I always thought getting Cuomo out was a way to make the nursing home problem go away without admitting fault. At this point I assume these types of attacks are "ready-to-go" for anybody who's big enough to be somebody.
I think you're exaggerating the dangers to Cuomo of the "nursing home scandal", because this was just another lie in the Covid tapestry of lies that they were all guilty of and that could have easily been hidden by our regime press. Emperor Gavin has done even more fucked up shit (like banging his campaign manager's wife) and the press just pauses its fellation while they copy down his greasy lies.
For whatever reasons, and I'm guessing rich and powerful people making private phone calls to him has more to do with it than various victim arias, the DNC and its donor class were done with Andy and they made him an offer he couldn't refuse—either resign now and we'll leave you with an ability to make a living and have a social presence, or else we'll make you as radioactive as an Epstein or Weinstein. (Why he was marked for death by the PTB, I can only speculate).
But this whole thing does stink, especially his refusal to fight back, which offends me as an adult and as an Italian-American from Queens (homeland of many Cuomos). Old Andy would have mounted a legal defense, slapped some slander suits on these "survivors" LOL, and gone down fighting—but this time no one had his back because the word was out that Andy had to go.
But this episode does reveal 2 of the grosser aspects of our zeitgeist: modern Feminism™, which has devolved into group therapy for anxious suburban girls, who can't seem to decide if they're stunning and brave leaders or fragile vessels who need to call the cops when someone cracks a dumb joke; and of course our vile media class, the town whores who think they should also give the Sunday sermon, who somehow sell sex and sex policing (libertinism and moralism) in the same package.
But the important thing is that Social Justice Inc. marches on, comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted.
I lived in the UK when Russel Brand called a grandfather on BBC radio live to tell the grandfather he's had casual sex with the granddaughter. I don't care for Brand at all. Yet all these accusations coming when he's speaking out against censorship, ten years later? It's not for the government to judge my speech now, nor mine to judge the truth of accusations ten years later.
The sex crime thing is particularly tricky because: shame. As a culture we are all twisted up about sex in ways we aren't about theft or drugs or maybe even murder, and it's that very twistedness (sometimes fueled by false allegations) that contributes to a culture where sex crimes occur in the first place.
I have to admit I have no view on Brand other than he was entertaining in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and less so in Get Him to the Greek.
I know he says a lot of things that I would probably agree with, but my stance on celebrities pivoting to social/political/cultural issues generally comes back to "well then do something about it! - Run for office, don't just start a podcast" - it seems to come off as another form of virtue signaling. (Thats why I still hold high esteem for Al Franken, "The Governator", Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, and Kane/Glenn Jacobs.
That said, I was surprised the #metoo movement still had legs enough to cancel Brand's income immediately. (Yet, not surprised).
Perhaps we should put this into law? From now on anyone accused of something has their pay frozen? Should we have frozen Bill Clintons income, PACs, investments once he was accused of improper sexual relations with Lewinsky? That was in the past of course, when modern sensibilities didn't prevail - but shouldn't have frozen Joe Biden's income after Tara Reade came forward?
"Ah, classic New York politics. The best part about this whole thing is that Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, is doing the same thing to Cuomo that he did to Eliot Spitzer, the previous governor, when he was the Attorney General. If I was Letitia, I would keep a very close eye on my new Attorney General. You cannot make this stuff up kids!"
That Youtube is "demonetizing" Brand is the typical hypocritical reaction. They don't like what he did so they now keep all the money they make from his videos. I'm baffled that this is even legal.
Specific cases aside, I'm so glad to read you your comments about presentism, cancel culture, and '...pointing this [ambiguity] out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault.'
On a different substack post about Brand, a couple of social justice warriors, I guess you'd call them, have their knives out for me after I mentioned my dismay at today's tribalism and the fact that, as a female, I'm supposed to get out the torches and pitchforks anytime someone is accused of improper behavior. My comment was general, and I prefaced it by saying I was not defending Brand.
Thanks for writing about this, Brad -- and I especially appreciate any light shone by anyone on what is being done to Russell Brand. He is one of the most consistent and important (because of his mass following) voices against the Perpetual War Machine Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex and the Corporatocracy it serves. And naturally this is why they are determined to take him down. I hope all your readers will stay focused on the real issues that matter to our lives, and not allow themselves to be distracted by Russell's personal problems or possible past transgressions. And as Russell would say: "STAY FREE"!
The Russell Brand issue abounds with ironies that are lost in a world that communicates in 180 characters.
I for one find the accusations credible if for no other reason RB has admitted his bad behavior. Based on that and his vaunted position at the time, I doubt RB would be aware of crossing the line between bad and illegal behavior. Let alone know where the line is. He was invulnerable and he knew it.
While most of the stuff seems abusive but legal, there is one charge that seems valid and where the victim took steps to save the evidence. That is where the first irony lies. the victim was hesitant to come forward due to her fear of being destroyed by the forces that protected RB. Now she is being brought forward by the same people she feared in order to destroy RB. no one cares about the victims now and no one cared then. What they care about is that RB is an apostate and apostates are very dangerous. They point out the hypocrisy of those in power and have a credibility that other critics lack because they have been on the inside. That is his real sin to them.
Of course is RB is only in trouble because he has admitted his sins and seems to be trying to do right by his past. I admire him for his effort but it brings in the second irony. By admitting his sins and leaving the church of the left he has opened himself up to personal and financial ruin as well as prison. If he broke the law he (the old RB) may deserve some of that, but the punishment meted out will not only be worse than he deserves it will be to the direct benefit of the people who made the old RB invulnerable.
The final irony is that the old Russel Brand would be laughing his ass off at the current Russell Brand,
Sex accusations are used BY leftists to enable them to make a slightly embarrassing exit. Used against conservatives, it's to deny them rights to exist.
Excellent reporting on Cuomo and the parallels to the Russell Brand Me3 media smear. I'm going to be doing an episode on Brand, since I started my YT channel responding to his interviews on Luminaries and have listened to hundreds of hours of him at this point.
I was completely with you until I got to the part about senior staffers sitting on his lap during meetings. Was that true? Even if no one complained about it, I'd say that was sexual harassment. Speaking as a former Dir of HR, sexual harassment isn't about sex but about power. Nonetheless, the way the attacks were used is a clear abuse of power. Thanks for this.
If I was working at a company where that was happening with the CEO, it would make me very uncomfortable, whether I was a woman sitting on his lap or not. It creates a coercive environment that's really inappropriate. I don't know if you have a daughter but imagine her as an intern in that situation. If Cuomo 'allowed' her to sit on his lap, would she not feel pressured to do it?
I left the corporate world for some years because of a situation where the CEO was setting up compromising situations that his admin objected to, and the CFO (my boss) was doing things like running a very young employee off the road to get her to go out with him. After weeks of trying every angle to figure out where to go with this, the EA left the CEO an angry (drunk) voicemail and they decided 'we weren't happy there' and fired us.
What I realized is that all the sexual harassment hoopla may apply to the warehouse supervisor but when it's the big dogs, the lawyers all work for them.
So the takedown of Cuomo was certainly a political stunt but his ability until then to get away with 'allowing' staffers to sit on his lap is the same old disgusting machismo that pervades positions of power. IMO.
I'm really wondering if Cuomo also treated his male employees in a domineering way. That usually manifests differently (belittling and ridiculing in front of others, overworking people and taking it for granted). It seems to me very often people in positions of power are terrible leaders and the power corrupts them even more.
Wow - boggles my mind. Ive run companies, albeit, small to mid-size for 20 years and have never tolerated any of this. actually cant imagine trying to get away with it.
It might meet the legal definition of sexual harassment and certainly has no place in a professional setting. Did he ask them to sit in his lap and they complied or did someone just do it? But I don't think that Power is as one-dimensional as is often claimed - the power an attractive woman can have over a (straight) man is tremendous. And not just sexual power, also the power to ruin him professionally.
If women want to be considered equals in the workplace then they should have said no at the time. If he fired them for refusing to sit on his lap that's a slam-dunk case of sexual harassment. It's one of those situation again where people act like women have zero agency and automatically do what a powerful men tells them to do.
That's not how it works, Nils. Cuomo, if this is true and happened repeatedly, had created a culture that normalized women sexualizing and subjugating themselves in a political environment. One woman not going along with it shames all the rest. Which means that woman would become a pariah. Besides, this was an honor. He was 'allowing' 'senior' staffers to sit on his lap during meetings. It was a hierarchy of women debasing themselves for political gain. If Cuomo's in power, these are like Epstein women, shown off to the other boys. I've been there. Sure you can launch a sexual harassment suit but you're going up against the most high powered lawyers in the field. I've been there too with the top names of law firms thrown casually around as a veiled threat. I've had the promise of other positions as a bribe with the threat, if I didn't defend these women. Maybe you'd get some little payout from the suit but you'd never work again in the political world.
It's a slimy world and as far as I'm concerned, men can have it. But my experience is that they're also being wrung out and hung out to dry. I think we need to change the whole thing.
Aren't the women (and men) who go along with this sort of culture at least somewhat complicit? It's not just the man at the top who creates this culture and everyone goes along, there are a lot of people who condone it along the way. But crying foul years later while participating at the time just strikes me as opportunism. I don't live in the USA, if you go to court here and ask a judge fore damages because you felt like you had no choice to sit in the bosses lap without him coercing or threatening you you would be laughed out of the court. And let's not pretend that there aren't a few women out there who use their sexual power to advance their career.
I agree that (big) corporations are a slimy world and meritocracy is often an illusion.
Your argument is damned if you do, damned if you don't. You blame women for using their sexuality to advance their careers, and you say that a toxic environment where women are 'allowed' to sit on the boss's lap during meetings is not a problem. I think we all agree that this was used politically to bring down Cuomo and the women were used (once again) by whoever did that for political gain. Like Brand's 'accusers', I'm certain that these women were solicited and bribed/ threatened to 'speak out.' Unlike Brand, this was an abuse of power that was protected until it was useful to expose. Brand had no power relationship with any of the 'accusers.'
I have not used the word "allowed" at all, I don't know what happened with Cuomo and I also haven't said that the whole situation is fine. To use your word: Not damned if you don't. If you don't want to sit on your bosses lap then don't do it. It's demeaning and absolutely assures you won't get taken seriously in the workplace in the future. Damned if you do, definitely.
What annoys me is that some women don't take responsibility for their stupid choices (like e.g. sleeping with Russell Brand) and portray themselves as entirely passive actors with zero agency. Of course there are a lot of men who act in a similar way. It sometimes seems that playing the victim is more important than stopping the abuse in the first place.
From Brad's article: "The report itself is like a game of trivial pursuit. Large portions of it are ridiculous, with blatant, sloppy errors, and I think anyone who reads it objectively will conclude that many of the accusations don’t exactly merit belief. On page 148, for example, Letitia James accuses Cuomo of “allowing senior staff members to sit on his lap at official functions,” which she goes on to characterize as evidence of a “hostile work environment.” But if you go back to page 122 of the report, you’ll find this line: “None of these senior staff reported feeling uncomfortable with this behavior.” Cuomo’s predilection for the words “honey,” “darling,” and “sweetheart” also feature prominently in the report as examples of his alleged lawbreaking."
I think the world of Brad and his writing but I disagree with his statement here as a woman, an HR Dir, and an objective reader. As a man at a business meeting where your co-worker was sitting on the boss's lap, would you not feel that was a hostile work environment? Why would you blame the woman rather than the boss? As a man, shouldn't you make a complaint to HR about witnessing blatant sexual harassment in the office, in which women are put in a position to trade sexual contact for career advancement? You have agency too. If you're not okay with this behavior being normalized, you can put your career advancement on the line to draw attention to it.
I think to a great extent this is still a reaction to women entering a culture that was at its origin reserved for males. Women have been forced to adopt to that to varying degrees of success. I doubt 99% (may be underestimating) men understand this. therefore in many situations the standards of conduct never changed. The big Dog does what he wants.
I believe Cuomo would have relieved Bragg well before the high-visibility malfeasance of office drew the intended attention, I'm not a Cuomo fan, but the man knew how to govern.
I really enjoyed his book Sapiens, except for the last chapter which turned out to be foreshadowing of transhumanism, and became really disillusioned on learning (reportedly anyway) that he is basically Klaus Schwab's lapdog. That still hasn't decreased my appreciation of the book.
The photo of Russell and YNH was the first attempt to take him down in conspiracy circles. I've done three videos of Russell's interview of Yuval where Russell challenges his ideas of a global government and instead talks about the 1000 villages that Gandhi wanted for India. Russell is the most consistent supporter of small-scale sovereignty of anyone I've heard, with the possible exception of James Corbett. If you're going to make someone guilty by association and fraternizing with the enemy--even kissing them on the forehead--you really aren't serious about bringing down the empire. You want someone to virtue signal by denouncing who you denounce, not argue their ideas while respecting the person. Here's one of the episodes: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/yuval-harari-and-the-metawealth-miniverse.
I always thought getting Cuomo out was a way to make the nursing home problem go away without admitting fault. At this point I assume these types of attacks are "ready-to-go" for anybody who's big enough to be somebody.
I assumed the same
I think you're exaggerating the dangers to Cuomo of the "nursing home scandal", because this was just another lie in the Covid tapestry of lies that they were all guilty of and that could have easily been hidden by our regime press. Emperor Gavin has done even more fucked up shit (like banging his campaign manager's wife) and the press just pauses its fellation while they copy down his greasy lies.
For whatever reasons, and I'm guessing rich and powerful people making private phone calls to him has more to do with it than various victim arias, the DNC and its donor class were done with Andy and they made him an offer he couldn't refuse—either resign now and we'll leave you with an ability to make a living and have a social presence, or else we'll make you as radioactive as an Epstein or Weinstein. (Why he was marked for death by the PTB, I can only speculate).
But this whole thing does stink, especially his refusal to fight back, which offends me as an adult and as an Italian-American from Queens (homeland of many Cuomos). Old Andy would have mounted a legal defense, slapped some slander suits on these "survivors" LOL, and gone down fighting—but this time no one had his back because the word was out that Andy had to go.
But this episode does reveal 2 of the grosser aspects of our zeitgeist: modern Feminism™, which has devolved into group therapy for anxious suburban girls, who can't seem to decide if they're stunning and brave leaders or fragile vessels who need to call the cops when someone cracks a dumb joke; and of course our vile media class, the town whores who think they should also give the Sunday sermon, who somehow sell sex and sex policing (libertinism and moralism) in the same package.
But the important thing is that Social Justice Inc. marches on, comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted.
I lived in the UK when Russel Brand called a grandfather on BBC radio live to tell the grandfather he's had casual sex with the granddaughter. I don't care for Brand at all. Yet all these accusations coming when he's speaking out against censorship, ten years later? It's not for the government to judge my speech now, nor mine to judge the truth of accusations ten years later.
The sex crime thing is particularly tricky because: shame. As a culture we are all twisted up about sex in ways we aren't about theft or drugs or maybe even murder, and it's that very twistedness (sometimes fueled by false allegations) that contributes to a culture where sex crimes occur in the first place.
They don't make partying like they used to...
Great piece, thoroughly researched.
I have to admit I have no view on Brand other than he was entertaining in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and less so in Get Him to the Greek.
I know he says a lot of things that I would probably agree with, but my stance on celebrities pivoting to social/political/cultural issues generally comes back to "well then do something about it! - Run for office, don't just start a podcast" - it seems to come off as another form of virtue signaling. (Thats why I still hold high esteem for Al Franken, "The Governator", Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, and Kane/Glenn Jacobs.
That said, I was surprised the #metoo movement still had legs enough to cancel Brand's income immediately. (Yet, not surprised).
Perhaps we should put this into law? From now on anyone accused of something has their pay frozen? Should we have frozen Bill Clintons income, PACs, investments once he was accused of improper sexual relations with Lewinsky? That was in the past of course, when modern sensibilities didn't prevail - but shouldn't have frozen Joe Biden's income after Tara Reade came forward?
I'm still pissed about Al Franken.
What I wrote almost two years ago.
"Ah, classic New York politics. The best part about this whole thing is that Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, is doing the same thing to Cuomo that he did to Eliot Spitzer, the previous governor, when he was the Attorney General. If I was Letitia, I would keep a very close eye on my new Attorney General. You cannot make this stuff up kids!"
That Youtube is "demonetizing" Brand is the typical hypocritical reaction. They don't like what he did so they now keep all the money they make from his videos. I'm baffled that this is even legal.
Specific cases aside, I'm so glad to read you your comments about presentism, cancel culture, and '...pointing this [ambiguity] out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault.'
On a different substack post about Brand, a couple of social justice warriors, I guess you'd call them, have their knives out for me after I mentioned my dismay at today's tribalism and the fact that, as a female, I'm supposed to get out the torches and pitchforks anytime someone is accused of improper behavior. My comment was general, and I prefaced it by saying I was not defending Brand.
Rather dismaying.
Thanks for writing about this, Brad -- and I especially appreciate any light shone by anyone on what is being done to Russell Brand. He is one of the most consistent and important (because of his mass following) voices against the Perpetual War Machine Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex and the Corporatocracy it serves. And naturally this is why they are determined to take him down. I hope all your readers will stay focused on the real issues that matter to our lives, and not allow themselves to be distracted by Russell's personal problems or possible past transgressions. And as Russell would say: "STAY FREE"!
The Russell Brand issue abounds with ironies that are lost in a world that communicates in 180 characters.
I for one find the accusations credible if for no other reason RB has admitted his bad behavior. Based on that and his vaunted position at the time, I doubt RB would be aware of crossing the line between bad and illegal behavior. Let alone know where the line is. He was invulnerable and he knew it.
While most of the stuff seems abusive but legal, there is one charge that seems valid and where the victim took steps to save the evidence. That is where the first irony lies. the victim was hesitant to come forward due to her fear of being destroyed by the forces that protected RB. Now she is being brought forward by the same people she feared in order to destroy RB. no one cares about the victims now and no one cared then. What they care about is that RB is an apostate and apostates are very dangerous. They point out the hypocrisy of those in power and have a credibility that other critics lack because they have been on the inside. That is his real sin to them.
Of course is RB is only in trouble because he has admitted his sins and seems to be trying to do right by his past. I admire him for his effort but it brings in the second irony. By admitting his sins and leaving the church of the left he has opened himself up to personal and financial ruin as well as prison. If he broke the law he (the old RB) may deserve some of that, but the punishment meted out will not only be worse than he deserves it will be to the direct benefit of the people who made the old RB invulnerable.
The final irony is that the old Russel Brand would be laughing his ass off at the current Russell Brand,
An excellent summation.
thanks!
Sex accusations are used BY leftists to enable them to make a slightly embarrassing exit. Used against conservatives, it's to deny them rights to exist.
Excellent reporting on Cuomo and the parallels to the Russell Brand Me3 media smear. I'm going to be doing an episode on Brand, since I started my YT channel responding to his interviews on Luminaries and have listened to hundreds of hours of him at this point.
I was completely with you until I got to the part about senior staffers sitting on his lap during meetings. Was that true? Even if no one complained about it, I'd say that was sexual harassment. Speaking as a former Dir of HR, sexual harassment isn't about sex but about power. Nonetheless, the way the attacks were used is a clear abuse of power. Thanks for this.
Yes, according to the AG report. But the staffers weren't forced to sit on him, that's the thing. It sounds like it was just a joke.
If I was working at a company where that was happening with the CEO, it would make me very uncomfortable, whether I was a woman sitting on his lap or not. It creates a coercive environment that's really inappropriate. I don't know if you have a daughter but imagine her as an intern in that situation. If Cuomo 'allowed' her to sit on his lap, would she not feel pressured to do it?
I left the corporate world for some years because of a situation where the CEO was setting up compromising situations that his admin objected to, and the CFO (my boss) was doing things like running a very young employee off the road to get her to go out with him. After weeks of trying every angle to figure out where to go with this, the EA left the CEO an angry (drunk) voicemail and they decided 'we weren't happy there' and fired us.
What I realized is that all the sexual harassment hoopla may apply to the warehouse supervisor but when it's the big dogs, the lawyers all work for them.
So the takedown of Cuomo was certainly a political stunt but his ability until then to get away with 'allowing' staffers to sit on his lap is the same old disgusting machismo that pervades positions of power. IMO.
Agreed.
I'm really wondering if Cuomo also treated his male employees in a domineering way. That usually manifests differently (belittling and ridiculing in front of others, overworking people and taking it for granted). It seems to me very often people in positions of power are terrible leaders and the power corrupts them even more.
Wow - boggles my mind. Ive run companies, albeit, small to mid-size for 20 years and have never tolerated any of this. actually cant imagine trying to get away with it.
It might meet the legal definition of sexual harassment and certainly has no place in a professional setting. Did he ask them to sit in his lap and they complied or did someone just do it? But I don't think that Power is as one-dimensional as is often claimed - the power an attractive woman can have over a (straight) man is tremendous. And not just sexual power, also the power to ruin him professionally.
If women want to be considered equals in the workplace then they should have said no at the time. If he fired them for refusing to sit on his lap that's a slam-dunk case of sexual harassment. It's one of those situation again where people act like women have zero agency and automatically do what a powerful men tells them to do.
That's not how it works, Nils. Cuomo, if this is true and happened repeatedly, had created a culture that normalized women sexualizing and subjugating themselves in a political environment. One woman not going along with it shames all the rest. Which means that woman would become a pariah. Besides, this was an honor. He was 'allowing' 'senior' staffers to sit on his lap during meetings. It was a hierarchy of women debasing themselves for political gain. If Cuomo's in power, these are like Epstein women, shown off to the other boys. I've been there. Sure you can launch a sexual harassment suit but you're going up against the most high powered lawyers in the field. I've been there too with the top names of law firms thrown casually around as a veiled threat. I've had the promise of other positions as a bribe with the threat, if I didn't defend these women. Maybe you'd get some little payout from the suit but you'd never work again in the political world.
It's a slimy world and as far as I'm concerned, men can have it. But my experience is that they're also being wrung out and hung out to dry. I think we need to change the whole thing.
Aren't the women (and men) who go along with this sort of culture at least somewhat complicit? It's not just the man at the top who creates this culture and everyone goes along, there are a lot of people who condone it along the way. But crying foul years later while participating at the time just strikes me as opportunism. I don't live in the USA, if you go to court here and ask a judge fore damages because you felt like you had no choice to sit in the bosses lap without him coercing or threatening you you would be laughed out of the court. And let's not pretend that there aren't a few women out there who use their sexual power to advance their career.
I agree that (big) corporations are a slimy world and meritocracy is often an illusion.
Your argument is damned if you do, damned if you don't. You blame women for using their sexuality to advance their careers, and you say that a toxic environment where women are 'allowed' to sit on the boss's lap during meetings is not a problem. I think we all agree that this was used politically to bring down Cuomo and the women were used (once again) by whoever did that for political gain. Like Brand's 'accusers', I'm certain that these women were solicited and bribed/ threatened to 'speak out.' Unlike Brand, this was an abuse of power that was protected until it was useful to expose. Brand had no power relationship with any of the 'accusers.'
I have not used the word "allowed" at all, I don't know what happened with Cuomo and I also haven't said that the whole situation is fine. To use your word: Not damned if you don't. If you don't want to sit on your bosses lap then don't do it. It's demeaning and absolutely assures you won't get taken seriously in the workplace in the future. Damned if you do, definitely.
What annoys me is that some women don't take responsibility for their stupid choices (like e.g. sleeping with Russell Brand) and portray themselves as entirely passive actors with zero agency. Of course there are a lot of men who act in a similar way. It sometimes seems that playing the victim is more important than stopping the abuse in the first place.
From Brad's article: "The report itself is like a game of trivial pursuit. Large portions of it are ridiculous, with blatant, sloppy errors, and I think anyone who reads it objectively will conclude that many of the accusations don’t exactly merit belief. On page 148, for example, Letitia James accuses Cuomo of “allowing senior staff members to sit on his lap at official functions,” which she goes on to characterize as evidence of a “hostile work environment.” But if you go back to page 122 of the report, you’ll find this line: “None of these senior staff reported feeling uncomfortable with this behavior.” Cuomo’s predilection for the words “honey,” “darling,” and “sweetheart” also feature prominently in the report as examples of his alleged lawbreaking."
I think the world of Brad and his writing but I disagree with his statement here as a woman, an HR Dir, and an objective reader. As a man at a business meeting where your co-worker was sitting on the boss's lap, would you not feel that was a hostile work environment? Why would you blame the woman rather than the boss? As a man, shouldn't you make a complaint to HR about witnessing blatant sexual harassment in the office, in which women are put in a position to trade sexual contact for career advancement? You have agency too. If you're not okay with this behavior being normalized, you can put your career advancement on the line to draw attention to it.
I think to a great extent this is still a reaction to women entering a culture that was at its origin reserved for males. Women have been forced to adopt to that to varying degrees of success. I doubt 99% (may be underestimating) men understand this. therefore in many situations the standards of conduct never changed. The big Dog does what he wants.
Cui bono?
Hochul and associates.
I believe Cuomo would have relieved Bragg well before the high-visibility malfeasance of office drew the intended attention, I'm not a Cuomo fan, but the man knew how to govern.
Have to wonder about the Anita Hill hearings as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3tgjHtml4M Russell Brand With His Cuddle Buddy And "Beautiful Person" Yuval Noah Harari I haven't been able to look at him since.
I'm not familiar with Yuval Noah Harari, ill have to look him up
I really enjoyed his book Sapiens, except for the last chapter which turned out to be foreshadowing of transhumanism, and became really disillusioned on learning (reportedly anyway) that he is basically Klaus Schwab's lapdog. That still hasn't decreased my appreciation of the book.
The photo of Russell and YNH was the first attempt to take him down in conspiracy circles. I've done three videos of Russell's interview of Yuval where Russell challenges his ideas of a global government and instead talks about the 1000 villages that Gandhi wanted for India. Russell is the most consistent supporter of small-scale sovereignty of anyone I've heard, with the possible exception of James Corbett. If you're going to make someone guilty by association and fraternizing with the enemy--even kissing them on the forehead--you really aren't serious about bringing down the empire. You want someone to virtue signal by denouncing who you denounce, not argue their ideas while respecting the person. Here's one of the episodes: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/yuval-harari-and-the-metawealth-miniverse.