NSFW Links: Feb 21, 2018

February 21, 2018 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Doggystyled Cuties: Feb 14, 2018 – Amateur cuties taking it, doggystyle.

Indoor Amateur Cuties: Feb 15, 2018 – Amateur cuties lounging around the house.

Busty Beach Cuties: Feb 15, 2018 – Busty amateur cuties hanging at the shore.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

First Thoughts on Trump’s Recently Exposed Extra-Marital Affairs

February 17, 2018 14 comments

While corporate media outlets are desperately, and unsuccessfully, trying to connect Trump with ‘Russia’ and ‘Putin’ in the public mind, they seem to have largely ignored recent disclosures about Trump’s extra-marital affairs. To be clear- I am not suggesting that harping on Trump’s extra-marital affairs, or “character”, is a winning strategy as even the most ardent boot-lickers of HRC know only too well. Analyzing Trump’s extra-martial sexscapades and their utter lack of impact on Trump’s supporters and overall ratings is however an amusing diversion from the “russian interference in our sacred elections” bullshit pumped out by corporate media every single day.

Two women have so far definitely indicated that they had affairs of various lengths with Trump after he married his current wife in 2005. One of them, an adult performer named Stormy Daniels, did initially attempt to deny a relationship with Trump. She had been apparently paid about 130,000 dollars by Trump’s lawyer to sign a NDA about her affair with his client. However, it appears that Michael Cohen broke his end of the NDA by publicly confessing to paying her. Consequently, Stormy Daniels is now shopping around for venues to broadcast her side of the story– for a nice amount of cash, I am sure.

The second woman who has confirmed that she had an affair with Trump is Karen McDougal, a former playboy nude model. To be honest, neither of these two stories about Trump’s extra-martial escapades are exactly new. Rumors about imminent public disclosure of both these (and other) stories have been floating around the internet since Trump became a front-runner during the 2016 republican presidential primary. While neither of these two women publicly came out with their stories in 2016, it is highly doubtful that such disclosure at that time would have changed the outcome of that election.

Face it.. Trump’s interest in attractive young women not currently married to him has been a fixture of pop culture for over thirty years. As long as he did not physically force them to have sex, even the disclosure that he made those women dress up to resemble his eldest daughter would not have a worthwhile negative effect on his public image. In fact, the public would be far more shocked to find out that Trump was a one-woman man than if photos and videos of him having sex with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal at the same time were released. So far, I have largely restated known and obvious facts about this situation. Let us now try to analyze the situation as we understand it today and try to make some predictions about where things might end up.

1] Trump’s current wife, Melania, has almost certainly known about her husband’s philandering since the very beginning of their relationship. It is fairly well understood by the public that her marriage to Trump occurred largely because he was a billionaire and she was a single model past her late-20s. She got to play a billionaire’s wife and he got a trophy wife who was decades younger than him. Many of you might have noticed that their relationship appears to be far closer to quid pro quo business interaction than anything resembling a typical marriage. Then again, it is what it is.

But, will Melania leave Donald before his first presidential term is over? Perhaps.. but not because of his philandering. The simple fact is that she is a nobody without her marriage to Trump. While she could certainly live a very comfortable existence after divorcing Trump, it would pale in comparison to the status and attention she has received since marrying him. Without him, she is just another wannabe NYC socialite with an European accent, lots of plastic surgery and a face-full of Botox.

2] One of the main idea promoted by websites and YT channels about “Game” or the “PUA” lifestyle is that male looks and style matter a lot. While I do not deny that looks do matter for men, it is clear that status, money and fame matter as much if not more than looks. An old tall obese guy with an atrocious hair weave seems to have no problems getting fairly attractive and much younger women to have sex with him. More importantly, they do not care that he is already married or not buying them unusually expensive gifts. How many men who resemble Trump but work in “middle-management” at some faceless company in your local suburban office park would get the time of day from these same women?

In other words, Trumps’s success with women is largely a consequence of him being a loud rich asshole with some talent for inserting himself into mediocre controversies. And guess what.. he is not alone in that segment. If you have been alive for more than two decades, you must have seen many examples of this strategy succeeding- albeit on a smaller scale. The simple and somewhat unpleasant fact is that possessing money, status, fame and the willingness to be brazen about them will always beat looks, dress style, devotion, kindness and all that other bullshit which many men still seem to believe in.

Will write another one about this topic based on comments and future developments.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Rise of NeoLiberalism in West During the 1968-2008 Era: Part 2

February 15, 2018 14 comments

A few months ago, in the first part of this series, I wrote about a confluence of factors responsible for very high rates of support for neoliberal ideas and policies among whites in USA during the 1968-2008 era. To make a long story short, white support for neoliberalism (in USA) was largely due to a combination of post-WW2 prosperity, desire for continuing racial discrimination as well as a delusion that people in the ‘rest of the world’ could never catch up with them. As we all know, things did not turn out as expected towards the end of that era- and it has been clearly downhill for them since the early 2000s.

Neoliberalism, did however, spread past the boundaries of USA into other countries- especially those in western Europe. However, most popular accounts of neoliberalism tend to ignore, or give very little attention to, its spread in European countries (other than in UK). But why? Well.. there are some reasons. Firstly, the spread of neoliberalism into the institutions and popular psyche of those countries was never as thorough as in USA. Even today, people in those countries enjoy universal healthcare coverage, a largely functional social safety net, affordable higher education and many other things which CONservative idiots in USA believe to be ‘pipe-dreams’.

So why did neoliberalism spread, albeit in a limited manner, in western Europe? But perhaps more importantly, why was it never able to gain the sort of popular following it achieved in USA (except, maybe in UK)? Why were politicians, elites and capitalists in those countries never able to successfully push for neoliberal changes of the magnitude seen in USA? Why did neoliberalism fail to change the belief systems of a majority in those countries, unlike the USA? How could corporations in those countries remain relevant and profitable without jumping on the Anglo-American neoliberal project? What, exactly, was different over there?

1] The first reason for the relative inability of neoliberalism to spread in Western Europe comes down to a simple, if very unpleasant, fact about the nature of USA as a society and nation-state. Modern west-European nations states, unlike USA, have never been racially segregated societies. Also, unlike USA, they never allowed race-based slavery to occur on their own soil. Consequently, one of the most important boosters for public support of neoliberalism based policies such as shredding the social safety net, job precarization and union busting (in post-WW2 era) never existed in those countries. USA until 1968, in contrast, practiced legalized race-based Apartheid in a form identical to the now defunct pre-1994 state of South Africa.

Now, some of you might say that it has something to do with “racial diversity causing low trust societies”. But was that really the case? Widespread public acceptance of neoliberalism in USA came in the era before large-scale non-white immigration. That is right! The population of USA was somewhere between 85-90% white as late as the early 1980s. Reagan was elected in 1980 by an electorate that was close to 90% white. So why did they vote for him? In case you do not remember, he won because he promised to restore law and order (screw over “uppity” blacks) and make america great- like “it used to be”.

Which brings us to an odd question.. why was a self-identified and dominant (at that time) group making up almost 9/10ths of the population so concerned about the quest for equality by a historically marginalized group making up the other 1/10th? While it is possible to come up with many clever sounding reasons to explain this behavior, the most straightforward, if tasteless, explanation is that a significant percentage of 9/10ths enjoyed screwing over the 1/10th for reasons that had nothing to do with self-interest or money. Maybe they were getting off by screwing more vulnerable people- which leads to the next reason for Europe’s partial immunity to neoliberalism.

2] Most people looking at Europe today forget that it was once a hotbed of nationalism, racism and support for mass murder at a level that makes USA today look tame in comparison. But then WW1, numerous conflicts after WW1 and WW2 happened. While these wars and conflicts killed tens of millions of people in that part of the world, they really cut down the numbers of young CONservative minded men (also known as ‘useful idiots’) in those countries. Many of you might have noticed that the strongest non-rich supporters for neoliberalism in USA are almost always white men of average intelligence and mediocre ability who are delusional enough to believe that they too can become rich by following and defending the rich.

In contrast to that, american casualties in WW1 and WW2 were (sadly) minimal and too many men of a CONservative mindset, average intelligence and mediocre ability were left alive after those wars. It certainly did not help that post-WW2 economic growth and prosperity reinforced their beliefs about things “ought to be”. That is why USA as a society embraced neoliberalism so thoroughly when it was near the peak of its relative prosperity in the 1960s and 1970s. It was easy money, not hard times and non-white immigration, which made white american society embrace neoliberalism. Remember, Reagan was elected as governor of a very prosperous California in the 1960s, before he was elected president in 1980.

Even today, older white voters who grew up during the “good times” in USA are far more likely to vote for republican or establishment democrat candidates (aka neoliberals). The point I am trying to make is that the lack of large-scale casualties in WW2 along with immediate post-WW2 prosperity for even the most average and mediocre cannon-fodder is why neoliberalism took such firm roots in USA. That is also why even larger west-European countries which took heavy casualties in both world wars, such as France and Germany, ended up becoming and remaining more socialistic after WW2.

In the next part of this series, I will share my thoughts on why neoliberalism in European countries took off in the private sector after the late-1980s, but was not able to start dominating it till the early 2000s. Will also write about why UK went neoliberal about a decade earlier, and far more systematically, than neighboring countries.

What do you think? Comments?

The Falcon Heavy Launcher is a Publicity Stunt, Not a Paradigm Shift

February 10, 2018 10 comments

Long-time readers of my blog might know that I am not a fan of Elon Musk and his frequent attempts to grab public money and attention by making outrageous promises. Some of you might remember that, a few months ago, I wrote a fairly critical piece on SpaceX. In it, I argued that the central ‘big promise’ of SpaceX- namely, that it can “disrupt” and completely upend the existing space launch business is a quintessentially american scam. You might also remember, in the same post, I also said that SpaceX as could make a decent profit if it was run like another normal business.

Implicit in the last statement was my educated guess that Elon Musk’s need for fame, money and ego would kickstart a series of decisions leading to the eventual ruin of the current boring but modestly profitable business of launching things (and perhaps) people into earth orbit. Till last week, my other guess about SpaceX demonstrating the ability to become a conventional and somewhat successful (but boring) company was on track. Now, it seems my guess about Elon Musk’s megalomaniac ambitions initiating a series of bad decisions is also coming true.

Some of you might think I am just hating on that guy because of the recent launch of their signature Falcon launcher in its ‘Heavy’ configuration. Readers might find it interesting that, in private twitter conversations, I gave it a better than 80% chance of success on its first try- which is a bit higher than SpaceX was willing to publicly admit. And why not? Falcon Heavy is an evolutionary development of a pretty well-tested launcher design, and while putting three multi-core stages next to each other can produce some peculiar mechanical issues, they have been successfully solved by others in the past.

And this brings me to my first criticism of Falcon Heavy and other recent attempts at building Super heavy-lift launch vehicles. As you can see in the graphic (below), lauchers which can put over 50 tons into Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) have been developed since the 1960s. A number of such launch systems– from Saturn V, Space Shuttle Launch System and Energia— have flown on more than one occasion and have been quite successful at fulfilling the mission they were designed to perform. Yet, they all went out of production after the specific mission they were designed to accomplish was terminated. In other words, Super heavy-lift launch vehicles have (to date) been one-trick horses. But why?

Why have smaller space launcher families such as Soyuz, Proton, Titan, Delta 2, Long March 2 and Ariane 4 remained in service for decades, while much larger ones like Saturn V and Energia went out of production within a few years of their first flight? Some of you might think that it has something to do with technological complexity of larger systems, but larger launchers are not that much more demanding to operate that heavy to medium launchers such as those mentioned in the previous sentence. A better explanation for the longevity of heavy to medium launcher families comes down to the weight of payloads most frequently launched- unmanned artificial satellites, spacecraft carrying humans in LEO orbit and unmanned space-probes.

To make a long story short, the absolute majority of space launches do not need to put payloads above 30 tons in LEO, perhaps 10-12 tons in GTO and even less for Heliocentric or Hohmman transfer-type orbits. More relevantly, this apparent restriction on payload capacity has little to do with the cost or ability to launch them. Instead, it is largely a consequence of progressive miniaturization of electronic components used in unmanned spacecraft combined with the highly onerous weight requirements for manned exploration of anything beyond the moon using chemically powered rocket engines. Physical and chemical reality, you see, cannot be bargained with or ignored.

But it gets worse.. the bulk of commercial launch market that SpaceX wants to “disrupt” could care less about launchers more powerful than their current default Falcon 9 Full Thrust. Launchers of comparable capacity with a significantly longer service life, such as Ariane 5, have been launching two communication satellites on one launcher for many years. In other words, customers interested in putting large and heavy communication satellites seem to be in no hurry to develop ones that weigh over 6 tons. In fact, most operational communication satellites in GTO orbit are between 2.5-4.5 tons. Even the few super-secret government communication satellites for GTO orbit struggle to push past 10 tons.

Then there is the issue of lower than expected future demands for communication satellites because of the spread of global trans-oceanic fibre optic networks combined with relatively poor maximum data transfer rates at radio wave (lower) frequencies. Data intensive internet use by billions of people is better handled by massive terrestrial fiber-optic backbones than space-based radio frequency links. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the need for communication satellites is going to disappear in the near future. I am just saying that the initial explosive growth of communication satellites occurred due to proliferation of Cable TV channels and long-distance telephony in the 1980s to early 2000s period.

Let us now tackle the issue of manned exploration of celestial bodies beyond the moon. Ever wonder why NASA never did a man on mars after the conclusion of the Apollo lunar missions?

The simplest answer is that even their most optimistic designs for such a mission were (all modules combined) over 300 tons. In other words, even the most minimalist manned return mission to mars would require one or more rocket launchers to put 300 tons in low earth orbit. Then is the issue of the mission being about two years long with all its attendant physical and psychological risks. Short of developing a nuclear powered spacecraft which could cut the trip time to a few months, or even weeks, human space travel to any large celestial body more distant than the moon is really hard with chemical rockets.

And that brings to the unpleasant question about Falcon Heavy- Is it a ‘solution’ in search of a problem? Face it, there is currently no necessity or desire to develop orbital or space payloads of the size or weight where using Falcon Heavy to launch them would be competitive. Furthermore, decades of spending by governments and corporations has not created the need for payloads which could be only launched by super heavy lift launch vehicles. While its is easy to see a market for the services of Falcon 9 Full Thrust, the same cannot be said for Falcon Heavy. But if no customer is willing to spend money on utilizing its services, what is the incentive to keep on building and improving them.

In summary, I see the Falcon Heavy launcher as a publicity stunt rather than a ‘paradigm shift’ of any type in the space launcher business.

What do you think? Comments?

Corporate Media Campaign to Discredit Nunes Memo is Helping Trump

February 3, 2018 18 comments

I usually avoid writing on topics involving yet another corporate media manufactured lie or purported outrage, because those bullshit fantasies usually have no worthwhile impact on reality- rather like the proverbial storm in a teacup. The corporate media campaign, first to hinder publication of the Nunes memo and then attempt to discredit it is, however, a bit different for reasons we shall soon discuss. But before we go any further, I will clarify my positions on the background of some of the characters involved in this darkly comic saga.

Firstly, Devin Nunes is a mediocre republican congressman representing a congressional district in rural California– with a passing resemblance to an obese version of the Michael Scott character from the american version of ‘The Office‘. Before his current rise to fame (or infamy), he was just another republican politician who never found a corporate dick which was too disgusting to suck- provided he was compensated for his services. In other words, he is your generic republican politician who was elected because the democratic party candidate was either absent or even more disgusting.

Secondly, my views on Trump are very well-known and my past predictions about him have turned out to be very accurate. As some of you might remember, I predicted that he would win the republican nomination in August 2015. I then predicted that HRC would lose to Trump in the 2016 general election, regardless of what all those credentialed “experts” were saying. My very early predictions about the likely disastrous trajectory of a Trump presidency have held up quite well. I have also written about the probability of Trump completing his first term in Office. To make a long story short, it is highly unlikely that the ongoing Mueller investigation will end his presidency.

Now, let us turn our attention to the Nunes memo aka what most people in USA had already guessed about the Mueller investigation. As some of my more regular readers might remember, I have written numerous posts about how promotion of the “Russiagate” scandal was always a sign of intellectual bankruptcy among establishment democrats. I also wrote about the main reasons why establishment democrats have a desperate need to keep on believing in that made-up story and how they and their supporters in the corporate media have kept up a non-stop campaign which aims to convince people that Trump is a “puppet of Putin” who was elected only because of “russian interference in our sacred elections”.

To be clear, once again- I am not implying that Trump is a competent president. In fact, his first year in office has proven to be train-wreck of epic proportions for everybody but the rich and corporate donors to the republican party (and their minions in the legislature and judiciary). Establishment democrats have, however, largely ignored his abysmal record on a range of issues from providing massive tax breaks for the rich, multiple attempts to destroy important regulatory agencies, destroying healthcare programs and much more. Instead they seem to be unduly focused on non-issues such as his moral character, personal life, alleged collusion with Putin and now ‘obstruction of justice’.

But what does any of this have to do with the corporate media’s reaction to the release of the Nunes memo? As it turn out, a fucking lot! The memo for all its issues, explicitly says that the FBI investigation into the Trump presidential campaign in 2016 was initiated based on sketchy and politically biased sources. In other words, it suggest that the investigation into “Russiagate” and Trump-Russia and Trump-Putin connections is a witch-hunt conducted by people in FBI (and deep-state) who want Trump to resign or be impeached. As many of you might realize, this is precisely what a majority of american who are not partisan democrats have come to believe over the last year.

The corporate media, in its enthusiasm to support establishment democrats, is making things far worse than things might have been. Let me explain.. to begin with, they kept on shouting from the rooftops that releasing the memo was somehow going to cause massive damage to ‘national security’ which seems rather farcical once you actually read that four page document. Now that it has been released, they are assaulting everyone with talking points from the same set of “credentialed experts” who confidently say that the same memo is either meaningless or shoddy.

Which begs the question- how did a memo whose release was going to start the end of days before it was released quickly turn out to be a worthless and shoddy piece of work? Clearly, something is not right with the corporate media- and most people have caught on that problem over the last few years. Some of you might remember how the same media outlets and talking heads tried to tell everyone that Trump’s morals and personal life made him unfit to elected president during the 2016 election campaign.

Remember how over 80% of HRC’s attacks advertisements in 2016 were about Trump’s character and language and how it would affect children watching TV? I wonder how that worked, given that she outspent him by more than 2-to-1. Or what about all those polls prophesying a landslide HRC victory which filled corporate media in 2016. My point is that a majority of people now do not believe what they read, hear or see on corporate media. In fact, they are far more likely to believe the opposite of whatever the corporate media is trying to make them believe- not unlike how people in soviet-era Russia saw the domestic reporting of Pravda and Izvestia.

To summarize, the corporate media’s very visibly coordinated campaign to first try suppressing the release of the Nunes memo and then try to ‘debunk’ it has given that memo far more credibility than otherwise possible. The whole ganging up on Trump , releasing identical ‘debunking’ points about that memo and constant coverage of “credentialed experts”makes Trump look like the victim of an elitist deep-state that is working tirelessly to immiserate average people. To put it another way, the corporate media and their backers have, once gain, achieved the near impossible- make Trump look like the real victim while simultaneously increasing public support for him if he ends up firing more people from the FBI and DOJ. Quite impressive and darkly comic, if you ask me.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 31, 2018

January 31, 2018 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Jan 26, 2018 – Amateur cuties doing it, reverse cowgirl style.

Wet Beach Cuties: Jan 31, 2018 – Amateur cuties walking in water near the shore.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some Initial Thoughts on the Larry Nassar Trial, Verdict and Scandal

January 27, 2018 9 comments

By now, almost all of you have heard about the very public trial and conviction of Larry Nassar for sexually molesting what appears to be almost every single underage girl who was a serious contender for a spot of the national gymnastics team of USA from the early- 1990s till 2015 or 2016. Many MSM-types and assorted average idiots with poor memory are up in arms about how something so outrageous was allowed to continue for so many years and to so many girls. However, scandals of this type and scale are a routine occurrence in the history of sports in USA. Some of you might remember a similar scandal from a few years ago involving the football program at Penn State perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky.

In fact, sexual and other abuse of children has a rich history in more than a few sectors of the american economy- and you will soon see why I invoked the concept of ‘economy’ in a post about Larry Nassar. Nor does the sports sector have a monopoly on pulling off the most outlandish examples of such behavior. The entertainment sector has no shortage of child abusers.. just ask Bryan Singer, Kevin Spacey, Joel Kramer and many other whose exploits have not yet seen the light of day. Even the staid political sector has more than a few people like Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley and others who have not yet been publicly exposed.

To put it another way, there seems to be no shortage of rich and famous people (mostly men) in USA who have sexual interests in underage, often very underage, boys and girls. But this post is not about why certain rich and powerful (mostly white men) are into children- in more ways than one. Instead, we will focus on why so many of these rich and famous men were able to get away with absolutely appalling behavior towards, and abuses of, children. I mean.. have you ever wondered why Larry Nassar, Jerry Sandusky, Bryan Singer, Dennis Hastert and others was able to get away with their behavior for so long and why were they were tried and convicted only after some truly embarrassing facts became public.

So let us start by talking about the main reason which is behind almost every single case of large-scale child sexual abuse becoming public. It comes down to one, or a few, victims accusing the perpetrators years after the fact and in a public forum where the institutions which sheltered these scumbags could not longer afford to ignore them. Yes, you heard me right, I said “afford to ignore them”. The decision-making behavior of institutions in USA, and most individuals who staff them, is entirely driven by monetary considerations to the exclusion of all others. For all the bullshit pseudo-moral public stances displayed by public and private institutions in USA, their decisions have always been solely guided by the need to make more money or, at least, lose less of it.

As some of you might remember, Jerry Sandusky’s sexual interest in boys were well-known to those working with him in that football coaching program. However, they never tried to do anything about it (other than sidelining him a bit) until the scandal became too embarrassing and catastrophically expensive for the university. That is right.. they started really caring about it only after realizing that they would lose tens of millions through court cases and reduced revenues for their football program. I can bet you that USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University must have deliberately ignored more than a few complainants made by young girls and their parents before things ‘got out of hand’ in late 2015.

Interestingly, or sickeningly, the first girl who accused Larry Nassar of sexual abuse was a child of his close family friends. To make a long story short, he started sexually abusing her when she was 6 years old and only stopped once she told her parents at 12. Curiously, her parents did not believe the story at that time and for many years after that even though she never wavered from it. But why? What would make parents of the girl who was consistently accusing their famous family friend of sexual abuse ignore their daughters repeated assertions? Could it have been that her parents thought that maintaining a friendly relationship with Larry Nassar was a better economic or social deal than believing their own daughter?

Now some of you might think that very idea that parents in USA often care more about their own ability to make more money and increase their illusory social standing stems from my prejudices. But is that so? Have you ever encountered mothers who push their daughters into beauty contests, sports, dance, cheerleading, acting etc? Or what about parents who push their sons into various sports programs? How do you explain their zeal at pushing their kids into areas where they could make a lot of money and become famous quickly? Also, why don’t you see a similar zeal among parents who want their kids to become physicians, computer programmers or work in large financial institutions?

Have you ever considered that certain professions and occupations attract driven parents because the potential financial payoffs occur much sooner and are therefore far more likely to directly benefit them than say.. if their child ends up in some high paying professional career a couple of decades from now. My point is that a significant percentage of parents in USA would not care about somebody like Larry Nassar fingering their semi-pubsecent daughters as long as she got to be on the team which went on to win medals at some large competition. Similarly, famous institutions with extensive statements on ‘protecting children’ do not care if their coach, physio or doctor is putting his fingers or penis inside the very children they claim to ‘protect’- as long as the team won medals, enrollment was up and the money stream kept on flowing.

In other words, most of the public and media “outrage” towards Larry Nassar is a uniquely american kabuki act. They are only acting shocked and outraged at him to convince themselves (and others) that they are ‘good’ people.. really ‘good’ people. You can bet that almost every single of all those empty moral posers would look the other way if their children were getting Nassar-ed and Sandusky-ed, as long as doing so was profitable and did not expose them to public humiliation. If you think that I am being too cynical about the nature of society in USA, just look around yourself. There is no shortage of people willing to sell their soul and access to their kids for a decent amount of money and some status.

Similarly, there is no shortage of people in USA who will publicly fellate the most sociopathic and horrible examples of human beings if doing so gets them access to nice jobs and exclusive parties. Just ask all the media-types and politicians who love to pose with Henry Kissinger, George W Bush, Bill Clinton and tons of similar people. I should also point out that almost nobody was willing to say a bad word in public about Harvey Weinstein and others like him before the scandals became too hard to cover up. To summarize, Larry Nassar could not have done what he did without indirect support from institutions he worked for and tacit acceptance by a society which cares about nothing beyond money and short-term fame.

Will write another post on this topic based on further developments and comments.

What do you think? Comments?