Harasser vs. Harassed and Assaulted Cash Outs

download-2How is $120 million different from Roger Ailes’s $45 million?  Zero tolerance for media means that the harassers get rich or richer, whereas the victims of their harassment and violent sexual assault (i.e. rape) are lucky not to get blackballed from their profession or remain powerless.  Even if you’re a journalist, like Ronan Farrow, they can drive you out or into a different medium.  (The New Yorker being the out, and lucky for The New Yorker.)

What does this mean for the American government?  Brett will not cash out, will he?  Certainly the good citizen Professor Ford will be destroyed.  But here’s what we can take away this morning.

The religious right is happy to practice toleration when it comes to Trump.  Unlike the Catholic Church — which does give its victims real cash outs — the religious right uses its harassers to exert pressure — to get politically what they want.  This story is as old as the religious right’s entry into politics (see Garry Wills’ book on Nixon).

Meanwhile, Brett has been buttering up the feds — Senators, House, etc. — for months, while they call the citizen doing the right thing having “terms.” What a contradiction in terms (i.e. hypocrisy) this is, no?

No wonder Congress got rid of House pages or jail bait before they gave in and adopted anti-harassment rules.  Republican speaker John Boehner got rid of them in 2011 so the House would not have to pay the parents of these largely legacy kids (not me, though) huge settlements for harassing their own children.  If that’s the situation, why would Paul let his kids be pages any more than Ted would let his?

Published by *Ruth Frick O'Brien

Professor Ruth Frick O'Brien, City University of New York, Graduate Center, 1st "professorette" nicknamed by Rush Limbaugh nickname. Ruth Frick* O'Brien & Frederic Halper* O'Brien, Dep.M.E. @ National Review *(honoring our mothers)

%d bloggers like this: