If you expected introspection you don't know it's a "New York thing" (Part 1)

Who are Harvey Weinstein's cavaliers? Noble luminaries of the entertainment world like Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels. A Canadian, Michaels responded to questions regarding a lack of proper address for the Weinstein scandal with the dismissive remark "It's a New York thing". 

During the English Civil War the supporters of the establishment and King Charles I were known for their brash and flamboyant manners as they trampled on the commonfolk while trying to preserve the monarchy. They were subsequently branded as "cavaliers" with the explanation being as such: 

"Several sorts of malignant Men, who were about the King; some whereof, under the name of Cavaliers, without having respect to the Laws of the Land, or any fear either of God or Man, were ready to commit all manner of Outrage and Violence. 1642 Petition Lords & Com. 17 June in Rushw. Coll. III. (1721) "

Coming from noted "Rape Culture" inquisitor and rape hoax publicist Michelle Goldberg, the latest attempt to deflect from the Harvey Weinstein scandal is only more of the same from a media that has committed to defending it's decadent royals. . .just like the cavaliers in the English Civil War. (The Nation)

I use this example today not to choose sides in that almost four hundred year old conflict, nor to attack the fans of the Cleveland Cavaliers, but to highlight this type of class-wide behaviour that I saw displayed in the past week or so by the New York Times' Michelle Goldberg among others. In her piece "Save the Phony Weinstein Outrage, Republicans", she had the gall to claim that it is only members of the GOP that are looking at the liberal entertainment industry as a den of iniquity where greed, lust, and pride are the only motivations and values sustained by its occupants. Like the original cavaliers such as the Lord Goring, the liberal media may be described as such: "He] would, without hesitation, have broken any trust, or done any act of treachery to have satisfied an ordinary passion or appetite". 

King Charles I of England sought to impose his religious views on Scotland. As a result he precipitated a civil war that changed all of Britain forever. His supporters, like modern day celebrities, tended to live licentious lives of indulgence with gaudy fashion and a lack of regard for their peasant subjects and the burgeoning Scottish and English reformations in Christianity. Known as "cavaliers", they were fully willing to commit any atrocity in order to preserve his reign and

their way of life. 

Goldberg, like many in the upper class rich establishment sees fit to believe that the outcry over Weinstein is contained to the same "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton once complained about to Matt Lauer. Like Clinton, Goldberg takes aim based on the Weinstein story not at more obvious (and we will get to them in a second) examples but to the ever obvious Donald Trump: "Trump is more consistent. He is a pig in public as well as behind closed doors". She goes on to mention a 1992 New York magazine article where he apparently made a derogatory comment about women and his history of marital infidelity and alleged abuse towards his first and second wives Ivana Zelnickova Trump and Marla Maples.  She then goes on to castigate other members of the right-wing including the Fox News family of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. 

So let me be clear at this point: I don't see any problem with fully investigating sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly, or Roger Ailes (now deceased). That's not why Americans, not only Republicans but also full-blown progressives like HA Goodman and Jimmy Dore are condemning the Democratic establishment for giving quarter to Weinstein over the years. There is no claim to innocence on the Republican side of the aisle where not only O'Reilly and Ailes but also Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have had similar such allegations in the past. The issue here can be divided into several separate areas where there is clearly a cavalier attitude on the part of the progressive liberal elite that is disconnected from more than just conservatives but every day non-political society:

• Fundamental journalistic principles: Goldberg and other Democrats have been complicit through their own scaremongering in creating a wave of witch hunts due to the so-called "rape culture" on college campuses. In her article in The Nation from 2014 Goldberg included an account of a rape accuser who was stunned that a college investigation panel would allow the accused to question her directly. Is she not aware that such is a hallmark of the American system of justice? What about the ridiculous conclusion reached by the same accuser that even though the alleged rapist was expelled from the college after exhausting appeals, she still felt she had been victimized by the campus's investigation process? It was this type of media coverage, heavy on emotion but weak on hard data, that ended up laying the ground for the concurrent "A Rape on Campus" journalistic canard in Rolling Stone that happened only months later. And for the record, that story's writer Sabrina Erdely Rubin remains employed by Rolling Stone despite admitting that all of the facts of the story turned out to be fabrications of a single source, the accuser "Jackie". In her own article Goldberg featured the account of Emma Sulkowicz AKA "Mattress Girl" a woman whose rape accusation was revealed after a Columbia University investigation to have also been based on lies in order to retaliate for being rejected by the accused. This case of false rape accusation was so egregious that Columbia ended up settling in court with the accused rapist due to the campaign of social harassment that Sulkowicz perpetrated unabated by the college against him following his exoneration. Despite the recurrence such events, Goldberg and others have never expressed remorse for their role as press agents of the intimidation campaign.

• Direct intimidation when necessary is what differentiates the cases of Harvey Weinstein and the Clintons from those of Donald Trump and, say, Herman Cain. Yes, in all of those cases the accused rapist/harasser denied all accusations and attempted to call to question the credibility of the accusers. The charges against Trump and Cain both bubbled to the surface ironically during their presidential campaigns, but let's ignore that and assume that timing had nothing to do with the allegations. Beyond the public campaign against the accusers, in the cases of Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein professional and even physical threats were made against the victims. Clinton accuser and former low-level staffer Kathleen Willey reported to the FBI being accosted by a jogger concerning her suspiciously dead pets and nails in her tires (see her book Target). In Weinstein's case accusers such as grunge singer Courtney Love have claimed that he would blackball their careers if they dared voice what they knew.

Please view my video discourse on this topic at BOLD like a Leopard:

End of Part I