California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Don't say Gay, CRT or That Founding Fathers Were Less Than Perfect

by John Lawrence

As Ken Burns pointed out in his excellent documentary on Benjamin Franklin, not only was Franklin a slave owner, but also he fathered an illegitimate son, William. Geez, a slave owner and a philanderer! Do we want this taught to our kids in school? I say why not. It's better than filling their heads with nonsense, bullshit and fairy tales. The truth is that European settlers stole land from the Indians, and then brought in African slaves to work it while they sat on their asses and got rich. Benjamin Franklin is held up as a paragon of American achievement which he was in many ways. As a scientist he made a contribution to the theory of electricity and saved many church spires with his invention of the lightning rod. He also almost single-handedly saved the American revolution as a diplomat who got France to support it financially and militarily. Without France's support the fledgling United States of America would have assuredly remained British colonies. By the way Franklin's son William became the British Governor of the colony of New Jersey. Franklin himself was a loyal British subject until the Declaration of Independence at which time he decided to be an American.

So Republican reactionaries don't want unsavory facts about our Founding Fathers taught in school in addition to unsavory facts about sex. They don't want anything taught,especially the truth, if it makes their children feel uncomfortable. The fact is that not all people are heterosexuals, the Founding Fathers owned slaves, Indian's land was stolen from them and the Founding Fathers, some of them anyway, were philanderers who fathered illegitimate children. William, by the way, also fathered an illegitimate son, whom Franklin, to his credit, accepted into his household. After the Declaration, Franklin and his son William, who remained a loyal Brit, became estranged. William was captured and imprisoned by the American patriots.

Time reported:

"Opponents of CRT now invoke it as a catchall term for any discussion of systemic racism. All of a sudden, this once obscure bit of pedagogy is the hottest topic in conservative politics. In recent weeks, Republican governors in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas have signed bills designed to restrict the way history is taught or ban the use of CRT. In a legally binding opinion, Montana’s attorney general called critical race theory and antiracism training “discriminatory” and illegal “in many instances.” On June 10, the Florida board of education approved a rule that instruction “may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” At least 25 states have proposed or taken actions designed to restrict how teachers discuss racism and sexism, according to Education Week. One group in Nevada is calling for teachers to wear body cameras; under a bill that was proposed in Arizona, teachers could have been fined $5,000 for teaching students to feel “guilt” over their race."

So American history can't be portrayed in school as anything "other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence." Glory, glory. What noble people these slave owners, Indian land stealers and philanderers were! Not to mention the Mexican American war.

History.com reported:

"The invasion of Mexico was one of the first U.S. conflicts to spawn a widespread anti-war movement. Political opponents labeled “Mr. Polk’s War” a shameless land grab, while abolitionists viewed it was a scheme to add more slave states to the Union. Among the more notable critics was freshman Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln, who took to the House floor in 1847 and introduced a series of resolutions demanding to know the location of the “spot of soil” where the war’s first skirmish took place."

Well, in fact American history is full of lies and bullshit about war including the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Perhaps grade school children shouldn't have to be faced with the facts of life unsavory as they may be, but at some point, say high school, American citizens should be required to read "The Untold History of the United States," by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick or "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn or both.

Off the Top of My Head

In Defense of Gov. Cuomo

by John Lawrence

One of the principles of American democracy is that people accused of wrongdoing will get their day in court during which they can present their case and their defense against said accusations. Cuomo was accused, tried, judged and found guilty in the media without ever having his day in court or an opportunity to adequately defend himself. The media is only too happy to cooperate with the #MeToo movement because, frankly, their ratings go up any time they report something salacious and titillating. This goes against every principle of jurisprudence and common sense. In a day when everyone has to sign away their rights in order to do business with Google, Facebook, Microsoft and any large corporation (those long legal agreements which no one ever reads but you have to tick the box after scrolling to the bottom), and agree to going to arbitration rather than suing, why don't large business and political entities have a clause in their employee contracts that any grievance should first be taken up with a designated person in human resources? Why doesn't their employee agreement prohibit them from going immediately to the media? Grievances should be settled if possible in house especially the kinds of grievances expressed by several women against Gov. Cuomo for which he would have been found innocent in a court of law if a judge even agreed to take them up.

What if the women who accused Cuomo had gone first to human resources and complained. There should have been a procedure in place for doing that. Then the complainant and complainee could have been brought together in an attempt to work out their differences and come to an understanding or resolution. If no understanding and resolution could take place, then they could be brought before an arbitration or mediation board either in house or before an independent body for resolution and finally, there should be a provision for someone in authority to have the prerogative of meting out punishment. For these kind of grievances, which can't be properly adjudicated in a court of law, there should be a shadow system for resolving them.

The definition of a peccadilloe is a small, relatively unimportant offense or sin, perhaps more appropriately taken up with one's priest in the confession booth rather than tried before the whole world in the media. IMHO this would have been the appropriate place for Gov. Cuomo to deal with his sins, not trying to defend himself in the media. Most of the accusations against him were not worth a hill of beans IMHO. Inappropriate touching is not touching someone's back or stomach or face. Kissing is not inappropriate touching IMHO. Inappropriate touching is touching genitialia or breasts. Whatever Gov. Cuomo has been accused of, in the past, women would have dealt with it by means of a slap across the face or a "Back off buddy" or "My boyfriend wouldn't like that." So why didn't they do that or complain to human resources instead of proceeding to try Cuomo in the media which is only too happy to oblige? We are all human, sinful and fallible. Part of the criminal justice system, and the religious system for that matter, is that we can all be rehabilitated and forgiven. I don't think Cuomo was given that chance. If 100 people accuse someone of a crime, criminal justice demands that he be given a chance to defend himself without being prejudiced in court by the number of accusers. It's not the number of accusers that is relevant; it's the crime in and of itself. However, one of the tenets of the #MeToo movement is that the more women who "come forward," the more likely it is that the accused will be judged guilty in the media and the court of public opinion.

Men will always be making sexual or romantic advances towards women. That's basically what human nature demands. The question is whether these advances are wanted or unwanted on the part of the women. The man making those advances doesn't know this initially. If the advances are unwanted, the woman should make that clear, and then, if the man persists, then that is a problem that needs to be dealt with by the woman. To my knowledge Cuomo didn't persist in any advances for which it was made clear to him by the woman involved that they were unwanted. Cuomo was right in that the line about appropriateness of touching has been redrawn. The line between peccadilloes and casual touching also needs to be redrawn. What were considered harmless peccadilloes in the past are considered by some egregious offenses today and men ignore this line, or the character of whom they are dealing with, at their peril.

Off the Top of My Head

#Me Too Reaches Absurd Heights

by John Lawrence, April 2, 2019

Joe Biden is a touchy feely guy. He has given countless handshakes, countless hugs, and, evidently, one hair sniff and a kiss on the back of the head. This was not an unwanted sexual advance according to Lucy Flores, a Democrat no less. Democrats have a way of eating their own. No, it was an unwanted advance minus the sexual part. It seems Biden was not trying to have sex with her, just being a bit overly friendly. I'm thinking this whole #Me Too movement has gone a little bit overboard. So now Democrats have to apologize for an unwanted hair sniff and a kiss on the back of the head at the same time that the President of the US brags about pussy grabbing and gets away with paying off a porn star with whom he had extramarital sex? What's wrong with this picture.

In the world we live in which is completely devoid of sexual modesty according to most movies and TV shows where sex acts are routinely depicted, all of a sudden we have to have the utmost reservations of even touching the opposite sex. So I've adopted a new approach to dating: I wear a wire just so there will be no confusion about what actually took place when I'm accused of unwanted sexual advances 30 years from now when I run for President of the United States. Here's how a typical date goes. I say to her, "May I hold your hand?" If she replies yes, I say to my wire, "Let the record show that Cynthia X has replied in the affirmative to the question 'May I hold your hand'.

A little further on I may ask, "May I put my arm around you?" If she replies yes, I say, "Let the record show that Cynthia X has replied in the affirmative to the question 'May I put my arm around you'. At the end of the evening I may ask her, "May I kiss you good night?" If she replies yes, I may ask her, "What should be the duration of the kiss - a simple peck lasting less than a second or a longer kiss lasting 1 to 5 seconds and may I kiss you on the lips or only on the cheek, and with tongue or no tongue?" Then she will give me the details on where to kiss her and for how long and in what manner. I will then say to my recorder, "Let the record show that Cynthia X on April 2, 2019 has stated that I may kiss her on the lips for no longer than 5 seconds without tongue."

If Cynthia X and I continue our dating regime, the questions and answers will become ever more frequent. Such questions as "May I touch your breasts?" and "May I remove your knickers?" "Would you prefer oral sex or regular intercourse?" "Which position would you prefer?" After every question and response, I will state, "Let the record show ... " etc. So then I have a record of my relationship with Cynthia X so that 30 years from now, when I run for President and Cynthia X comes forward to allege that I did something inappropriate, I have proof that I did nothing of the sort. In fact Cynthia X assented to my conduct every step of the way. She gave me permission for all advances sexual or otherwise, and she has nothing to complain about.

Seriously, rape is a crime; kissing and sniffing somebody's hair isn't. If a woman can't go to the police and have her claims of criminal activity adjudicated in a court of law immediately after such activity, then she shouldn't "come forward" 20 or 30 years later in an attempt to ruin some man's career. This whole #Me Too thing has become totally absurd, and it's time a man stood up and said so, career be damned!

Off the Top of My Head

"We are as equally stunned as everyone else"

by John Lawrence, February 23, 2019

The Jupiter, Florida police chief said that regarding the arrest of 77 year old Robert Kroft, owner of the Super Bowl winning Boston Patriots for having sex with a prostitute. I'm stunned as everyone else that a 77 year old man can still get it up! Instead of fining him $5000 (the usual fine in Florida which is no big deal for a billionaire), they should award this man a medal. My hat's off to him. Of course, there should be no illegality involved for visiting a prostitute. It's the height of American hypocrisy. In eight European countries (The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey, Hungary, and Latvia),  prostitution is legal and regulated. It should be legal here as well.

A spokesman for the Jupiter police said that they had cameras in the Orchids of Asia Day Spa and had caught Kroft "in the act." Florida has a John statute that  is designed to discourage men who try to enlist the services of prostitutes from doing so. Under Florida statute 796.07(6), a person who is convicted of soliciting a prostitute must pay a mandatory $5,000 fine. This means if you are caught asking someone to exchange sex for money or services or compensation you must be fined $5,000 in addition to any other penalty. This all seems pretty silly when you consider the billion dollar porn industry which is in the business of selling viewer sex 24 hours a day. It makes the Orchids of Asia massage parlor seem rather quaint.

Time reported:

Most people charged for the first time with soliciting a prostitute in Florida are allowed to enter a diversion program, said attorney David Weinstein, a former prosecutor. Kraft would probably have to perform 100 hours of community service and attend a course on the harmful effects of prostitution and sex trafficking, he said.

The NFL did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Under league policy, players, owners, coaches and other employees can be punished for “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL.

The #Me Too movement has brought down 201 powerful men for sexual misconduct.  Going to a prostitute for sex, by comparison, should be considered sexual good conduct. How hypocritical is charging a 77 year old man with a sex crime for visiting a prostitute? He wasn't having sex with an underage girl like R. Kelly. Engaging in sex with a person who is a - let's call her a sex worker, rather than a prostitute - is much more honorable than subjecting women to the sexual abuse claimed by members of the #Me Too movement.

We should be cheering that a 77 year old can still get it up if in fact actual sexual intercourse occurred at said massage parlor. Michael Castleman writes in Psychology Today: "By 65, most erections are history, but men can still enjoy great, orgasmic sex." Maybe Kroft was just getting a massage of a certain part of the anatomy that is considered off limits by Jupiter police. Whatever took place at the Orchids of Asia massage parlor, I'm sure it was conducive to the health of a 77 year old man. The possibility that the NFL will take some action against a billionaire who owns the Boston Patriots is risible.

Why the National Enquirer’s Attempt to Extort Jeff Bezos Backfired

By John Cassidy

February 8, 2019 from the New Yorker

 

Memo to the honchos at the National Enquirer: if you are going to threaten one of the richest men in the world by saying that you have sexually explicit selfies of him and his girlfriend, don’t have your lawyer and top editor put the threats in writing. The rich guy might decide he can ride out a stolen dick pic or two, especially if he’s already announced that he’s getting divorced.

“Something unusual happened to me yesterday,” Jeff Bezos, the founder and C.E.O. of Amazon, writes in a piece that appeared on Medium on Thursday evening. “I was made an offer I couldn’t refuse. Or at least that’s what the top people at the National Enquirer thought.” Evidently, Bezos thought different. “Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here,” he writes, referring to American Media, Inc., which is the National Enquirer’s parent company. “If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can?"

At some length, his article relates the recent dealings that his representatives have had with the National Enquirer, which in early January published intimate text messages that he had exchanged with his girlfriend, Lauren Sánchez, a former television anchor. Bezos also published three threatening e-mails sent, on Wednesday, by the supermarket tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, and by Jon Fine, the deputy general counsel of A.M.I.

In Howard’s e-mail, he describes in graphic terms some of the “photos obtained during our newsgathering,” which he says include “a below the belt selfie” and a shot of “Ms. Sanchez wearing a plunging red neckline dress revealing her cleavage and a glimpse of her nether region.” He concludes, “It would give no editor pleasure to send this email. I hope common sense can prevail — and quickly.” One of Fine’s e-mails lays out the National Enquirer’s “proposed terms” for reaching an agreement between the two sides, which included Bezos publicly acknowledging that he and his representatives didn’t have any basis for their suggestion that the original story about him was politically motivated. In a statement released on Friday morning, the company said, “American Media believes fervently that it acted lawfully in the reporting of the story of Mr. Bezos. . . . Nonetheless, in light of the nature of the allegations published by Mr. Bezos, the Board has convened and determined that it should promptly and thoroughly investigate the claims.”

All credit to Bezos for refusing to submit to these intimidation tactics. He’s a ruthless plutocrat whose online behemoth crushes retailers big and small. He has run his company with all the transparency of the Politburo. And he has exploited his great riches to buy one of the most important and influential newspapers in the country, the Washington Post. But he’s just as entitled as the next person to a private life—and he has just performed an important public service, or maybe two.

Bezos has made transparent the bullying tactics employed by the National Enquirer and raised the question of how often they are directed at targets who are less well able to defend themselves. “On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake,” Bezos writes. In addition, he has raised the intriguing question of how and why the tabloid went after him in the first place.

“Simply put, this was and is a news story,” Fine, the A.M.I. attorney, says in one of the e-mails. But there are grounds for wondering whether that was really all there was to it. As practically everybody now knows, David Pecker, the chief executive of A.M.I., is an old friend of Donald Trump. Late last year, A.M.I. entered a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, in which the company admitted that, in 2016, it bought and suppressed the story of Karen McDougal, an ex-Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Trump, “so as to prevent it from influencing the election.” At first glance, the Bezos story doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Trump, but first glances can sometimes be deceiving.

On January 9th, two days after the National Enquirer informed him it had obtained intimate text messages he had exchanged with Sánchez, Bezos announced that he and his wife of twenty-five years, MacKenzie, were divorcing. After the National Enquirer published some of the texts, Bezos writes, “I engaged investigators to learn how those texts were obtained, and to determine the motives for the many unusual actions taken by the Enquirer.” The principal investigator he hired was Gavin de Becker, a well-known security expert who runs his own consulting firm. “I asked him to prioritize protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter,” Bezos adds.

• Read reporting by Jeffrey Toobin on David Pecker, the chief executive of American Media, Inc., and his fervor for Donald Trump, and Ronan Farrow on how the National Enquirer protected Trump early in his Presidential campaign. *

According to a Washington Post story that was published on Tuesday, de Becker and his team “concluded that the billionaire was not hacked. Rather, de Becker said in an interview, the Enquirer’s scoop . . . began with a ‘politically motivated’ leak meant to embarrass the owner of The Post—an effort potentially involving several important figures in Trump’s 2016 campaign.” More specifically, de Becker came to focus his attention on Sánchez’s brother, Michael, a Hollywood talent agent who has ties to Roger Stone and Carter Page, two Trump associates who have been caught up in the Russia investigation. “Michael Sanchez has been among the people we’ve been speaking with and looking at,” de Becker told the Daily Beast.

Michael Sánchez is vigorously denying any involvement. In e-mails and texts that the Post obtained, he made the extraordinary claim to de Becker that he suspected the texts between Bezos and his sister may have been obtained by the National Security Agency, British intelligence, or the Mossad. The Post also reported that Michael Sánchez issued a statement in which he “said he believed de Becker, Bezos’s security chief for two decades, was involved in the leaks to the Enquirer ’to sabotage Mr. Bezos and Ms. Sanchez’s love affair.’ ”

Just how the National Enquirer obtained the photographs remains murky. What’s far clearer is that the publication tried to go gangster on the wrong person. “Of course I don’t want personal photos published, but I also won’t participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks and corruption,” Bezos writes. “I prefer to stand up, roll this log over and see what crawls out.” He won’t be the only one watching.

Off the Top of My Head

And So Judge Kavanaugh Accedes to the Bench

by John Lawrence, October 6, 2018

It was a foregone conclusion. He said. She said with no corroboration. If the Judge had done these things five years ago and there was corroboration, then he may have been tried and convicted, but the time frame when the event undoubtedly occurred was ancient history. Some women are outraged, but probably not enough to damage the Republican party's fortunes. The Trump base, or the 'silent majority' as Nixon called them, have evidently been 'energized' by the recent proceedings. The upcoming mid term elections will probably tell the story. Were enough independent voters outraged enough to vote for Democrats?

Kavanaugh proclaimed, "I am innocent," and he surely was in terms of the law. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and there was no way Kavanaugh was going to be proven guilty. Despite multiple allegations and a furious hue and cry, the brou ha ha was in the final analysis just a media spectacle. It sure raised ratings and gave Judge Kavanaugh, albeit unfortunately for him, a national stage. Now he can get down to the business of screwing leftist women politically and taking away their rights.

It all comes down to the numbers. Are there enough votes to repudiate the Republicans at the polls? The problem with the #MeToo movement is that most of these women are "coming forward" as opposed to "going to the police" at the time the incidents occurred. Maybe that will change from now on. It's one thing to get a Les Moonves removed from his CEOship. It's another to get a bunch of lawyers to convict one of their own own based on the court of public opinion.

Unless there is corroborating evidence, the powers that be are not going to believe someone's story no matter how sincere and convincing. They believed Monica Levinsky because she had DNA evidence that it was Bill Clinton. With Bill Cosby, there was no corroborating evidence, but he is a black man so that wasn't as necessary. The Washington Post reported: "The [Cosby] case lacks physical evidence, so much of the prosecution’s presentation to jurors will rest on her [Andrea Costand's] testimony." Another high tech lynching? However, a jury of someone's peers made the decision. A jury need not decide based on corroborating evidence. Evidently, it was enough that a bunch of women came forward with similar stories about Cosby. And did I mention: he's black.

A jury may well have convicted Judge Kavanaugh although the statute of limitations had obviously run out so no jury could possibly have. True, not as many women came forward as in the Cosby case. Christine Blasey Ford was a credible witness, but the incident took place too long ago and there was not enough corroboration. It was a "youthful indiscretion" as politician Henry Hyde declared when he was caught having committed adultery. He was one of the chief accuser's of Bill Clinton.

While Hyde was spearheading the impeachment of President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair, it was revealed that Hyde himself had conducted an extramarital sexual affair with Cherie Snodgrass who was also married. Hyde admitted to the affair and attributed the relationship as a mere "youthful indiscretion". He was 41 years old and married when the affair occurred. Hyde said the affair ended when Snodgrass' husband confronted Mrs. Hyde. At the time, Snodgrass was also married and had three children.

And so sex is a potent tool in the political arena which is responsible for much hypocrisy. Oh what fools we mortals be. And so Kavanaugh accedes to the bench along with "that Thomas" as Anita Hill called him. Lesson to women: document any physical assaults, rapes or attempted rapes.

Off the Top of My Head

The Supreme Court Justice in Waiting VS the Accusers

by John Lawrence, September 27, 2018

Today Christene Blasey Ford will emulate Zola and say "J'Accuse"! She accuses Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape. So do two other women. Now the dirty laundry will be aired in public. Stuff that for most men has been carefully hidden, especially if they're public figures, will be hashed over in a most astringent setting.

Marcuse nailed the problem when he talked about repressive desublimation. It seems that many people feel that they have to wear a mask in public; they have to present themselves to parents, teachers, nuns, priests and ministers as if they were choir boys, altar boys and boy scouts. They have to put on a most righteous face in public. But that's not who they really are. The more demanding the world seems to them, the more their true nature goes underground only to blast out when alcohol or drugs are consumed. Societal repression leads ultimately to a split personality.

Boys, who have aspirations of being high public officials, must present the choir boy image in public and back it up with a stellar academic and athletic record. Gatekeepers like college admission officers and future employers are going to sniff over their records to see who are the most promising. What happens in private, at alcohol fueled house parties and other hidden venues, should never come to light. But the #MeToo movement has changed all that. Human behavior - in particular male behavior - has come out into the light of day and it turns out that we're really animals after all.

In his book Eros and Civilization, Marcuse deals with humans' erotic nature and how that is repressed by society. However, this erotic nature cannot just be eliminated. Forced underground, it manifests itself in a split personality. There is the personality that is presented to the public and the personality that comes out to play in supposedly private settings that have plausible deniability. Today we shall see Kavanaugh plausibly deny accusations by a woman who is bringing his repressively desublimated behavior to light.

Still Waiting... A Harvey Weinstein Moment for America’s Wars?

Published on Monday, December 11, 2017 by TomDispatch

When will America confront its blood-spilling predators and end this addiction to war?

by Andrew Bacevich

 

20 Comments

A van carries dead bodies of children killed in a U.S./NATO airstrike at a village in Logar province, south of Kabul, Afghanistan on June 6, 2012.

What makes a Harvey Weinstein moment? The now-disgraced Hollywood mogul is hardly the first powerful man to stand accused of having abused women. The Harveys who preceded Harvey himself are legion, their prominence matching or exceeding his own and the misdeeds with which they were charged at least as reprehensible.

In the relatively recent past, a roster of prominent offenders would include Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and, of course, Donald Trump. Throw in various jocks, maestros, senior military officers, members of the professoriate and you end up with quite a list. Yet in virtually all such cases, the alleged transgressions were treated as instances of individual misconduct, egregious perhaps but possessing at best transitory political resonance.

All that, though, was pre-Harvey. As far as male sexual hijinks are concerned, we might compare Weinstein’s epic fall from grace to the stock market crash of 1929: one week it’s the anything-goes Roaring Twenties, the next we’re smack dab in a Great Depression.

How profound is the change? Up here in Massachusetts where I live, we’ve spent the past year marking John F. Kennedy’s 100th birthday. If Kennedy were still around to join in the festivities, it would be as a Class A sex offender.  Rarely in American history has the cultural landscape shifted so quickly or so radically.

In our post-Harvey world, men charged with sexual misconduct are guilty until proven innocent, all crimes are capital offenses, and there exists no statute of limitations. Once a largely empty corporate slogan, “zero tolerance” has become a battle cry.

All of this serves as a reminder that, on some matters at least, the American people retain an admirable capacity for outrage. We can distinguish between the tolerable and the intolerable. And we can demand accountability of powerful individuals and institutions.

Everything They Need to Win (Again!)

What’s puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn’t extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet.

In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance.  But to judge from published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed to survive their encounters.  None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder.  No one died.

"War has become a habit to which the United States is addicted.  Except for the terminally distracted, most of us know that."

"War has become a habit to which the United States is addicted.  Except for the terminally distracted, most of us know that."

Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country’s various military misadventures of the present century.  Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillionsof dollars.  Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated “terrorism,” as President George W. Bush promised back when today’s G.I.s were still in diapers.

Off the Top of My Head

Oh No! Lake Wobegon Has a Sexual Predator in its Midst

by John Lawrence

Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) has terminated Garrison Keillor, creator of the popular radio show, Prairie Home Companion, due to allegation of improper conduct. Keillor said in an email, "I put my hand on a woman's bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness, and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called."

Even Lake Wobegon where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the children are above average is not immune to this kind of sexual predation. Keillor posted on Facebook: "It's astonishing that fifty years of hard work can be trashed in a morning by an accusation. I always believed in hard work and now it feels sort of meaningless. Only a friend can hurt you this badly. I think I have to leave the country in order to walk around in public and not feel accusing glances." Yes, especially in Lake Wobegon where everybody knows everybody's business.

What's next? Some guy accidentally bumps into a woman's boobs in a crowded elevator and gets accused of sexual harassment? Keillor is 75 years old. This seems a little petty. No, a lot petty. I guess you can't even pat a woman on the back any more without being accused of sexual harassment. This is getting worse then communist China where neighbors rat on neighbors or Saudi Arabia where a mere accusation can get you beheaded. So a person can lose their job and their career because of an accusation that they patted a woman on her bare back and their hand slipped. Jeez, I've done worse on accident before, but I'm not a high profile person so there's nothing in it for the woman to hire a lawyer to allege that I'm guilty of sexual misconduct.

Obviously, this woman wants a financial settlement. Why else would she get a lawyer involved? Keillor said: "Anyone who ever was around my show can tell you that I was the least physically affectionate person in the building. Actors hug, musicians hug, people were embracing every Saturday night right and left, and I stood off in a corner like a stone statue. If I had a dollar for every woman who asked to take a selfie with me and who slipped an arm around me and let it drift down below the beltline, I'd have at least a hundred dollars." Well, I think this is sexual harassment in reverse, sexual harassment where the woman is the sexual harasser. Slipping her hand down to Keillor's ass is much worse than him patting a woman's bare back above the shirtline. These charges are getting ridiculous.When did this happen? 40 years ago? This is Saudi Arabia with a figurative beheading. A beheading of one's job, career and reputation.

MPR said, "Based on what we currently know, there are no similar allegations regarding other staff." However, attorneys are leading an investigation to see if some woman or women will come out of the woodwork and accuse Keillor too. You never know. There might be some other fortune seekers out there. And attorney fees are mounting up. This has never happened in Lake Wobegon before. Get Guy Noir on the case. All those repressed Norwegians who find it impossible to express any sort of physical affection might just be hiding some unmentionable secrets.

Off the Top of My Head

Oh No, Not You Too, Matt Lauer

by John Lawrence

NBC announced the firing of Matt Lauer, co-host of its most profitable morning show, "The Today Show" because of allegations of sexual misconduct. It sounds to me like a consensual relationship gone sour. The New York Times reported:

It was the complaint on Monday [November 27, 2017] that prompted NBC to take action. “On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer,” Andrew Lack, the NBC News chairman, said in a memo to the staff. “While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.”

In a division-wide meeting with his staff later in the morning, Mr. Lack said that Mr. Lauer’s involvement with the woman began while they were in Sochi, Russia, for the Winter Olympics in 2014, according to two people briefed on the meeting, and that their involvement continued after they returned to New York.

On Wednesday morning, Ari Wilkenfeld, a civil rights lawyer with the firm Wilkenfeld, Herendeen & Atkinson in Washington, said he represented the woman who had made the initial complaint to NBC, but declined to publicly identify her. In a statement provided to The Times, he said:

“My client and I met with representatives from NBC’s Human Resources and Legal Departments at 6 p.m. on Monday for an interview that lasted several hours. Our impression at this point is that NBC acted quickly, as all companies should, when confronted with credible allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace.

NBC fired Lauer 34 hours after the woman "came forward" with her lawyer over an incident that occurred three years ago. Sound like a rush to judgment to me. Andrew Lack, the NBC News chairman, said in a memo to the staff. “While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.” So the guy is one of the best known figures on television, a host of the summer and winter Olympics, and he loses his job and his reputation due to an anonymous woman with anonymous allegations? No due process? I hope Matt Lauer has a "golden parachute" clause in his contract.

If the relationship started at Sochi at the Winter Olympics and continued after they got back, its sounds pretty consensual to me. For whatever reason the woman looked back three years later and decided it wasn't consensual. And what about the fact that she was married at the time? Was Lauer also married? If so nothing is ever mentioned in these stories about the fact that a spouse(s) have been wronged or that that has anything to do with the firings. It is only the woman with the allegations who has been wronged. Forget about the fact that Lauer was evidently married at the time of this affair, and whether or not his wife suffered as a consequence of it. At any rate she certainly will suffer over Matt's loss of income.

Well, Lauer can go to work for RT television the way a lot of other fired TV hosts have. Ed Schultz used to have a show on MSNBC and was let go, I think, because he was too controversial. It had nothing to do with sex. He, like Larry King, now both work for RT. About the same time Lauer was fired, it was announced that the press credentials of RT reporters had been revoked by the US Congress. A few days ago RT was forced to register as a foreign agent. A similar action was taken by Moscow with regard to American shows like Voice of America.

In addition to Larry King and Ed Schulz, Americans such as Thom Hartmann, Max Keiser, Stacy Herbert, Ed Schulz and Mike Papantonio also have shows on RT. Is the US Congress trying to silence the views of those Americans just because their shows are financed from Moscow? Or do they want to get rid of RT because they air views that are critical of the US?

The Backlash Against the Bullies

by Robert Reich

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Why are so many women now speaking out about the sexual abuses they’ve experienced for years? Is there anything unique about the time we’re now living through that has encouraged them to end their silence?

I can’t help think their decisions are part of something that’s happening throughout much of American society right now – a backlash against what has been the growing domination of America by powerful and wealthy men (and a few women) who came to believe they can do whatever they want to do, to whomever they choose.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the pussy,” said Donald Trump in the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood tape.

Sexual assault is one obvious assertion of dominance. Other forms include economic bullying and the stoking of bigotry to gain political power.

Trump epitomizes it all. As a businessman he stiffed contractors, used bankruptcy to avoid paying creditors, and wielded lawsuits to threaten critics. As a politician he gained traction by alleging Obama was born in Africa, Mexicans are rapists and murders, and Muslims must be kept out of America.

But the days of Trump and the bullying he represents are numbered. Soon after the 2016 election, hundreds of thousands of women marched against Trump, and the Resistance was born.

On November 7, Virginia Republican candidate Ed Gillespie’s hate-filled Trump-style campaign for governor of Virginia collapsed in a nearly nine-point defeat to Ralph Northam. Democrats swept statewide elections in Virginia, won the New Jersey governor’s race, and achieved other victories across the nation.

One of the consequences of Trump’s presidency has been a sharp increase in the number of female candidates and winners. More than 20,000 women have declared themselves candidates for public office so far, according to Stephanie Schriock, the president of Emily’s List – an unprecedented number.

This should be the Democrat’s hour, especially if they stand up against the bullies of America and stand for the millions who have been humiliated, intimidated, disenfranchised, and disempowered. 

Democrats will need to gain 24 seats to take control of the House in 2018. It will be difficult, given the amount of gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression imposed by Republican legislatures. 

Nevertheless, last month Cook Political Report shifted 12 House districts in favor of Democrats, a year ahead of the 2018 midterms. A poll released at the beginning of November showed Democrats with an 11-point lead over Republicans on a generic House ballot. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 51 percent of registered voters said they would vote for the Democrat in their district, while 40 percent said they would vote for the Republican.

The revolt against Trump is a backlash against bullying in all its forms. Powerful and wealthy men who have felt free to impose their will on others, regardless of the pain they cause, may be in for a rude awakening. 

Off the Top of My Head

Unproven Allegations Should Not Be Cause For Public Shaming

by John Lawrence

Every day a whole host of people are coming forward to blame someone - not Joe Six Pac - but someone famous, of having made unwanted sexual advances 20, 30 even 40 years ago. Most of these are frivolous; they just add to the media circus around this issue that's become a rolling ball. Harvey Weinstein got the ball rolling, and now there are more and more allegations. All these women (and men) coming forward are just alleging bad conduct. Nothing has been proven especially in a court of law. Whatever happened to due process and the rule of law? The simple fact of the situation is that none of these allegations rises to the level of being pursued in a court of law.

But they are salacious and scurrilous and titillating. That sells media, and that's what this is all about in addition to being a public shaming of the men involved. The actor, Richard Dreyfuss, was accused recently by Jessica Teich of exposing himself. Dreyfuss said in a lengthy statement that he never exposed himself but did "flirt with" Teich and tried to kiss her "as part of what I thought was a consensual seduction ritual." Dreyfuss added that he is "horrified and bewildered to discover that it wasn't consensual." Well, isn't that the point? How did Dreyfuss know is wasn't consensual unless Teich said so at the time. What might have seemed consensual 40 years ago has perhaps been reevaluated by Teich so that now she has decided it wasn't consensual. In fact after 40 years she considers it to be harassment.

Nowhere in all these sexual harassment situations is it ever considered that these men, if married, were committing adultery so that the woman who was really wronged was the guy's wife, not some woman with whom he may have been trying to have sex with. I guess the whole adultery thing is totally irrelevant at this point in time.

So it's easy to allege things, to accuse people of wrongdoing even though the accuser knows these matters will never wind up in court. It's all about the court of public opinion, and if enough women pile on, so to speak, a man's reputation can be ruined, his career can be ruined, his life can be ruined. This isn't what due process and the rule of law is all about. It's not even what human rights are all about. But it sells media and gets media attention at the expense of ruining some men's lives. Many relationships which were once considered consensual are now in retrospect considered not to have been consensual after much water has passed over the dam. If the woman was raped, she needed to come forward at the time and have the matter considered in a court of law to determine the facts and appropriate punishment if guilt is established. Otherwise, she should just keep her mouth shut especially over stuff that purportedly happened 40 years ago.

Hollywood Moguls and Sexual Predators

by John Lawrence

Retrospective Unwanted Sexual Advances and Seduction

It seems like a lot of women are "coming forward" 20 or 30 years later after the fact of unwanted sexual advances. This really doesn't cut it in the legal or even the moral sense in my opinion, but it does create a media frenzy which is what it is really all about. #MeToo is basically looking backward and deciding at a later date that someone has done something wrong which at the time and even shortly thereafter seemed to be no big deal.

It used to be that there was such a thing as seduction for which there was no culpability as far as I can ascertain. Maybe a woman was reluctant at first to have sex, but then if the guy was so charming and/or convincing, the situation might get to the point where she willingly had sex. In other words the sex was consensual. Later on she might have had the sexual equivalent of "buyer's remorse" and decided that it was a bad idea and blamed the guy for what happened. So where do you draw the line? Whether or not the man is rich and/or powerful has nothing to do with whether or not a woman has been raped. If she has been raped time is of the essence in reporting that rape. If the sex was more or less consensual, then the huge media frenzy around unwanted sexual advances is just that: a media frenzy.

Is anyone accusing rock stars and professional athletes of using their status to have sex with lots of women. The women may have had later regrets, but no one is coming forward to accuse Mick Jagger or Keith Richards of unwanted sexual advances even though they bragged about all the sex they had with multiple women. Are groupies coming forward complaining of being used by famous men? I don't think so.

If women want to be credible about sex with powerful, rich or famous men, they need to come forward immediately after the act occurred, go to the police and get a rape kit started. Then the DNA proof is present in their vagina and a swab will prove that. Otherwise, if too much time goes by, the sex should be considered consensual.

One of the famous liaisons in which much opprobrium was heaped on Bill Clinton was the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was figuratively tarred and feathered and impeached although by all accounts the relationship was consensual. The sex between them was proven by virtue of the fact that Lewinsky had saved a semen-stained dress from which Clinton's DNA was extricated. Clinton lied about it and was caught in a lie, but consensual sex today is no big deal whether or not one or both of them is married. Is anyone concerned about the harm done to Harvey Weinstein's wife? Not as far as the media is concerned.

Although there is a big hue and cry about unwanted sexual advances, no one seems to be the least bit concerned about the fact that most of these men were married at the time and, therefore, committed adultery. No one seems to be concerned about the harm done to their wives and families. I guess adultery doesn't count for much any more.

The following is a compendium of some of my Off the Top of My Head columns on the subject.

Off the Top of My Head

Aspiring Starlets and the American Sleaze Machine

by John  Lawrence

For some women Hollywood moguls are sexual predators. For others they are a potential way of becoming a star, a means to an end. There are those that are repulsed by the casting couch as well they should be. It is just the first step, an entree of sorts, into an industry that is characterized by sleaze. So it is altogether fitting that the first introduction to the industry is a sleazy encounter with the likes of Harvey Weinstein. After all if your goal is to purvey sleaze, why not immerse yourself in the real life sleaze that goes on behind the scenes?

For other women a rejection of the casting couch means that they will probably never make it in the sleazy movie industry. They should rejoice in that fact alone because then they might have a chance to lead a more healthy, productive and ethical life.

The first movie that Harvey Weinstein fully financed was Pulp Fiction. Its script was reportedly turned down by Columbia TriStar as "too demented". Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein was instantly enthralled with it. The film is about criminality, drugs and murder, a wonderful combination that is what aspiring starlets who make the cut will be involved in. The entertainment industry is inherently sleazy. Pulp Fiction won a lot of awards; it was considered a great movie. Nevertheless, it characterized the vacuity and emptiness of unproductive lives involved in borderline and in some cases outright criminality. This is what women, who want to become known in that industry and who will do anything to attain their goal, including accepting the advances of Harvey Weinstein and others like him, aspire to.

Some who accept mogul advances and then never become big stars have a case of sour grapes and later decide that they were taken advantage of. Some of these "come forward" with accusations many years later after having a change of heart regarding that encounter which was a potential entree into the movie business. The ethical ones reject mogul advances in the first place and make the decision that it isn't worth it even if that means they are throwing away their chances at becoming a star.

What is purveyed onscreen in many but not all cases is a twisted, illicit sexuality which evidently is more entertaining than sex which is portrayed as part of a love affair. I have no problem with sex as an inherent part of a love story between two consenting married or unmarried adults. But this kind of sexuality is not the kind that sells most movies. This is the kind that brands a movie as a "chick flick" or a European movie which is too dull for most American audiences. American audiences want cultural depravity and this is what producers like Harvey Weinstein know will sell.

The bottom line is that women shouldn't be too outraged when  the vicarious sleaze portrayed on the Big Screen turns out to be the reality of real life in an industry in which fantasy and reality merge. You can only realistically commit to portraying sleaze if you are fully committed to it in real life. You have to live what you then can realistically portray. It's called method acting, the Stanislavski system. Women with a moral or ethical bone in their body should expect to be part of movie moguls' real life, reject it and go on to something better. They might not then become famous though. Too bad. They will just have to live with that.

Off the Top of My Head

Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Elvis Presley etc.

by John Lawrence

Every day it seems a new Hollywood sexual predator comes to light. It's now an all too familiar saga. Just recently more than 30 women have come forward to accuse movie director James Toback of sexual harassment.  Dozens of women are "coming forward" to claim unwanted sexual advances or in some cases outright rape. However, it usually is the case that none of these women ever reported the situation to the police or other authorities at the time that the incident occurred. In some cases they come forward 20 or 30 years later. So it all amounts to a public shaming as is the case with Harvey Weinstein. The public shaming cost him his job, his company and evidently his wife and children - a considerable penalty.

For what it's worth here's my advice to women who find themselves in the situation of being in a hotel room with a powerful mogul in a bathrobe. #1 Never agree to meet anyone for a supposedly "business meeting" in a hotel room. #2 If there are unwanted sexual advances, take Nancy Reagan's advice and "Just say No!". #3 If there is an actual rape, go immediately to the police and demand that a rape kit be started. They will do a vaginal swab which will contain semen which can be directly connected to the perpetrator by means of DNA testing. That is an open and shut case for criminal prosecution. Even if the authorities are so corrupt that they won't proceed with a criminal prosecution there will be documentation that the event took place.

There are probably a considerable number of cases where women consensually had sex with the Harvey Weinsteins of the world  in return for the chance of getting their face and/or body on the Big Screen or even the Little Screen. If things didn't turn out as they had envisioned, they could decide many years later that they had been the victim of a sexual predator. Well, it's not sexual predation if the sex was consensual, that is, if the woman was a willing participant. It doesn't matter who made the advances or how powerful or powerless the guy was or is.

Consider the case of famous rock stars and athletes. Women used to throw their panties at Elvis Presley inasmuch as saying "Come and get it!" I'm sure he and many others did. Does that make them sexual predators or sexual accommodators? Wilt Chamberlain, the basketball star, in his autobiography claimed he slept with 20,000 women. Does that make him a sexual predator or only someone with a healthy sex drive? The fact is that many women will gladly have sex with rich or famous or powerful men, even throw themselves at them. They will even make the advances, in some cases even, unwanted sexual advances. Does that make them the sexual predators?

The Scarlet Letter, an 1850 novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, tells the story of Hester Prynne, who conceives a daughter through an affair and struggles to create a new life of repentance and dignity. Throughout the book, Hawthorne explores themes of legalism, sin, and guilt. She is forced to be branded with a red "A" for adulturess and must wear that stigma for the rest of her life. The guy who got her pregnant was not even considered to be culpable. Now a couple of centuries later, the tables have turned and Harvey Weinstein might as well have a scarlet letter emblazoned on his chest. But somehow the question of adultery is entirely moot. It's all about whether or not the sex was consensual. It's "He said;she said."

The other side of the coin is what happens when women throw themselves at famous or powerful men, in some cases calculatedly, because in the back of their minds they think they might get a part in a motion picture or become a rock star's girlfriend. If they are disappointed, they can always have a change of heart later and decide that the guy was at fault. If there is an actual rape, then the situation is legally actionable provided they go to the police and get a rape kit started right away. Otherwise a public shaming is about all they can hope for if enough other women come forward and say #MeToo.

Off the Top of My Head

Sex: Consensual and Non-Consensual

by John Lawrence

There is a lot of hullabaloo going around over Harvey Weinstein who supposedly made unwanted sexual advances to young starlets. He's even been accused of rape. Well, this is nothing new in Hollywood. Most of the great producers, directors, studio heads and moguls of the 20th century operated in the same way. All you have to do is to read some biographies of movie stars, directors, producers and moguls from that era.

For instance, Betty Hutton, one of the biggest female movie stars of the 1940s recounts in her biography, "Backstage, You Can Have," how she got her first professional gig as a singer with Vincent Lopez's band. A requirement of her employment was that she give Lopez a daily blow job. And then her career took off from there.

The "casting couch" is not a new phenomenon. Many aspiring actors and actresses will willingly perform there in return for a chance of becoming a star. So why all the shock and disbelief regarding Harvey Weinstein. He's just conducting business as usual as it's been conducted since the advent of the movie industry.

Songwriter Jimmy Van Heusen was Frank Sinatra's best buddy. He used to gather up a few women in LA and bring them out to Frank's pad in Palm Springs every weekend. These women were either prostitutes or aspiring starlets. After the weekend was over, Jimmy dutifully drove them back to Los Angeles and paid the prostitutes. He didn't have to pay the aspiring starlets however. They were in it to advance their careers.

There is so much cultural hypocrisy going around over powerful men and the women who have suffered through "unwanted sexual advances" at their hands. If the guy made an advance and the woman said "Back off Bub," like some of them have (including Julie Andrews), then the situation is fini, no harm done in my opinion. If the guy persists to the point of forcing her to have sex, then that is rape, and she should call the cops as soon as she extricates herself from the situation. How is it that none of them do? Instead they wait till 20 or 30 years later to stir up a big fuss?

I don't condone rape, but I see no harm in making "unwanted sexual advances". How does the guy know they are unwanted till the woman tells him so? In many cases the woman is all to willing in which case they are not unwanted but indeed are definitely wanted, in which case the sex is consensual and many careers have been advanced that way. It's not all pure acting skill, I hate to tell you.

The entertainment industry, especially the movies and lately TV as well, is all about sex. It should come as no surprise then that the people involved in that industry are involved in it in their personal lives. They are not Puritans as evidently are not those who consume the products of the visual entertainment industry, including porn, vicariously.

Trump and Weinstein

by Robert Reich

Monday, October 9, 2017

Donald Trump weighed in on the scandal engulfing movie mogul and Democratic funder Harvey Weinstein, accused by multiple women of sexual harassment (Weinstein has been fired from his company). “I’ve know Harvey Weinstein a long time. I’m not at all surprised to see it,” Trump said.

Trump was subsequently asked by CNN’s Elizabeth’s Landers how Weinstein’s conduct differed from the conduct Trump bragged about on the “Access Hollywood” tape, where he said “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Trump responded that the tape was just “locker-room talk.” 

Rubbish. It wasn’t just “locker-room talk.” At least 15 women have publicly accused Trump of sexual harassment and assault, and People Magazine Natasha Stoynoff has six independent witnesses to back up her allegation that Trump “pushed her against a wall, shoved his tongue in her mouth, and told her they were going to have an affair.”

Trump is actively assaulting women in other ways. The Trump administration’s Education Department has moved to make it harder for women at universities to prove sexual harassment. Trump’s Health and Human Services Department has made it harder for women to get contraceptives. Trump has nominated 32 men and just one woman to become U.S. Attorneys. Trump’s 2018 budget calls for a 93 percent cut in funding for federal programs that aid survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence.

Trump and Weinstein are both sexual harassers and predators. But Trump is also president of the United States. That makes him even more dangerous to women.

Einstein Considered Himself a Citizen of the World

by John Lawrence

"Einstein's contempt for Germany's authoritarian schools and militarist atmosphere made him want to renounce his citizenship in that country. This was reinforced by Jost Winteler, who disdained all forms of nationalism and instilled in Einstein the belief that people should consider themselves citizens of the world. So he asked his father to help him drop his German citizenship. The release came through in January 1896, and for the time being he was stateless."

"Einstein also became an early member of the liberal and cautiously pacifistic New Fatherland League, a club that pushed for an early peace [to the First World War] and the establishment of a federal structure in Europe to avoid future conflicts. It published a pamphlet titled "The Creation of the United States of Europe," and it helped get pacifist literature into prisons and other places."

"In November, Einstein published a three-page essay titled "My Opinion of the War" that skirted the border of what was permissible, even for a great scientist, to say in Germany. He speculated that there existed "a biologically determined feature of the male character" that was one of the causes of war."

"The idea that war had a biological basis in male aggression was a topic Einstein also explored in a letter to his friend in Zurich, Heinrich Zangger. "What drives people to kill and maim each other so savagely?" Einstein asked. "I think it is the sexual character of the male that leads to such wild explosions.""

—above quotes from "Einstein: His Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson. There is an excellent series on PBS called "Genius" based on Isaacson's book.

Sex in San Diego: Rape in the Military

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

Even as a little girl Claire Russo wanted nothing more than to grow up and serve in the military. At 14, she was a Senate page for Dan Coats, worked at the Republican National Convention in San Diego, and interned for Senator Judd Gregg the following year. Later she said "I became obsessed with the Marine Corps after that. I knew the legacy of the Marine Corps was elite and the legacy of Guadalcanal. They were pretty tough and if I was going to join, I’d join the toughest out there."

When she grew up, she became a Marine who served in Iraq and later as an advisor for the Army in Afghanistan. At Officers Candidate School, where she finished fourth in a class of 65, she started hearing stories about women who had been raped by other Marines. One of her drill instructors told her, "You're either a bitch or a slut."

In 2004 she was assigned as an intelligence officer to Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego. She moved in with her cousin Tom, who was a Navy F-18 pilot and instructor on the base. Just a month after Claire arrived at Miramar, the festivities surrounding the Marine Corps' annual birthday celebration were in full swing. She accompanied her cousin Tom to his Marine Corps Ball since he didn't have a date. Before the Ball officially began they partied in a hotel room at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in downtown San Diego with some friends.

As the evening wore on, Claire had several drinks, and, since Tom had hooked up with a date, she started feeling like the odd woman out. She had been introduced to several of Tom's pilot friends for whom she had the utmost repect. She had wanted to work with pilots as part of her mission in the Marines. She made small talk and danced with some of them to whom she was introduced by their call signs such as Wallet and Dirty.

Later Dirty, who was a Marine Captain, invited her to join a group of friends at a room party upstairs. Claire said, “I would certainly never question the integrity or motivation of the Marines—certainly not at that point. I didn’t doubt this guy at all.” It turned out that the "room party" was at Dirty's room, and there was no one else there. The next thing she remembers is being forced to give Dirty a blow job during the course of which she started vomiting. The only thing she remembers him saying to her was "You're so disgusting."

After that she was in the bathroom where Captain Dirty was trying to penetrate her anally to the point that she started bleeding. He left her there naked on the bathroom floor covered in blood and vomit. She then heard her cell phone ringing in the other room. She entered the bedroom where Dirty had already retired to bed and answered the phone. It was one of cousin Tom's friends. She's incoherent. He tells her to get a cab and go home. She puts on her vomit-and-blood stained dress and jacket, leaving behind ripped stockings and a broken necklace. Without a word from Captain Dirty, she leaves, wanders abjectly around the hotel lobby looking for Tom and catches a cab home around 3 AM.

Her boyfriend Josh, another Marine who was on duty that night at Camp Pendleton calls her around 7 AM, and she can't tell him what happened. While Josh comes to get her, she takes a shower and realizes she's still bleeding. Around 4 pm Claire returns home with Tom and begins to go into shock—crying, shaking, feeling cold and panicky—as she relived the events of the previous night with Tom. A dutiful pilot, he immediately phones his Unit Executive Officer to report that there was an incident at his Marine Corps Ball, despite Claire’s protests. He then takes Claire to the Emergency Room at Balboa Navy Medical Center. Tom then receives a call from NCIS, (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) Special Agent Zach Paton, who says, “Do not let them examine her. They’re going to screw it up,” referring to the Navy Medical Center. He tells Tom to bring Claire to a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) nurse who specializes in sexual assault exams at Palomar-Pomerado Hospital, a civilian facility.

After several conversations with different agencies of the military, Paton was told that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute; that it was a “he said, she said” case and there wasn’t anything in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that would allow them to prosecute a rape by intoxication. So Paton took the case to the San Diego District Attorney’s office. “They about crapped in their drawers,” says Paton. “Because of his [Dirty’s] position and rank and the potential media outcome, they wanted to keep it as small as possible.” 

And so Dirty whose real name is Captain Douglas Alan Dowson went on trial in civilian court in San Diego. It turns out that he had a prior record of deviant sexual behaviour but no prior conviction. Gretchen Means was the Deputy District Attorney in San Diego's Sex Crimes Unit who prosecuted Claire's case. Dowson was charged with six counts of sexual assault. Two days into the trial Dowson accepted a plea on one count of sodomy of an intoxicated person. He was sentenced to three years in prison but served just 19 and a half months. Given the sentencing laws, Means says, it was likely he would get more time if he had been found guilty on multiple counts. Dowson is now registered as a sex offender and was discharged from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable discharge in 2006. In the summer of 2007, Claire sued Dowson for damages and he settled for $13,000.

After the rape, Claire remained dedicated to the military. In 2006 she was deployed to Iraq. After being sexually harrassed there, she returned home with PTSD and was given a medical discharge from the military in 2007. She married Josh and they traveled the world. But she still had the desire to serve. In 2009 she was hired by the Army to be part of the Female Engagement Team in Afghanistan.

Claire said the way that the military dealt with her was far more traumatizing than the actual assault. But somehow she persevered and maintained her belief in military service. Gretchen Means has seen a lot of rape victims, but Claire stands out among them:

“I’ve known Claire for a long time, I went to her wedding, I’ve seen her inside and outside this crime. I was always really super impressed with how engaged she was in getting through it.

“Look what she’s done with her life. This took away her dignity and love of her country for a little bit, but look what she’s done; amazing stuff.”

Claire is currently a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington D.C. where she interviews men in the Special Operations forces about their experiences employing women and the role of women in the military. 

Claire now has a one year old daughter named Genevieve.

This article relies on an article in Business Insider entitled, "This Marine Was Raped By A Captain and the Military Did Nothing."