Bill Cosby is invoking his right to remain silent, so to speak, on the flood of allegations against him.
Cosby was the subject of an Ivy Style post during year one for his role — and wardrobe — on the TV show “I Spy.”
As seen in the photo above, taken during a performance at Carnegie Hall, Cosby wore the Ivy League Look when it was smart, current and respectable, and like many others stopped wearing it when the look went out of fashion.
With new shows in development cut by two different networks, it looks like Cosby himself is peremanently out of fashion.
This weekend the Washington Post came out with a detailed timeline of Cosby’s alleged assaults. — CC
We’re to believe you had to force drugs on women in the late 60 and 1970s?
I smell cultural politics and opportunism.
Why would a black man be the target of a smear campaign? Why now, decades after the alleged events? Building on MAC’s comment, it appears to be a Communist-style smear campaign, whose target isn’t even Bill Cosby, but another conservative black man who preaches responsibility and self-reliance: Dr. Ben Carson, an apostate from the Democrats and a possible Republican presidential candidate. It is agitprop designed to detract attention away from the very real failures of welfare, wealth transfer, and the leftist agenda as a whole.
We don’t know whether or not Cosby did what he is alleged to have done. We can be certain that the timing is no accident.
Two analyses here: one by a man, and another by a woman.
@Henry, you sound like a hit at parties.
I am, thank you.
The same media dry humps Roman Polanski and Bill Clinton.
@ Henry – huh? I’ll bite. The media is smearing Bill Cosby in an effort to undermine Ben Carson’s hopeless possible presidential run (in two years)? Got it.
I don’t know too many people who consider our heavily reformed welfare programs to be failures. In fact, the safety net has served the country well throughout the most recent (GOP caused) recession, providing food and healthcare coverage to millions of adults (and children) and saving many senior citizens from utter poverty.
As far as “wealth transfer” is concerned, I’m guessing you’re not referring to the billions of taxpayer dollars we shower the oil, agriculture, banking/finance, aviation, and auto industries with. I wonder why not.
And, if there’s one “failed policy” few reasonable minds disagree on, it’s supply-side, trickle down economics – which didn’t work in the Reagan years, the Bush years, or today (see Kansas). Unless, of course, you consider them just another form of “wealth transfer”….which has done a wonderful job fostering once-in-a-generation inequality and concentrating wealth in a wholly unsustainable manner.
AEV, please read the articles I linked.
Other than that, we have too little common ground to discuss this topic in a meaningful fashion. However, I always enjoy your observations on our favorite Fred.
I read the “articles”. They made little to no sense. The American Thinker, of course, is a silly little Web site (Lifson is a bit of a nut….as most Washington Times writers are) and the ‘authors’ of the two pieces you linked to are best known, respectively, as a Christian mystery story writer and a passionate Sarah Palin supporter. So, the articles did little to convince me that Bill Cosby’s sexually deviant behavior is being exposed to sink Ben Carson’s futile possible presidential run.
I doubt the recent Cosby rehash has anything to do with political battle space preparations to a Carson run, it’s just the new sexual environment we live in. That and the fact that he has espoused conservative views of the black family and young black attitudes. Any woman or black that gets off the left’s reservation is fair game.
It’s a little early to make a judgement on Kansas.
When sixteen women line up and say that Cosby raped them, how can your first reaction be to lament the “new sexual environment” we live in? Is that an environment in which drugging women is unacceptable? Is it unconscionable that a formerly beloved figure is actually a criminal – or is it more likely that this is trumped-up retribution for him “getting off the left’s reservation?”
By todays standards, every woman I ever had drinks and sex with is a case of sexual assault. If she had future regrets it was rape. But, yes it’s interesting that when he began speaking on social issues women came out of the woodwork. Christ, I’ve had sex with more than sixteen woman and I’m not Bill Crosby.
You “argument” is no argument at all, to wit:
“silly little website”: no content, all smear.
“Lifson is a bit of a nut: ditto
“‘authors'” (with scare quotes): ditto
“Christian mystery writer”: you imply that neither Christians nor mystery writers (or perhaps only that unusual combination) can analyze what they see and present a coherent position. Once more, no content, all smear.
“passionate Sarah Palin supporter”: you imply that anyone who supports Sarah Palin—a likable, semi-conservative woman—is incapable of rational, coherent thought. Again, no content, all smear.
At no point in your commentary did you engage any of the ideas the authors presented; instead, you waved them away with a haughty wave of the hand. “These intellectual peasants,” you sneer, “are beneath an Enlightened One such as I.”
See why I said we have too little common ground to discuss this topic meaningfully?
Having said that, you did present some content in your first comment. I just find your premises too far removed from my own to make further discussion worthwhile. I’m not dismissing you, just the possibility of fruitful dialogue between us.
My argument – which was really just a question – is that you linked to articles written on a little known, hyper-conservative blog that did little to connect the dots between Cosby, liberals, and Ben Carson’s possible presidential run in a rational way.
Your suggestion seems to be that anyone with a blog and a few articles under their belt is a reliable source and that any conspiracy theories they espouse should be carefully considered. I don’t agree. But, I do appreciate the laughs provided by your clarification that you believe Ms. Palin to be “semi-conservative”. No wonder you’re getting your news from The American Thinker blog (and the fiction writers and Palin supporters it employs)…..and still believe in trickle down economics. You must indeed be fun at parties.
The defenders of supply side economics typically use the “too early to tell” argument…..i.e., if we just want a little longer, we’ll all see/feel the trickle. It’s not too early to tell. Kansas is experiencing massive budget shortfalls that will require deep (additional) cuts in everything from education to state health spending. These shortfalls are directly tied to a decrease in tax receipts…..which, of course, is what happens when you deeply cut taxes without doing anything tangible to stimulate growth….and instead placing faith in the market’s invisible hand to generate that needed growth.
People (and corporations) who believe the only policies that matter are the ones that directly reduce their own personal tax burdens will always defend such hogwash – but, that doesn’t make it sensible or effective policy.
Defenders of any and all changes in economic policy use the “too early to tell” argument. The good news Kansas unemployment is below 5%. Bad news, there is a a manageable projected revenue shortfall for next year. Seems the legislature will have to cut down on their partying this january and actually work.
Just another phony black man worshiped by the self-blinding liberal media in the same mode as OJ Simpson (another jungle-fever sufferer), and the Nobel Laureate (awarded only for NOT being George Bush) Barack Hussein Obama.
Undoubtedly a hypocrite of the first magnitude. A shame he wasn’t exposed decades ago.
They do? Obama passed an economic stimulus that, while working slower than many hoped, staved off a deep, long term recession, has brought the unemployment rate down nearly 50% and turned many quarters of economic shrinking into consecutive quarters of growth.
Clinton’s economic policies (eliminating the budget deficit, increasing income taxes on the highest earners, low interest rates, education and research investments, etc.) had a similar obvious, relatively immediate impacts. Neither of these economic policy packages/philosophies were based on cutting taxes for businesses and the wealthy and/or dramatically and unilaterally slashing entitlement spending (‘starving the beast’: supply side economics).
Conversely, W. cut taxes (twice) and significantly increased federal spending – surprise: it led to a recession. Reagan oversaw a tripling of the national deficit (thanks to his W. style tax slashing and spending binges), leading H.W. Bush to betray his “no new taxes” (and capital gains taxes reduction) pledges and sign a bill that increased taxes and federal spending. This led to a significant reduction in inflation and interest rates and by the time he left office the Reagan fueled recession was at it’s tail end.
Groton76: Your blatant racism is illuminating. It is no wonder we need to have a debate about non-debatable things.
By “hyper-conservative,” you seem to mean “what would have been mainstream until the latter part of the 20th century.”
Sarah Palin has her appeal, but she is a right-liberal (i.e., modern “conservative”), and not a very good one at that, hence my term.
You’re the one who brought up trickle-down economics, not I. I consider nearly every government program outside of government’s core areas (defense, diplomacy, courts, etc.) to be inappropriate; I further consider the transfer of money from the productive to the indigent to be profoundly immoral.
Having said that, neither do I support what is often derided as “corporate welfare.” The government should not interfere in the markets. Then again, corporations ought not be taxed, either. If we tax individuals, we should do it as the Founding Fathers envisioned: as a capitation tax. None of this Communist* “progressive” income tax, nor even a flat tax, which is merely an attenuated version of same.
* “Communist,” you say? Ever hear of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”? That’s pure Communism, and is the rationale behind progressive tax rates.
As a young man (relative to the usual commenters on this blog), I greatly appreciate people like Henry. There simply aren’t enough reactionaries left. It isn’t easy finding respectable adults – on the internet or in real life.
As for those like AEV, the world will never out of them.
I believe Greenspan called Clinton one of the best republican presidents we’ve had. Mostly Clinton success can be attributed to luck and a continuation of trends beginning in previous administrations.
He continued to military drawdown started by Bush, remember the so called “peace dividend” caused by the collapse of the Soviets?
Inflation was trending downward long term for a very long time, remember the prime rate when Carter left? FYI, I bought a new BMW in 1977, traded it in 1978 with 27,000 miles, got $500 more than I paid for it
He also benefited from the rise of the PC which had a huge impact on the private sector. The digital age wasn’t hindered by Clinton, but Al Gore didn’t invent it.
My personal opinion is that presidents matter on the regulatory side more than budget side, which has to do with congress..
What strikes me as odd is that the comedian Hannibal Buress had been using the Cosby bit in his routine for months; you can find articles about it from June, for instance (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/cultist/2014/06/hannibal_buress_had_a_surprise_gramps_show-_draft.php). So you would assume that if this was a grassroots thing, you would have a steady growth of awareness from June until now. Yet on Google Trends searches for Cosby are minimal — until October, when they suddenly start climbing like crazy. So what happened in October that wasn’t happening in June?
People argue that it was the Dan McQuade article in Philly Mag (http://www.phillymag.com/ticket/2014/10/17/hannibal-buress-bill-cosby-rapist/), but why that article rather than any of the other ones? (He posted a link to it on Twitter, and as you can see, it didn’t exactly set the world on fire: https://twitter.com/dhm/status/523201776997396480) His was one of a string of articles going back to a February article by Tom Scocca over at Gawker; the only new contribution was adding the Hannibal Buress part, which had already been reported on elsewhere. So who were the taste-makers sharing it that caused the other news agencies to pick it up? My guess is that it was due to Madeleine Davies of Jezebel picking it up on the 20th, (http://jezebel.com/comedian-hannibal-buress-called-out-bill-cosbys-rape-hi-1648597247) but who connected Davies with McQuade and why? She lives in Brooklyn, she went to school in Wisconsin — does she normally read articles in magazines reviewing the Philadelphia nightlife? 🙂
For those who like following how things move over the web:
January 8th: “Inside The Mind Of Hannibal Buress, Comedy’s Biggest Risk-Taker” by Jordan Zakarin of BuzzFeed (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/inside-the-mind-of-hannibal-buress-comedys-biggest-risk-take) [Mentions Hannibal’s penchant for rape jokes, but not the Cosby joke — maybe he hadn’t developed it yet?]
“Who Wants to Remember Bill Cosby’s Multiple Sex-Assault Accusations?” by Tom Scocca of Gawker (http://gawker.com/who-wants-to-remember-bill-cosbys-multiple-sex-assaul-1515923178))
“Tamara Green Talks About Bill Cosby” by Katie J.M. Baker of Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/tamara-green-talks-about-bill-cosby-228495)
“Barbara Bowman Speaks About Bill Cosby Sexual Abuse Allegations” by Katie J.M. Baker of Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/barbara-bowman-speaks-about-bill-cosby-sexual-abuse-allegations-228837)
“With Past Allegations Of Sexual Assault Resurfacing, Bill Cosby’s NBC Show Continues To Move Forward” by Kate Aurthur of BuzzFeed (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/bill-cosby-nbc-allegations-sexual-assault)
“Hannibal Buress Owned Miami In a Surprise Show at Gramps Last Night” by Jonathan Peltz of the Miami New Times (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/cultist/2014/06/hannibal_buress_had_a_surprise_gramps_show-_draft.php) [First mention of the Cosby joke]
“The New Bill Cosby Biography Omits Rape Allegations Against Him” by Kate Aurthur of BuzzFeed (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/the-new-bill-cosby-biography-doesnt-mention-the-past-sexual)
“One Very Important Thing Is Missing From the New Cosby Biography: A Timeline of the Abuse Charges” by Matt Giles of Vulture (https://web.archive.org/web/20140923123753/http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/timeline-of-the-abuse-charges-against-cosby.html)
“Hannibal Buress on Bill Cosby: ‘You’re a Rapist'” by Dan McQuade of Philly Mag (http://www.phillymag.com/ticket/2014/10/17/hannibal-buress-bill-cosby-rapist/)
Dan McQuade’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/dhm/status/523201776997396480
“Comedian Hannibal Buress Called Out Bill Cosby’s Rape History on Stage” by Madeline Davies of Jezebel (http://jezebel.com/comedian-hannibal-buress-called-out-bill-cosbys-rape-hi-1648597247)
@ Henry — “I further consider the transfer of money from the productive to the indigent to be profoundly immoral.”
Compare this morality with that of Samuel Johnson, a conservative by instinct and temperament, who said “a decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.”
Henry, you have to get out more and see what is going on in the world. Millions and millions of people who are productive, working full-time jobs at minimum wage, are making $15,000 a year.
1.5+- minimum wage earners aren’t millions and millions. That doesn’t include tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others. Of course, screw full time students. Tipped employees, the government hasn’t a clue on what they really make, trust me it’s far more than what’s on their W-2. Disabled, plenty of actually disabled, but it’s the latest growth scam industry. So all told maybe 3 +- million, who qualify for all kinds of gov subsidies.
Raise the minimum wage sure, how about to say $50 / hour?
As long as we’re at it, changing the world, why stop there?
Reparations for blacks.
Illegal to have unpaid interns.
Cede the SW USA to Mexico.
Reinstate the draft, pay equivalent 1960s military pay. Only females are drafted for the next 200 years.
Gov employees can make over the median income of the middle class, this includes college profs
Tax churches, all charities and all as of now all tax exempt institutions. Think of all those poor folks’ live could be improved by taxing those Ivy League endowments.
Gee, I could go all progressive all day. I’m channelling my inner Marx. Sorry, got carried away. 😉
What do we have to debate?
Sorry, but only a self-deluding fool would believe the two Othellos (Cosby, OJ) and Obama aren’t racist charlatans (see Martin, Travon) — and I’m speaking as what the latter would disparage as “a typical white person.”
Bill Cosby received a free-pass from a society that gave him the benefit of the doubt because of his fame, money and especially his race. He exploited the judgmental double-standard, and if there is any “blatant racism” involved here it belongs to him and his white enablers.
RJG, what Samuel Johnson said is true; please allow me to clarify:
I consider the coerced transfer of money from the productive to the indigent to be profoundly immoral.
First off, it is theft; I’m sure you’re familiar with “thou shalt not steal,” or some similar formulation.
Second, it engenders resentment, sloth, and a host of other ills in the recipients. Perhaps worst of all is a sense of entitlement, that one is owed the fruits of another’s labor.
Third, it saps the recipient of his independence. It transforms a free citizen into a subject, a client of the state. It is thus inextricably linked to the growth of the state, the decline of liberty, the rise of socialism and all its ills and evils.
This is not the same as charity. Charity is not charity if it coerced; it must be freely offered. We have a long history of private charity. Christians, churches, and Christian organizations have always cared for the needy, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, housed the homeless, and still do. Furthermore, they do it willingly and lovingly, and with far less waste and inefficiency than the government. In the past, recipients of this sort of charity often had to work for it, thus building confidence and esteem, as well as a work ethic.
So no, I do no advocate some sort of hard-hearted every-man-for-himself system. What I do advocate is what worked for hundreds of years before the advent of the hypertrophied state.
Mac — Here I was thinking that the problem was large American corporations avoiding paying taxes by moving the address of their headquarters to Ireland, when the actual fraudsters are people who depend on tips for their income not declaring the full amount. I just lost all sense of proportion for a moment there. Those waiters, waitresses, and bartenders are making out like bandits!
Groton 76 — Ditto. The Othellos are a much bigger issue. They continue to get a pass in America because of their race. It was a blindspot.
Both corporations and individuals play by the rules the government makes, Government, you know, the things we all do together. Who commits fraud, the transparent SEC regulated corporation moving overseas or a citizen lying on their 1040?
Let’s reform the tax code, unfortunately the same folks complaining about the full Irish also don’t want to lower US corporate taxes.
Now we can agree. Lower the tax rate for corporations, but also close the loopholes so you can actually collect. (I would add that corporations have a much greater influence on the rules Congress makes than individuals.)
Lots of low information individuals, corporations not so much.
Yes, Henry, I do indeed mean ‘hyper-conservative’ in the post-1950/60s sense. There is no doubt that many on the fringes of the GOP – yourself included, apparently – would transport us back to that (social and economic) era immediately if they could….the fact that you place value in such outmoded and antique thinking says quite enough. Your wig needs powdering.
Once again, a good comment string gets hijacked with sophomoric economics/politcal talk. I stopped reading soon after AEVs Clinton is great, and ‘GOP caused recession’ stuff. Hard to argue with economic facts though.
Economic Fact – The recession began in the later part of the Clinton’s presidency. Bush took office with the country already in recession and soon made worse by 9-11.
Fact – Bill Clinton signed and took political credit for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which overturned parts of Glass Steagall and allowed those “evil corporations” and banks to start making bets in the mortgage backed securities markets.
Fact – Clinton, with Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan, called off the CFTC from regulating mortgage backed securities as swaps, which ultimately were the downfall of the economy.
Fact – Fannie Mae, which was creating and blessing all of the mortgage backed securites and inflated home prices, was controlled by former high ranking Democrats (Frank Raines). Barney Frank was Fannie’s biggest defender on the Hill.
Even Matt Damon could understand this – see the documentary Inside Job.
Fact – we have the highest corporate tax rates and will lose more great American international companies like Burger King, because we allow foreign purchasers an advantage in bidding due to their ability to save on taxes paid for foreign profits.