe, the gentleman that gave Tony Abbott a little bit of what he deserves.

This GoFundMe nor the creator in no way condone any violence, but do believe the politician did recieve a little if what he deserved after causing so much mental anguish for so many Australians over the years.

Below is an article explaining the situation:

Hobart resident Astro Labe this week allegedly attempted to smash Tony Abbott’s face. He’s since been charged with assault – and naturally became a hero to gentle, pacifist, left-wingers. Labe, 38, claims his alleged attack was not associated with his support for same-sex marriage. Rather, it was all about mere idiotic malice: “It was nothing really remotely to do with that. It’s just about Tony Abbott – the f***ing worm that he is,” the man told News Corp Australia. “All it was is I saw Tony Abbott and I’d had half a skinful and I wanted to nut the c***. “I want to divorce myself [from the same-sex marriage issue] — not because I disagree with their stance — but this was nothing to do with that. That’s just my personal hatred.” He admitted he had a same-sex sticker on his jacket, but said that was a coincidence. “It was purely because a friend of mine had walked past handing them out and had stuck one on my jacket,’ he said. He said he had been drinking at a Hobart waterfront hotel when he had seen Mr Abbott walk past. His version of what followed was almost identical to Mr Abbott’s. “I was like ‘Tony, Tony’, I kind of trotted up behind him. I trotted up behind him, ‘I just want to shake your hand’ and just went bang. Kind of missed it. Gave him a fat lip. “He got off pretty lightly. He’s just lucky I’m not a violent c***.” Obviously. The barista and bartender says he returned to the pub and had a couple of shots of scotch. He said he would apologise for his actions when he appeared in court, but his opinions had not changed. “I’m an anarchist, he’s an evil c**.” Er, who allegedly attacked who? Labe also spoke to Fairfax: “[It] was just a lifelong ambition to headbutt a fascist because I’m a skinhead that likes ska music and hates fascism. He’s an evil c—, I’m an anarchist and I believe in human rights … “I headbutted him quite piss-poorly because I was quite pissed,” Mr Labe said. He said he had no remorse but acknowledged his actions had harmed the “yes” campaign and said he was “really f–king embarrassed by it”.

Crass but are you really shocked?

If you read the Pravda on the Hudson (NY Times) they are in an uproar over a spoof video of President Trump hitting Hillary Clinton with a golf ball. It is a pretty crass stunt to be sure but is anyone surprised? They shouldn’t be. Presidential? No. Befitting of the office? No. Exercise in good judgement? Not really. Violence toward women was his main aim?  Hardly.  Playing the mainstream media to his tune? Absolutely, 3,2,1…explode. The problem is that the media will give this lots of airplay and bring in all manner of experts to discuss something that is actually pretty trivial. Given Hillary’s book promotion blaming everyone (even Republican males bullying their wives to vote Trump) this was likely his response to say ‘sore loser’. Doesn’t condone it but I am sure the world will move on.

Nearly ever liberal feed I’ve read deplores his childish antics here and insist he focus on all the other pressing issues at home and abroad – the very same issues they continually claim he is absolutely mentally unfit to deal with. So which is it? So to these same liberals – if he genuinely achieves proper successes on any pressing issue will you congratulate him? No, thought not. Literally playing the man, not the golf ball. It’s this whining that probably ensures he’ll torment them an extra 4 years if they don’t change their tune.

Thank you Reebok

IMG_9199.JPG

Thank you Reebok. Where would we be without your lessons in telling us what is appropriate in the PC world? While many view that infamous line as one of a dinosaur (in hindsight it is a dramatic improvement over other locker room talk) I’m sure many of you have encountered women (and men) who warmly welcome comments about a new haircut, attire or shoes. Many of you haven’t seen those people march right into the HR department to lodge a formal complaint. One would imagine if Brad Pitt or George Clooney had said it then the press would spin it another way. Where was Reebok when Hillary Clinton joked about wanting to watch a replay of Lenny Kravitz’s wardrobe malfunction that exposed his Prince Albert? Surely an opportunity to protest against the brazen sexism against men.

However what is it with corporates that feel they have a need to enforce views on same-sex marriage, LGBT, sexism, climate abatement or religion? I don’t fly Qantas because it’s CEO pushes the agenda on passengers and staff, I don’t drink Starbucks because of its religious beliefs and I don’t need Unilever to preach it’s diversity. All I’m after is the product that serves the need. Not wrapped in political point scoring

In Reebok’s case the Institute for Global Labor & Human Rights made allegations in the past that the sportswear company was exploiting workers (80% female) in El Salvador. The company has denied the allegations after a thorough investigation.

In any event, should Reebok make huge profits on the back of these remarks to the French First Lady will the product planners  secretly pray for the next “gaffe” to help the brand’s performance? In a round about way Reebok is exploiting a supposed defence of women’s rights to boost its bottom line. Perhaps it should donate every cent earned from the campaign on awareness? Or maybe upping the pay of its factory workers? Then people could remark about its corporate responsibility  was “in such good shape” That would be beautiful.

Italy proves the ECB Thinks some banks more equal than others

IMG_0274

The ECB proves it is powerless to push member states into banking solutions. It is in fact nothing more than an accomplice. No sooner had the ECB turned a blind eye to a bailout of two banks last week, this week saw the world’s oldest bank likely to get the same treatment.  The state-backed rescue of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA may be approved by the European Commission as soon as today.

EU approval would pave the way for the third recapitalization of an Italian bank by the state this week. Last month, European authorities and Italian officials reached an agreement in principle on a rescue plan that may include a capital increase of about 8.3 billion euros ($9.4 billion) and the sale of about 26 billion euros of bad loans through securitization. Monte Paschi was forced to seek state aid after it failed to raise capital from investors in December.

All it shows is that for all the rhetoric of bail-ins and tough talk, the ECB has no choice but to let member states handle their own affairs. Italy has a banking sector with 20% NPLs with up to 50% in southern parts of the country.

In reality it shows up the ECB to be powerless to control its members. While the US can openly state it is paring back its balance sheet, the ECB has to be content with rolling over and playing dead. At the same time Italy sets precedents that become the benchmark for others to follow. Must be food for thought for all the banks that have been forced to bail-in…-all banks are equal…some more equal than others!

Equal opportunity crossings

IMG_0385.JPG

Good to see Victoria continue in its traditions of ramming things down citizens’ throats. They plan to introduce an equal number of female traffic light crossing signs to fix the brazenly sexist imbalance. I have a question, does the average female waiting at the traffic lights feel her rights are severely impinged by looking at a male crossing sign? Why not introduce a set of lights that is only allowed to be crossed by females. Make men walk an extra 2 blocks to cross to remind them of how they’ve oppressed women for decades. Wait a minute, maybe some religions may feel violated to have to cross looking at women. Why not LGBT crossings? The City of Linz in Austria tried to introduce gay traffic lights, even spending 63,000 euros to fight it in court only to be criticized for wasting taxpayers money. One councilor said, “Traffic lights are for traffic and should not be misused to impart advice on how to live your life” 

Andrew Bolt correctly pointed out that perhaps the Committee for Melbourne should address its own gender imbalance before trying to tell everyone else to do the same. It’s board has 7 men and 4 women.

If you voted Trump leave our firm – corporate double standards pt.2

IMG_0025.JPG

I wrote earlier in the week about corporate double standards. Before we delve into the blatant hypocrisy of 1st In SEO lets look at it’s own website on the “Reputation Management” page where it aims to help its customers with the following:

“Your reputation is the reality that other people have for you. This reality is shaped by multiple factors, including how you present yourself and how others speak of you. Part of this you can control directly: carefully sculpt and cultivate your brand, create and produce content that fits that brand, and avoid errors that cast you in a negative light. If you act carefully and responsibly, and if you proactively present the best of what you are to the world, you can go a long way toward building a positive reputation.”

If that is the product they are promoting why then did the CEO go out of his way to send customers and staff an ultimatum (note the link is ‘mysteriously’ down) to have them declare political allegiance. While there is often a legal requirement to know your customer (KYC) but I’ll be damned if political allegiance/affiliation is one of them. His threat was that Trump supporters or registered Republicans (clients or staff) will have their service terminated or be asked to leave.

1st In SEO CEO Matt Blanchard wrote:

November 10, 2016
1st In SEO Clients,

America has elected Donald Trump, a racist, sexist, fascist, to be our next president. 1st In SEO will no longer do business with any person that is a registered Republican or supports Donald Trump. 1st In SEO will also not do business with business interests that support either the Republican Party or Donald Trump. 1st In SEO obviously has no actual means of determining our clients’ or prospective clients’ political standing. We will rely on the integrity of the men and women who are our clients currently to find another Search Engine Optimization provider if they are Republicans, voted for Donald Trump or support Donald Trump. If you are a Republican, voted for Donald Trump or support Donald Trump, in any manner, you are not welcome at 1st In SEO and we ask you to leave our firm.

1st In SEO will do everything in our power to ensure that we break ties with any person or business that supports Fascism. We will communicate our political stance clearly to all prospective new clients. We will also aggressively advertise the fact that 1st In SEO will not do business with Republicans or anyone who supports our country’s president elect.matt

We ask you, our current clients, to please respond to this letter and confirm where you stand politically. If you are a Republican or support Trump, we will no longer serve you. You will need to find a new SEO provider. 1st In SEO will, of course, provide your website with the same high quality service you have enjoyed until you are able to find a new provider. We will go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure a smooth transition to a new firm and we will always be available for support should your new provider need our assistance.

To our Democrat and Progressive clients, we want to recommit to you that we will continue to work diligently to improve your internet marketing results in this quickly changing world.

Sincerely,
Mathew D. Blanchfield CEO 1st in SEO

Now as a CEO (presumably if Blanchfield is a sole owner) I have no qualms with him wanting to blow his own company up by taking such hypocritical action to accuse clients of exactly the same crimes he charges certain employees and clients who acted democratically of doing. Yet looking at the Department of Labor’s website surrounding work place harassment we find the following.

When harassing conduct violates the law*

-First, unlawful harassing conduct must be unwelcome and based on the victim’s protected status.

-Second, the conduct must be:

subjectively abusive to the person affected; and

-objectively severe and pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.

-Whether an instance or a pattern of harassing conduct is severe or pervasive is determined on a case-by-case basis, with consideration paid to the following factors:

-the frequency of the unwelcome discriminatory conduct;

-the severity of the conduct;

-whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance;

-whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with work performance; the effect on the employee’s psychological well-being; and whether the harasser was a superior within the organization.

-Each factor is considered, but none are required or dispositive. Hostile work environment cases are often difficult to recognize, because the particular facts of each situation determine whether offensive conduct has crossed the line from “ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language . . . and occasional teasing,”2 to unlawful harassment.”

Now as a customer (regardless of his or my  political persuasion) I would cancel my contract immediately. Secondly if I was an employee (who was a registered Republican – regardless of whether I voted Trump or not) it is fair to assume that my opportunities for promotion if I chose not to leave would be unfairly inhibited. The CEO has explicitly drawn a line in the sand wishing to favour political ideology over actual employee ability. On any grounds that looks discriminatory. Is it any wonder that the letter has been pulled from the website?

Lucky the company is not listed. Grubhub’s CEO tried similar antics around election time asking Republican/Trump supporters to leave the company and the shares were smashed. Once again, consumers want to use products not have politics thrown in the mix. I can only imagine that 1st in SEO becomes a distant wooden spoon over time with a CEO who exhibits outward intolerance, exactly the things he criticizes certain customers and employees of. If the company has other investors/owners I would call for Mr Blanchfield’s immediate resignation or at the very least firing him because he clearly doesn’t exhibit the traits of a CEO who has the best interests of stakeholders, shareholders and staff alike. What a joke. Perhaps he should read the ‘Reputation Management’ page again and apply those principles to himself.