Sexual harassment charges mean nothing to me these days.  I can't speak to whether he is guilty or innocent in this specific circumstance, but in general, "sexual harassment" has been so weaponized it has lost all meaning.   It's an insult to real victims of sexual assault.

Just like racial "microaggression" it is a new way to transform the most basic and benign human behavior, such as facial expressions, or a compliment, into a comparison with the worst kinds of atrocities.

Asking a woman for a date is equivalent to rape by a stranger in a dark alley.

Crossing the street when you see a black, even if that's not WHY you crossed, is equivalent to horsewhipping a slave pre Civil War. (It was subconscious!!)

This is absolute witch hunt hysteria on so many fronts, and usually (though not always) targeting white males. (Black males if they are conservative or rich.)

Basing racism or sexual harassment on the FEELING of the "victim" rather than the intent of the actor is taking us down a horrific road in which anyone at any time can be accused of a crime for virtually ANY act.

Good grief.  A botched robbery?  You'd think they'd come up with a better story than that.

And some other big differences. No violent rioting in the streets, blocking traffic on the Interstates. Also the "birther crap" was an effort to document that Obama was a born citizen, based on such facts as his grandmother and step siblings going around saying they attended his birth in Kenya.  What the Democrats are doing is just making stuff up.  Like Russia hacked the election, absolutely ludicrous stuff with no facts in sight to even try to prove or disprove. 

Well it says you posted Little Joe while I was typing this, but I'll post it anyway.  Kinda thinking alike I think.

I call them hand wringers, bed wetters, progressives, and self righteous vermin who want to dictate tax, illegal entry, and social program policy onto ME for their own shortcomings and "feelings".  These people need to get a life.

I like Thomas Sowell's term, the "Anointed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed

When you hobnob with Richard Branson, you've got to have the coin!

Why do mega rich business people become far left kooks?  Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Branson, Brian Roberts, Igor of Disney, anyone that heads Goldman Sachs, like John Corzine, etc.  Is this just the global, elitist, statist cool thing to do?

I often wonder that. It's such a good question.  I have some theories. You would think since many of them got rich via capitalism that they wouldn't be leftist, but then you have to remember a leftist NEVER intends to live by the rules he makes for everyone else.

Theory number 1:  Like many people their politics is more a result of their background and social circle, not critical thinking, and they are usually urban, so that would lean them Democrat.  Just because they are smart and rich does not necessarily mean they applied the same critical thinking to politics that they applied to their business.

In fact, I have come to believe that BECAUSE celebrities and rich businessmen are so focused on whatever made them rich, they spend their time on that and so have a deficit in other areas.  A person has to apply independent thought and intelligence to politics in order to escape the brainwashing of the media. Maybe these people just can't be bothered.

I think this is a big problem with musicians.  Extremely good musicians dedicate a lot of their days to making their music.  Their music touches our deepest heartstrings.  But when musicians apply a political slant to their songs, because they are genius with music, people believe they are also genius with their lyrics.  Because of the emotional rapture one feels with the melody, one MISTAKENLY believes the lyrics are equally divinely inspired.  I have come to believe that they are NOT. That many musicians, despite their musical talent, are some of the stupidest most ignorant people alive on matters of politics and this is possibly because they are more interested in their music than in learning a lot about other things in the world.

Theory number 2: Situational Acquired Narcissism. Very rich and very famous people over time tend to display symptoms of the personality disorder known as narcissism, but it is not organic so much as a result of their fame. Because everyone else puts them on a pedestal they start to believe it themselves.  Like any narcissist, they then have the false  belief that their ideas are better than others' and that they know better how to run the world than others. This leads directly to economic collectivism in all its forms, because economic collectivism is about a central authority controlling everybody else. Naturally, like all leftists, they put themselves as part of this authority.

Theory number 3: A bit of inborn narcissism, which may be the very reason they were able to become so rich. This means they are skilled at using people for their own gain.  They have no real ideals other than themselves: enriching themselves is their only goal.  So their leftism doesn't really have anything to do with real beliefs in the ideal of leftist utopia.  These people (born narcissists) see others as existing only to benefit themselves and so their supposed leftism is nothing more than manipulation of others for their own purposes. Example, they don't really want to save the planet for all humanity; they are only talking "green" for whatever gain it brings their own pockets.

These people will also align themselves with whatever group they feel will come out on top, always.  Because leftism is always about control, with the leftist on top, they naturally are drawn toward the left. True free market capitalism is a system that respects the intelligence of every individual to manage his own micro-economy.  The narcissist isn't capable of granting anyone else any intelligence or wisdom, so might not be able to grasp this concept.

http://blog.epicbar.com/myth-buster-cow-farts-destroy-the-ozone/

Here?  As in Pilotspin here?  America here?  The world here?

What many people fail to realize is that you cannot judge past people, actions, nor society through the prism of the present, ...

Back during the age of America's founding, African natives were considered sub-human, even by their own competing tribes who enslaved them, and sold them for whatever they could get.  Sometimes they were sold to whites, or other people of color.  Was it right?  No.  But during that era, it was considered normal, and legal.  Also considered normal was battle between two armies where soldiers walked into opposing fire with no cover, and accepted death, and mutilation because of the "honor" of it.  Today, we just shake our heads at such murderous folly.

But also during slavery the relationships between slaves and owners were varied and complex.  I have no doubt often they were not considered subhuman, for example the nanny wet nursing your baby.  And there were those opposed to slavery all along that probably understood blacks to be human. You can't paint everyone with one brush much less guess what was going on with individuals back in history.