Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


waitforufo last won the day on June 21 2015

waitforufo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About waitforufo

  • Rank
  1. Harvey Weinstein

    The spectacular thing about Hollywood is there incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Harvey Weinstein a pass. Who will give them any credibility now?
  2. Harvey Weinstein

    A performer who appears to be in full agreement with my sentiment. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-harvey-weinstein-film-academy-20171014-story.html Other professions and been working to eliminate sexual harassment and exploitation for decades. The same decades that Harvey Weinstein was abusing women. You really want to go down the partisan political path with this? I seem to recall a different president, who had serious criminal allegations made against him by women, who exploited a white house intern for sex, and received campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein. Back then we were all told "never mind, that was just all about sex." In fact feminists applauded Nina Burleigh when she said "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." A man with a frequent flyer card on the Lolita Express. Why not ask "What kind of message does that send to women who are considering reporting this sort of issue?" After we are done the Clintons, we can talk about Ted Kennedy. I would prefer to avoid that diversion of this topic that I opened, but if you must, please go ahead. This is a serious issue. I have noticed that this topic has grown in prominence in workplace training on sexual harassment. I have yet to see anyone terminated for this reason however.
  3. Harvey Weinstein

    This question is at the heart of my opener for this topic. No one should be required to comply with an NDA on a settlement related to a criminal act. Some will likely make a innocent until proven guilty argument, but I think there is a difference between publicly accusing person X of criminal behavior and stating a fact that Person X paid me $Y based on my accusation of criminal behavior. With regard to the victims of Harvey Weinstein who have accepted settlements for his criminal acts, I have several thoughts. First, at least they punished Harvey Weinstein in some way, and I'm sure they hopped that in so doing Harvey Weinstein would change his future behavior towards women. Since he did not, obviously the amounts involved were chump change to Harvey. Second, shame on them for keeping his behavior secret thereby allowing his behavior to continue. In my opinion they are culpable of the harassment and rape of other women. Third, I think all of them should now make there accusations public, and their settlement amounts public and then dare Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company to sue them in public court to have the settlements returned. What jury would find in the favor of the Harvey or The Weinstein Company in this case? This in my opinion would in part redeem these women of their culpability in the crimes committed against other women following their own.
  4. Harvey Weinstein

    Harvey's contract with The Weinstein Company is pay to prey. https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/12/pay-prey-weinsteins-contract-basically-allowed-sexual-harassment-long-paid-company/
  5. Harvey Weinstein

    Finally http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/harvey-weinstein-jane-fonda/index.html My opinion of Hanoi Jane is slightly improved. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seth-macfarlane-harvey-weinstein-oscars_us_59df3449e4b00abf36466ea1 Seth Macfarline makes this joke at the Oscars and the media gives it a pass. This goes along with NBC spiking the Ronan Farrow story. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685 Shameful.
  6. Harvey Weinstein

    In my professional career there has always been mandatory annual harassment training. Prior to becoming a manager I though this training was a bit silly. There wasn't anything in that training that I didn't learn from school and my family, particularly my grandmothers, aunts, mother, and sisters. In fact today this training is done on line with teaching sections and test sections. I always skip the teaching sections and go right to the tests and always get 100%. Very basic stuff. When I became a manager I quickly understood the need for this training. In my career I have had to deal with three harassment cases. The women complaining were always obviously upset, but at the same time rather timid in their complaints. All three cases were outrageously blatant, one including stalking, all leading to quick deserved termination of the harassers. My experience is that women don't lie about harassment. Every manager I have discussed this topic with has said the same thing. The real problem is when one of these harassing jerks becomes a manager and moves up the ranks. This would not happen if more women complained. There must be something seriously wrong in show business that this exploitation still exists. I can't believe that Harvey Weinsteins behavior wasn't well know. I shutter at the number of hopeful young women he abused. Established people are supposed to be good to young people starting out regardless of there profession.
  7. I quit smoking .

    I believe the after-meal cigarette craving is because nicotine is a stimulant and the digestive process make one sleepy. Coffee or tea would be healthier, but then you are just encouraging a caffeine addiction.
  8. Harvey Weinstein

    Perhaps the emotion you refer to is injustice, and not just towards Harvey Weinsten, but towards the women who knew this was going on and did not make it public there by putting it to a stop If these women did make it public, then we would know the details. I'm surprised that you don't think sexual assault and harassment against women is a big deal. I do. Maybe that's because I have a wife and daughters. I don't think you meant to imply that the women in question are whores. If we as a society are going to push for an end to sexual harassment and abuse of women, then women need to report these crimes. This is what I tell the women who report to me. This is corporate policy in every company I have ever worked for and I have been working professionally for 33 years.
  9. Harvey Weinstein

    Imagine that you are a young aspiring actress who gets what she believes is the break of her career, a private meeting with movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. After that meeting she realizes that the entire point of the meeting was for her to be raped by a dirty old man. Then a week later A-list stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, etc come out publicly claiming the Harvey Weinstein sexually abused them years if not decades ago. How do you think that woman feel about those A list stars never saying a word for years? Women she looked up to and hoped to emulate? Women she looked up to because they were vocal feminists. Do you think she would believe those women were culpable in her rape? Here is the current list of accusers. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-accusers-sexual-harassment-assault-rose-mcgowan-ashley-judd-gwyneth-paltrow How do you think these women would explain there inaction to this young aspiring actress? What if that young aspiring actress was your daughter? How would you feel about these women? What if the young aspiring actress was your wife or your sister? How would you feel about these women?
  10. Harvey Weinstein

    I'm not blaming them for their own personal abuse. I"m questioning if they have an ethical obligation to report this abuse quickly to prevent the abuse of others. As I mentioned, news reports claim that Harvey Weinstein has been sexually assaulting women for decades. Would it not have been better for all of these women to publicly expose Harvey Weinstein long ago to spare the victimization of others? Shouldn't this be particularly true of vocal feminists? They don't seem to have a problem coming forward now that the flood gates have been opened.
  11. Harvey Weinstein

    Recent news reports tell us of decades of sexual abuse and harassment by Harvey Weinstein. I'm sure the abuse we have heard about is simply the tip of the iceberg. My guess is the list of abused aspiring actresses is much larger. The reports we have heard so far often refer to rumors of abuse swirling around Weinstein throughout his decades of abuse. In addition there are reports that the news media has spiked stories about this subject. What I find absent in all of this is stories questioning the ethics of actresses who remained silent about their abusive and criminal encounters with Harvey Weinstein. How culpable are these women for the abuse of women that followed them on the casting couch? Let's take for example Ashley Judd. Ms. Judd is a vocal feminist. Here is an image of Ms. Judd protesting the comments of President Trump. https://every2min.com/2017/01/22/rape-survivor-ashley-judd-explains-why-trump-triggers-so-many-sexual-assault-survivors/ Here is another image of Ashley Judd with Harvey Weinstein. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4962354/Ashley-Judd-breaks-silence-Weinstein.html Ms. Judd could find her voice politically, but not professionally. How many women would have avoided Harvey Weinstein abuse if she had publicly accused Weinstein? The same question goes for all the other women abused by Harvey Weinstein.
  12. Why should employers provide free birth control?

    I never said the medication (hormones) in birth control pills could not be prescribed for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Please quote me if I did. That would be fair.
  13. Why should employers provide free birth control?

    I provided my understanding of insurance. What part did I get wrong. You and rangerx objected to my comment "Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me. " My response explains how I am paying for the birth control of others by subsisting their insurance premiums through my taxes. Also, insurance paid by employers is part of employee compensation. The expense of this portion of employee compensation determines how much the employee receives. Increasing the cost, means employees get less. This is a cost to the employee. I have seen condoms sold for 50 cents in vending machines. They are less at the pharmacy. Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance. Birth control is elective medicine. Also quacks and frauds exist and they drive up the cost of medical care. So you can have all the doctor patient privilege you are personally willing to pay for. You can't put that cost on others. As I said, medical care cost money and somebody has to pay for it. There are no medical care pixies that magically pay the cost. The only people that pay medical expenses are patients and tax payers. That's it.
  14. Why should employers provide free birth control?

    Why start a topic on how insurance works? The concept is very simple. Insurance is a means by which people pay expenses. Since we are talking about medical expenses in this topic, let's narrow the conversation to that type of expense. Let's start by defining just what the expenses are and then talk about how they are paid. Medical expenses are simple. Every person providing a medical service has to be paid. Every piece of medical equipment utilized has to be paid for, maintained, and replaced when worn out or obsolete. All medicine needs to be paid for. All medical disposables such as tongue depressors, syringes, rubber gloves, have to be paid for. There is no magic, so all of this has to be paid for. Insurance is one means by which people pay for these expenses. A recurring fee, or premium, is paid by insurance participants, typically on a monthly basis to an insurance company, and that company then pays for medical expenses for participants as they occur. Simple. So what value do individual insurance participants get for their premium? Well some people win life's lottery and never access medical care. These people receive the value of peace of mind knowing that if they do occur they will be paid for. Other people have a life full of medical tragedy and require constant expensive medical care. Those people are insurance lottery winners. They receive a value far in excess of their premiums over time. Most people however have typical occasional medical expenses, which at times are high cost. These people receive the value of spreading the cost of their medical expenses over their lifetime which prevents their rare high cost medical expenses from also being a financial tragedy for themselves and their family. Since the life lottery winners cancel out the insurance lottery winners, insurance premiums are determined by the medical expenses of the typical person. This is how it should be. That means it is correct for and individual to say I pay for my own medical expenses by paying for my medical insurance premiums. It is quite common for an individual to pay the insurance premiums of others. For example, I currently pay the medical insurance for my spouse, and in the past, I paid the medical insurance for my children. Again, it is correct for a person to say I pay the medical expenses of others when I pay their medical insurance premium. If one's taxes are subsidizing the insurance premiums of another person, that tax payer is paying the medical expenses of that subsidized person. This is simple logic people. Now, how does one keep the cost of medical insurance low? Well, one can attempt to get currently healthy people to participate in insurance. By paying now, their individual premiums pay the medical expenses of people currently unhealthy, and when those people are healthy they pay the medical expenses of the person paying now. That's how insurance spreads an individual's medical expenses over time. Again, that's how insurance works. So how do you get currently health people to participate in insurance? Well you can penalize those not paying for insurance. One way to do that is to penalize them by law through taxes. The other way is to penalize them through their medical expenses. Those without insurance pay more than those with insurance. Another way to reduce insurance costs is to cover fewer things. For example, some might think that aroma therapy improves their health. Most however think this is quackery so aroma therapy is not covered to reduce insurance costs. Also, not all medical devices are covered. Tooth brushes and bathroom scales are an example. The costs of these medical devices are purchased by individuals on an as needed basis. The same goes for over the counter medicines. The question at hand, is should birth control be a covered or uncovered expense. I say uncovered. The expense is just not that high and people should bear the cost of their elective activities. One way to increase the cost of medical insurance to is to pay for medical care for those who don't pay premiums. While this might be a altruistic thing to do, it does not reduce the cost of medical insurance.
  15. Why should employers provide free birth control?

    Birth control is not preventive because it prevents no health defect. Fertility is the natural healthy state for human beings. If you lack natural fertility then you have a medical defect which should be covered by your health care. This would not include in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm banks, or egg donation since these are not natural ways of reproducing. hypocrisy in birth control coverage would be to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, etc, for women but not pay for condoms for men. By the way I have no problem with birth control. Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me.