Comedian David Letter apparently admitted to having sex with subordinates, at least per The Boston Globe.
This would be the David Letterman who called Rush Limbaugh a "bonehead."
Today Mr Limbaugh summed up Mr Letterman's boneheaded actions by noting the difference in power between Mr Letterman and members of his staff.
In my current employment and in my past profession Mr Letterman's actions would be known as sexual harassment. While Mr Letterman's audience might have laughed at Mr Letterman's revelations, I hope that the men in the audience, in the small recesses of their minds, recalled their annual sexual harassment training.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
But isn't this the same Rush Limbaugh who browbeat his housekeeper into procuring illegal prescription drugs for him? Sounds like a boneheaded abuse of power.
Mostly, I feel sympathetically towards both Dave Letterman and Rick Pitino. They're not elected officials or the moral police. However, there were not smart enough to realize that when you're at that level of power, fame, and wealth, you become very vulnerable to the potential set-up.
You have to be a little paranoid at that point. You should be.
After Michael Phelps was photographed taking that bong hit, I remember everyone at work the next day wondering why he didn't just hire someone to protect him from situations like that. Phelps probably lost millions in endorsements, yet he could've salaried someone $100k/yr to be his "minder."
The same.
Which is why I found it interesting. Apparently Mr Limbaugh, somewhere along the line, learned that taking advantage of a relative imbalance in power in the workplace to have sex with cute young things is wrong. It is not just a legal issue, it is a moral issue.
Maybe the young women were all volunteers, a la Monica Lewinsky, but perhaps not. That is why companies are so nervous about these kinds of things. The danger of a law suit is always there. And that is not even mentioning the moral issue of abuse of power.
I wonder if this isn't just the case of the larger entertainment elite marching to the tune of a different drummer. What is it with folks from that community vociferously defending Roman Palenski over his drugging and then raping a 13 year old girl?
Then Mr Polanski fled overseas to escape his punishment. Over at Pajamas Media there is a long (17 minutes) discussion of all those supporting Mr Polanski.
What Mr Letterman did has moved beyond "conduct unbecoming," although it is unbecoming a gentleman, and has moved into another area. Bonehead fits it pretty well. A lawsuit would also be interesting. Sally has an affair with Mr Letterman and is urged to keep it a secret, but now she gets her name and photo splashed all over the tabloids. With her reputation in tatters, she goes to a lawyer and sobs out her story and he says "Letterman and the network need to for pay for this." Of course, that is what insurance is for.
Fortunately for Mr Letterman he is not a retired Army General Officer or he could be called back to active duty and court martialed.
Regards — Cliff
I would suggest that the issue is the issue itself. We long ago departed the age of civility in which we accorded those whose transgressions threatened public disclosure and scruitiny. We abandoned that for the sheer exhilaration of sensationism, sex and bad behavior sell.
Morality is always a somewhat subjective thing, not to imply that one's morals should be contextual, but what I think of one person's "morality" is often quite shaded by what I think of them in their totality.
I purposely elect to not even pursue the legalistic aspect of extracurrular fornication and/or other deviations from the norm. I suppose the "legality" of some act can best be summed up with the thought that it is determined largely by which attorney prevails in an action, the plaintiff or the defendant.
I am not advocating that society should ignore the indiscretions of the high and mighty, or at least even minimize their ethical implications. An untold number of men and woman successfully navigate the temtations of life on planet granite, escaping at the payoff end with their character and integrity intact, so it can be done.....and frankly...should be done.
Having said all that, the one context of such things that proves most vexing is "consensuality." And what a lovely can of worms that simple concept and adjective reveals.
Rush will survive. Dave will survive. Bill survived. Edwards survived....and those are just the guys. BTW, the object of Polanski's rape wants the charges dropped entirely and for everyone to move on. Well...hope springs.
In response to Neal, re Mr Polanski, I think that at this point it isn't so much about the victim as it is about my granddaughter. I don't want some "highly respected" Hollywood producer to be able to drug her and then sexually assault her at a young age, and I consider 13 a young age.
Maybe it is all about me.
Regards — Cliff
I saw a really interesting rhetorical question posed in the Globe today about Polanski:
What if all the major details were the same, but the accused were a Catholic priest? Who would be defending Father Polanski then?
That's a question worth asking..
Post a Comment