According to this story, one of the accused associates of Jeffrey Epstein has been found dead in his prison cell from suicide. May God have mercy on his soul.
I'm still wondering why the only person I've seen the press really go after in the whole Epstein drama is Prince Andrew. They've been all over him like a bad suit. But he's been it. I've seen nothing else about any of Mr. Epstein's other big name pals and buddies and associates. I hadn't heard of this fellow until now.
Why do I get the feeling that if most of his associates were big name conservatives and Republicans and MAGA types, we would be hearing more. Maybe I'm being judgmental, but it's the hunch I have.
It would require putting sweat equity (scarce in the media compared to what was the case 30 years ago) into something that isn't narrative enhancing. When it's something super-important (like a line-by-line reading of printouts of Sarah Palin's office e-mails), they'll find the manpower.
ReplyDeleteAndrew's getting raked over the coals (for something he did 20 years ago that was immoral but neither illegal nor tortious) because he's a celebrity who is not one of the protected class.
I think that would be statutory rape even 20 years ago -- at least in the USA. If it happened elsewhere, who knows what local laws applied?
DeleteI think that would be statutory rape even 20 years ago -- at least in the USA. If it happened elsewhere, who knows what local laws applied?
DeleteNo it would not. Even by her account, she was over the age of consent in each of the three jurisdictions where they had trysts.
Touche. I had been under the mistaken impression that the age of consent had been raised to 18 across the board.
DeleteNo. It was (and I believe is) 16 in Britain, 17 in New York, and subject to contingencies in New Mexico. The Virgin Islands has an age of consent of 18, but the two of them did not have a tryst there. IIRC, they never had a tryst in Florida, either.
DeleteYep. I've learned to believe what is true is what I'm not hearing in the press. If something is important but doesn't fit the narrative, you can bet the press will suddenly run out of time to address it. But I remember when Palin was VP, and they mobilized enough reporters to scour through everything in her life.
DeleteEpstein had ties to the Technocratic Neo-Fudalists. Members of that community are willing to kill to defend their reputations. They control most of the news channels in America. Trump and his gang are mostly small-government liberals (or "conservative," as American lingo puts it), which is opposed to the Technocratic Neo-Fudalists, thus most news outlets dislike Trump and his gang. The Technocratic Neo-Fudalist media will blow all of Trump's flaws out of perportion while downplaying the sins of technocrats, socialists and big-government capitalists.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean "Neo-Feudalist"?
DeleteEither way, let's not pretend Trump has principals worked out into a coherent set of policies. He is basically a narcissistic contrarian, nothing more, and he is hated, not so much due to principled opposition, but because the good cop / bad cop two-party system was unable to destroy him. Likewise he is loved, I think, mostly because he has defied the establishments of both parties, whose "fights" are about as genuine as Hulk Hogan vs Sargent Slaughter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcxljUBDH88
Politics cannot save us now. It probably never could.
It's hard to say, because you hear almost nothing about anything to do with Epstein's non-Andrew associates. I know they're there. I've heard endless individuals, but almost nothing about them beyond the odd references quickly dropped. Which is part of the problem with the press.
DeleteI wasn't denying Trump being bad. Quite the opposite. The exesive Spader brought against him by the Technocratic neo-feudalists (thanks for correcting my spelling) has helped him get away with some truly awful stuff. He's basically a courupt Liberal who got elected on the basis of "he's probably a scumbag but at least he's a different type of scumbag." It's unfortunate that the situation is like that, but you're right, politics can't save us. It's all lesser of two evils with few truly good options. Arguably that's what it always was, though they used to hide it better.
DeleteIt has become sadly clear that the choice of the lesser of two evils is still the choice for evil. That seems to be one of the Devil's favorite games: "You have to choose evil, so which evil do you choose?" We do not have to play that game, even if, humanly speaking, that seems to put us on "the wrong side of history". We can choose eternal truths over currently popular lies. We can do like Norway in WW2, and stand up for what is right even knowing that we may not live to see it prevail. That isn't a fun prospect, and it will not feel the least bit heroic, but it's an option we have to remember.
Delete