Affirmative consent is still a better idea: Daily Bullshit, November 12-13, 2017


  1. Originally published, November 12, 1:18 pm.
  2. November 13, 12:15 pm:
    • Add state legislatures and universities to the list of locales where powerful men abuse even powerful women.[1] That includes California.[2] (Sexual harassment and worse)
    • Fingers are pointing at Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who, in a leaked letter to Theresa May, “complained of ‘insufficient energy’ on Brexit in some parts of the government and insisted any transition period must end in June 2021” as a critical Brexit bill is considered by Parliament and talks seem to be stumbling.[3]
    • In the Wall Street Journal (I’m highlighting that to acknowledge editorial bias), Cleta Mitchell and Hans von Spakovsky (who appear to be writing as guest columnists) suggest that the Clinton campaign may have violated campaign finance law in usurping the Democratic National Committee.[4] (Democrats)

Sexual harassment and worse

I comment on this in a new blog entry, “Affirmative consent is still a better idea.”

Alexei Koseff, “California Capitol averages three sexual harassment investigations per year,” Sacramento Bee, November 9, 2017,

Stephanie McCrummen, Beth Reinhard, and Alice Crites, “Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14, he was 32,” Washington Post,
November 9, 2017,

Stephanie Akin, “Congress Took Three Decades to Come This Far, Sexual Harassment Victim Says,” Congressional Quarterly Roll Call, November 11,

Katherine Mangan, “2 Women Say Stanford Professors Raped Them Years Ago,” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 11, 2017,

Taryn Luna, “Senate leader Kevin de León announces new complaint policy, moves out of his house,” Sacramento Bee, November 12, 2017,

Joanna Walters, “George Takei responds to accusation he sexually assaulted a young actor,” Guardian, November 12, 2017,


I’m wondering if it can be a real negotiation unless all parties are deeply concerned that they might fail to reach a deal. It seems we may have reached that point.[5] The question for me is whether we’re really past that point and all the shrieking is warranted.

Some contextual notes are important here. First, in Britain, newspapers are not expected to be and make no pretense of being impartial. The Times (which, along with the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Mail, is owned by Rupert Murdoch) is relatively conservative and would be expected to support Theresa May unless larger party interests are at stake. Similarly, though the Guardian tends to oppose neoconservative and neoliberal policy, it tends to align with the anti-Jeremy Corbyn Labour faction which makes similar arguments on electability to the mainstream (I’m liking Sarah Palin’s “lamestream” here) Democrats as they embrace neoconservative and neoliberal policy. So it is significant that the Times, which typically depicts Corbyn as a crank wearing a Maoist-style cap in its editorial cartoons, publishes an op-ed by Corbyn and it is unsurprising that the Guardian did not (I don’t know the backstory here or if Corbyn even approached the Guardian). And if Corbyn comes out of all this as prime minister, the Guardian will have a whole lot of egg on its face.

Reuters, “Forty Conservative MPs ready to oust May – Sunday Times,” November 11, 2017,

Jeremy Corbyn, “Halt the Brexit uncertainty, Mrs May, or go now and let Labour sort it out,” Times, November 12, 2017,

Toby Helm, “May faces defeat by MPs demanding meaningful vote on final Brexit deal,” Guardian, November 12, 2017,

Caroline Wheeler and Bojan Pancevski, “Tory turmoil as 40 MPs say May must go,” Times, November 12, 2017,

Rajeev Syal and Jon Henley, “UK government tensions rise after leak of Johnson-Gove letter to May,” Guardian, November 13, 2017,


The purpose of joint fundraising committees is to allow more than one entity to collaborate in raising money and share in the costs. Each participant is subject to federal contribution limits. When the party itself is a participant, its committee (in this case the [Democratic National Committee]) normally handles accounting and financial controls. Not here. The Hillary Victory Fund was controlled by the Clinton campaign, with a campaign employee as treasurer and the fund’s bank account established at the Clinton campaign’s bank. According to Federal Election Commission reports, the Hillary Victory Fund has raised more than $526 million.

The DNC asserted its “neutrality” by also entering into a joint fundraising committee with the Sanders campaign. It raised a total of $1,000. And the Bernie Victory Committee treasurer was the DNC’s designee.[6]

Cleta Mitchell and Hans von Spakovsky, “Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the Law,” Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2017,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.