Thursday, May 2, 2019

Anjelica Huston on Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and Shitty Hollywood Men: Reason Roundup Would she work with Woody Allen again? She would. I've been out of the loop the past few days, in...

 
Reason
 
Anjelica Huston on Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and Shitty Hollywood Men: Reason Roundup
Would she work with Woody Allen again? She would. I've been out of the loop the past few days, in...
Would she work with Woody Allen again? She would. I've been out of the loop the past few days, in recovery from having two wisdom teeth removed, but in my limited purview the best (and most controversial) thing on the internet in that time has been Vulture's interview with actress Anjelica Huston. In a wide-ranging interview conducted by Andrew Goldman, Huston touches on everything from her famous father to why she doesn't like edibles, how Bill Murray snubbed her on the Life Aquatic set, Oprah's beef with her, and Jack Nicholson's cocaine habits.
Of course, the part that's been generating some of the most attention is Huston saying she would work with Woody Allen again.
You were in two Woody Allen films, Crimes and Misdemeanors, alongside Mia Farrow, and then Manhattan Murder Mystery. Woody Allen is basically unable to make films now because of the outcry about the molestation allegations.
I think that's after two states investigated him, and neither of them prosecuted him.
Well, the industry seems to be treating him as though he's guilty. Would you work with him again?Yeah, in a second.
Huston touches on Roman Polanski, too, in what critics have been describing as a "defense" of the disgraced director. But the answer given by Huston—whose "first serious boyfriend" was 42 when she was 18, and who earlier in the interview mentions wishing she could've been in Romeo & Juliet as a teen so she could've been "off in Italy having a romance on set with Franco Zeffirelli"—is more an offering of context than absolution:
You were arrested because you happened to be in Jack's house when Roman Polanski raped 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. How did you feel about that?Well, see, it's a story that could've happened ten years before in England or France or Italy or Spain or Portugal, and no one would've heard anything about it. And that's how these guys enjoy their time. It was a whole playboy movement in France when I was a young girl, 15, 16 years old, doing my first collections. You would go to Régine or Castel in Paris, and the older guys would all hit on you. Any club you cared to mention in Europe. It was de rigueur for most of those guys like Roman who had grown up with the European sensibility.
Huston situates Polanski's attitudes and acts as products of their time period but also not all that different than the attitudes many men in Hollywood have toward women today. Far from downplaying the depravity, she refuses to simply position Polanski and/or that era as an anomaly which we can condemn from a safe and smug distance while congratulating everyone on how far they've come:
Among a lot of Hollywood men, it was acceptable at that time to treat women as though they were disposable. 
I think they're still doing it. I was at the hairdresser's yesterday, and I heard tales of such horror from women. There was one other client and two girls who were working in this rather small hairdressing shop. And one of the girls had been passed a Mickey Finn in a bar and had woken up on a couch with a guy ejaculating wildly all over her face. And as she was telling the story, another girl who worked in the salon came in and said, "The weirdest thing happened to my friend last night. She was found at four in the morning in the Wilshire district, coatless, shoeless, with scratches and bruises all over her body. She doesn't know whether she was raped. So, I'm trying to stop her from having a bath because we need to get her to the police."
Later, Goldman asks Huston if she had any "#MeToo experiences": 
Yeah, yeah.
What happened?You'd have to ask me that on a daily basis, practically. That's how often it happens, that you're objectified, or misread, or put down. I think men do it a lot, and I don't really think half the time they know what they're doing. That's how inured they are.
Huston goes on to say she "didn't think [Supreme Court Justice] Brett Kavanaugh was all that believable."
Throughout the interview, her answers are candid and colorful while failing to fall into neat liberal/conservative (or woke/canceledlines. Ignore the Twitter haters, and read the whole thing for yourself here.

FREE MINDS

FOSTA lawsuit update. The group challenging FOSTA, last year's law banning prostitution ads, just got a boost from an unlikely source: 21 state attorneys general. Cathy Gellis at Techdirtexplains:
The important thing to remember about this appeal is that the question before the appeals court isn't really about the constitutionality of FOSTA itself. What's being appealed is the case having been dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs. The district court never directly ruled on the constitutionality of the law; it only ruled that these plaintiffs had no right to complain about it to the courts. According to the district court these plaintiffs weren't being hurt, or likely to be hurt, by FOSTA, and so it dismissed their case. What the parties are fighting about now is whether this assessment by the district court was right.
For the plaintiffs it makes sense to keep pressing the constitutional issue because shining a light on the unconstitutionality of the law illuminates the injury the unconstitutionality has already caused and will continue to cause. But the defense has a different and much simpler job. All the DOJ [Department of Justice] has to do to defend FOSTA is say is, "The district court was right. These people were not hurt by FOSTA and will not be hurt by FOSTA, so keep this case dismissed." If the appeals court agrees that there has been no injury, and that there is unlikely to be any injury, then the case remains dismissed and this constitutional challenge goes away.
Thus, Justice Department's defense has continued to be that the plaintiffs aren't actually being harmed by FOSTA. And yet, Gellis writes,
that's exactly what the amicus brief by the twenty-one state attorney generals does not do. Although it is intended to support the DOJ's defense of the statute, rather than supporting the DOJ's argument that the plaintiffs' complaints are much ado about nothing, their brief instead reads as a bright flashing neon sign warning the court that there is plenty of reason for them to be worried. Because, in contrast to the DOJ's arguments about what FOSTA does not do, this brief reads as a paean to everything FOSTA is going to let the states do, including to people just like the plaintiffs.
More here.

FREE MARKETS

"Democracy Dollars." Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) yesterday proposed a plan to give every American $600 to give to politicians. Calling them "Democracy Dollars," Gillibrand is trying to sell this as a way to give big-money interests and Washington insiders less influence in politics.
Nicholas Clairmount at The Independent has a good piece on why this such a bad plan. A sample:
First, it would simply multiply the amount of money in politics by an order of magnitude, with effects that wouldn't be good for the political system at large, but would be good for ad buyers and PR flacks and political operatives….
There are roughly 235 million eligible voters in the United States. Say roughly half of them bothered to use the $600 (about 60 per cent of Americans vote in presidential years and about 40 per cent in midterm years). That means, conservatively, politicians would be looking at a little more than $70bn a cycle. What Gillibrand would have accomplished, then, if her initiative to deal with money in politics were hugely successful, would be to multiply the $6.5bn cesspit of corruption and division that is the long race for the White House by more than ten. I somehow doubt Washington's lobbyist and political operative class hates this idea.

FOLLOWUP

What I just saw from the Attorney General is unacceptable. Barr must resign now.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 1, 2019

The fallout and fanfare continues from yesterday's grilling of Attorney General Bob Barr by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Reason's Eric Boehm has torn apartLindsey Graham's shameful performance during it.
Republicans certainly didn't have a monopoly on disgusting displays of self-aggrandizement and partisan hackery. Democrats have been using this as an opportunity to demand that Barr resign over the testimony he gave yesterday. Barr's departure would make many of us libertarians happy, but the grounds offered here just doesn't cut it, alas. Still, flimsy pretense hasn't stopped senators who are also 2020 presidential candidates from milking the opportunity for all they can…
Attorney General Barr needs to resign. Today, he's proven once again that he's more interested in protecting the president than working for the American people. We can't trust him to tell the truth, and these embarrassing displays of propaganda have to stop.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) May 1, 2019

AG Barr is a disgrace, and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that he's not a credible head of federal law enforcement. He should resign—and based on the actual facts in the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the President.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 1, 2019

Barr was supposed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee today, but he has decided against it "following a dispute between House Democrats and the nation's top law enforcement officer over whether Barr would publicly face questions from committee staff attorneys," reportsCNN.

QUICK HITS

@JoeBiden staffers just tried to remove us from what appears to be a public lot, said we could not ask questions. pic.twitter.com/NsaEyBmICw
— Marcus DiPaola (@marcusdipaola) May 2, 2019

  • Foreign policy journalist Spencer Ackerman is writing a book about how the War on Terror contributed to America's "nationalist moment."
  • Florida is the latest state to ban plastic straws.
  • Celebs are jumping on the Equal Rights Amendment bandwagon:
If you are a man who believes women should be protected in the constitution from discrimination based on sex—retweet this tweet. #MenForTheERA#ERANow #ERAHearing
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) April 30, 2019

advertisement
 
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
 
Most Popular Stories from Reason‌.com
 

Sorry, Bernie Sanders, but Disney Doesn't Have To Apologize for Making $1.3 Billion with Avengers: Endgame

Victims of Communism Day 2019

America Doesn't Need Pete Buttigieg's Forced Labor Scheme

Lindsey Graham Continues To Demonstrate Everything That's Wrong With Republicans in the Age of Trump

Gillibrand Proposes Giving Every Voter $600 To Donate to Campaigns
15173360067167
 

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an associate editor at Reason, where she covers sex policy, free speech, criminal justice, women's health care, food regulation, and national politics. She lives in Washington, D.C. Follow her on Twitter at @enbrown.
 
 
GET REASON MAGAZINE
 
Reason is the magazine of "free minds and free markets," offering a refreshing alternative to the left-wing and right-wing echo chambers for independent-minded readers who love liberty.
Subscribe today to save 65% off the cover price.
 
 
Reason on Facebook Reason on Twitter Reason on YouTube Reason on Google+ Reason Podcast
 
Reason Foundation
5737 Mesmer Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90230
 

WATCH: Students Dance Around, Mock Cemetery For The Unborn: 'Look, There's Mine Right There!' (Disgusting & Sickening. a hole generation raised on indoctrination by Planned Parenthood into becoming a Culture based on Human Death of The UN-Born)

MAY 2, 2019
WATCH: Students Dance Around, Mock Cemetery For The Unborn: 'Look, There's Mine Right There!'

WATCH: Students Dance Around, Mock Cemetery For The Unborn: 'Look, There's Mine Right There!' (Disgusting & Sickening. a hole generation raised on indoctrination by Planned Parenthood into becoming a Culture based on Human Death of The UN-Born)

Julia Roberts Calls For Gender-Neutral School Bathrooms

Julia Roberts Calls For Gender-Neutral School Bathrooms

Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann Files Major Lawsuit Against NBC and MSNBC

Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann Files Major Lawsuit Against NBC and MSNBC

WATCH: Lindsey Graham Shuts Down Mazie Hirono For 'Slandering' Bill Barr

WATCH: Lindsey Graham Shuts Down Mazie Hirono For 'Slandering' Bill Barr

WATCH: Ilhan Omar Blames U.S. For Venezuela Crisis, Claims U.S. Is ‘Bullying’ Venezuela

WATCH: Ilhan Omar Blames U.S. For Venezuela Crisis, Claims U.S. Is ‘Bullying’ Venezuela

Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President

Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President

Adam Schiff Predictably Wants Barr Fired After Misreading Washington Post Story

Adam Schiff Predictably Wants Barr Fired After Misreading Washington Post Story


Dems turn black maternal deaths into powerful 2020 issue

Dems turn black maternal deaths into powerful 2020 issue
© iStock
Democratic presidential candidates led by Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) are talking about an issue that hasn’t historically received much attention on the campaign trail: the high rates of pregnancy-related deaths among black women.
For black women — a key voting bloc in the Democratic Party — issues of maternal mortality and racial disparities in health care have particular resonance, and that hasn’t gone unnoticed by some of the top 2020 candidates, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Warren and Harris have made addressing the issue a core part of their platforms, appealing to black women whose support is critical to winning the Democratic primary.
“We are facing a maternal mortality crisis in America,” Warren wrote in an op-ed published Wednesday in Essence, a magazine geared toward black women. “And for Black moms, particularly those living in rural areas, it’s an epidemic.”
The U.S. has the highest rate of pregnancy-related deaths among industrialized countries, partly because of the prevalence of C-sections that can lead to life-threatening complications and underlying, chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity.
Compared with countries like the U.K. and Canada, the U.S. is the only one with a rising maternal mortality rate — 14 deaths per 100,000 births in 2015, the most recent annual data.
That rate is almost double the rate of 7.2 deaths in 1987, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
And black women in the U.S. are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related issues than white women, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Though experts have yet to agree on the reason for that disparity, they cite a number of potential causes, including reports of discrimination against black women in hospitals and incidents of doctors and nurses not listening to their patients or making assumptions based on race.
The issue has gained considerable attention in recent years with groups like MomsRising, the Black Mamas Matter Alliance and March of Dimes pushing for change in Congress and in state legislatures and calling for more accountability in the health care system.
Now, presidential candidates are also drawing attention to it as they aggressively court the African American vote, particularly in key primary states like South Carolina.
Some states key to winning the Democratic nomination in 2020 also have the highest maternal mortality rates — including South Carolina, Florida, Michigan and Iowa.
Black women were a key voting bloc in the 2018 midterms, helping to launch House Democrats back into the majority, with exit polls showing 94 percent voted for Democrats.
At last week’s She the People event, which was billed as the first ever presidential forum for women of color, maternal mortality was a top issue.
Harris, Gillibrand and Booker have all introduced bills to address pregnancy-related deaths in some way.
Harris’s proposal is focused on reducing health disparities in maternal health and is supported by Gillibrand, Sanders and Booker.
Harris has become one of the most outspoken advocates for reducing pregnancy-related deaths among black women, leading 18 of her Senate colleagues in a resolution recognizing “Black Maternal Health Week” in April.
Asked about her agenda for black America at last week’s CNN town hall, Harris launched into her plans to address pregnancy-related deaths among black women.
“It is … a matter of racial bias in the health care delivery system. Those women are not taken as seriously when they show up at the clinic or the doctor’s office or the hospital,” Harris said.
Gillibrand’s proposal, which is co-sponsored by Booker and Harris, would direct the federal government to develop and update best practices for maternal safety, and it would create a grant for states and hospitals to implement the new requirements.
Booker’s bill, backed by Harris and Gillibrand, would extend and expand Medicaid coverage to mothers for one year after pregnancy.
Sanders, who struggled to win over black voters in his failed run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, has also talked about black maternal mortality in his campaign, tweeting last month that “we must take on racial disparities in America.”
Other Democratic candidates who have talked about the issue include South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).
Warren’s plan would implement a system that would track mortality rates of black mothers at hospitals, rewarding those that show reduced mortality.
Monifa Bandele, senior vice president and head of maternal justice campaigns at MomsRising, said groups like hers welcome the attention by 2020 candidates, and said they were closely tracking what they were saying about the issue.
“This is hugely important — we’ve heard from black people and they know they’re experiencing inferior health care,” said Bandele. “To hear that spoken, to hear that affirmed, is very important to us and everyone in our community.”
   
LOAD COMMENTS (210)

Democrats blast Barr for missing hearing

Democrats blast Barr for missing hearing
© Greg Nash
House Democrats blasted Attorney General William Barr for refusing to appear at their hearing on Thursday — a day after much of the nation was transfixed on his testimony to the Senate on his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Barr skipped the House hearing because he objected to Democratic demands that their staff counsel be able to question him.
Democrats went forward with the theater of the hearing anyway, setting up an empty chair for the absent attorney general. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) brought a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken to the morning event, and accused Barr of being a coward after it ended.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) tore into Barr, accusing him of failing to check President Trump’s “worst instincts” and misrepresenting Mueller’s findings.
“He has failed the men and women of the Department by placing the needs of the President over the fair administration of justice,” Nadler said. “He has even failed to show up today.”
Republicans on the panel accused Nadler of both making unreasonable demands of the attorney general after he tried to work in good faith with the committee and of trampling on the rights of minority members on the committee.
Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) accused Nadler of staging a “circus political stunt” and said the Democratic chairman wanted the hearing to look like an impeachment hearing.
“That is the reason. The reason Bill Barr is not here today is because the Democrats decided they didn’t want him here today. That’s the reason he’s not here,” Collins said. “Not hearing from him is a travesty to this committee today.”
Nadler concluded the hearing after a half an hour by demanding the Justice Department provide the committee access to Mueller’s unredacted report and underlying evidence. Nadler has threatened a contempt citation against Barr if he doesn’t meet Democrats’ demands.
“We need the information without delay,” Nadler said in closing. “The hearing is adjourned.”
“And will do so with trampling minority rights,” Collins said.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) objected to Nadler’s decision to swiftly end the hearing, echoing Collins’ accusations that the Democratic leader was sidelining members in the minority.
“Is this is what it’s going to be, Mr. chairman, where there is not going to be a recognition of members who seek legitimate inquiry as to the procedures —” Gaetz said, before his microphone was cut off.
   
LOAD COMMENTS (147)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *