Patterico's Pontifications

5/23/2011

More Details on the Case Against StraussKahn and Jon Stewart Notices That the French Are Funny (Update: DNA Confirmed)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 6:42 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: And now we have DNA verification–which only tends to prove sex, and not lack-of-consent.  But fwiw…

Of course I have been following the story of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (who is a man) — and the accusations of rape against him — with one eye open, in case something more interesting comes out.  There have been some people who are legitimate doubters.  And then there has been Ben Stein (more on him in a moment).  And given that most likely none of the readers here were there in that hotel room, the only prudent thing to do is to doubt, but on the other hand, you shouldn’t be an idiot about it.  And one concern among the doubters was that it might merely be a case of he-said, she-said.  But if this report in the Daily Beast is correct, that might not be such a significant issue.  You should read the whole thing, but here is a taste:

The luxury-hotel maid who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Dominique Strauss-Kahn was found by a supervisor in a hallway where she hid after escaping from the former International Monetary Fund director’s room. Hotel workers described her as traumatized, having difficulty speaking, and immediately concerned about pressing charges and losing her job, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

In other words when they found her, she was completely freaked out (vomiting, as the piece later reveals).  That doesn’t prove Strauss-Kahn guilty, but if true, it makes it into a little more than just he said, she said.

Meanwhile Jon Stewart does a great job mocking some of the defenders of Strauss-Kahn.  Ben Stein is there, as is Bernard-Henri Lévy.  I left Lévy alone because this was a friend he was talking about, and I am more forgiving of stupidity in defending a friend.  Still, Iowahawk did a brilliant satire of Lévy’s piece and Jon (Jean?) Stewart goes in for the kill, here:

Hey, what do you know?  It’s fashionable to mock the French again.  Freedom fries, anyone?

Update: Patrick informed me via twitter that I was mispelling Strauss-Kahn’s name. All I can say is, “Kaaaaaaaahn!” Fixed now.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I always thought freedom fries were stupid — but it’s always fashionable to mock Bernard-Henri Lévy. I haven’t forgotten that he also defended Roman Polanski. If you’re a sexual degenerate, you have a reliable friend in Bernard-Henri Lévy — as long as you’re French!

113 Comments

  1. “Hotel workers described her as traumatized, having difficulty speaking, and immediately concerned about pressing charges and losing her job, according to sources familiar with the investigation.”

    Turns out she’s in a union, so that should help with getting justice.

    Comment by Bruuuce (1b61d0) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:29 am

  2. Iamadimwit just cannot quit us. Seek help.

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:32 am

  3. Turns out she’s in a union, so that should help with getting justice.

    Not if justice for her conflicts with the leadership’s own private agenda. Then it’s “under the bus for you.”

    Comment by quasimodo (4af144) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:39 am

  4. I didn’t think freedom fires were stupid set against the French cowardice and treachery what inspired them. They are a loathsome swinish people what for themselves confuse freedom for license and for others find it altogether optional.

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:47 am

  5. Have the French surrendered to the Libyans yet?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:55 am

  6. “Freedom fries’ were against the corrupt Chirac regime, (whose connections to the Iraqi regime, including the critical Total oil concession, the dog
    that didn’t bark. Chirac is on trial from corruptio
    charges now, the like of Pasqua, who were piglets in the oil for food program, looting monies destined for Iraqi orphans. Strauss Khan, having been finance
    minister in that era, probably was on the take, although Socialiste were less so, Chevenement, Mitterand’ defense minister was an exception,

    Comment by ian cormac (2c147f) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:55 am

  7. I’m just saying, that there are reasons, not to write them off interely, notably Sarkozy.

    Comment by ian cormac (2c147f) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:14 am

  8. ian

    you are right, the french are not quite the wimps [we make them out to be, sometimes]. it is cheap and honestly a little unfair to make fun of the french.

    but its hard to resist, too.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:31 am

  9. Whatever defense DSK may have been able to mount, his stupid kneejerk friends have made him into a laughing stock with their silly irrelevancies. It’s not looking good in the court of public opinion.

    DSK could pull a Polanski and run, take it on the lam, live small in Paris. Unless, of course, he’s willing to pony up one heck of a hard cash contribution to Obama’s reelection campaign.

    It’ll cost him big time, but an experienced team is already in place. Hillary certainly sympathizes with his predicament, and acting as Secretary of State and resident administration doormat, she could swallow her pride again and handle another bimbo eruption. Eric Hoffer’s an old hand too, he sure knows how to side-step any official entanglements at the Justice Department and MSM will provide the cover-up free of charge, they always do.

    Besides, there’s really no down-side, everyone’s protected, it’s a no-brainer: Obama has the power to pardon every last one of the co-conspirators if things go sour.

    So, it’s either run or pony up. Those are DSK’s best options. If he risks going before a jury, he’s looking at some serious time in the Graybar Hotel where the staff isn’t nearly as accommodating as his previous hosts.

    Comment by ropelight (5b57b9) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:32 am

  10. “I’m just saying, that there are reasons, not to write them off interely, notably Sarkozy.”

    ian – I agree. The prior cadres of arrogant buttwipe leaders are another matter.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:37 am

  11. “Not if justice for her conflicts with the leadership’s own private agenda. Then it’s “under the bus for you.””

    That would just leave her in the same place as not having a union, but having made union wages. It appears that she at least got the job security that allowed her to tell on this guy.

    Comment by bruuuce (3da71d) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:38 am

  12. Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuce go play with yourself.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:38 am

  13. Brucie, do you need mommy union to wipe your nose, too?

    Comment by quasimodo (4af144) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:45 am

  14. Bruciekins did the big ol meanie anti-communists steal your lollipop?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:02 am

  15. the best thing you can say about Dominiques is he’s not half as rapey as your average UN peacekeeper

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:04 am

  16. Bwuuuuuucie is iamadimwit. Pathetic. Maybe he/she/it will post a link to someone’s house again. Hell, the host was banning him as recently as late last week. Brokeback dimwit, to be sure.

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:05 am

  17. i don’t know if bruuuuuce is anyone else in disguise, but he is being civil, so unless i hear otherwise from patrick, i’ll leave it up…

    but bruce, evidently she did not have great job security give that she thought she would be fired over this.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:09 am

  18. Dominique Strauss Kahn is a socialist lefturd.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:10 am

  19. “Brucie, do you need mommy union to wipe your nose, too?”

    But I might need them to feel safe if I was a refugee hotel worker cleaning up some elite a-hole’s $3000 a night hotel room.

    Comment by Bruuuce (13bfad) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:11 am

  20. “but bruce, evidently she did not have great job security give that she thought she would be fired over this.”

    I read reports that she had concerns when she was found, and before reporting. She may simply not have known what job security she in fact had.

    Comment by Bruuuce (13bfad) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:21 am

  21. Thr unions will save her from rapists by doing what exactly, shrieking like Helen Thomas in heat?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:22 am

  22. I swear Bruuuuuuuuuuuucie is Helen Thomas and Charles Johnson’s love child.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:23 am

  23. In discussing the French, don’t forget the great Ira Einhorn who murdered his girl friend and fled to France which protected him for 17 years. I guess you get a lot of credit for founding “Earth Day” and being a celebrity.

    Comment by Mike K (8f3f19) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:25 am

  24. shrieking like Helen Thomas in heat?

    Oh God ! Please. I was just eating breakfast.

    Comment by Mike K (8f3f19) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:26 am

  25. Dominic Strauss Khan might be part of the right wing faction of the Socialist party but he is still to the left of Francois Mitterand.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:27 am

  26. bruuucey

    okay 1: prove she is in a union.

    2) prove she has job security, preferable as a result of being in the union.

    3) what kind of crappy union doesn’t advertise it has won her job security?

    4) since when do you need a union to protect you from being fired after being raped?

    i have dealt with many non-union companies. they are not the greedy d—s you hallucinate that they are. that is not only because they are filled with human being capable of compassion, but if you want to find a cynical financial motive, it is also because they recognize that if they do this sort of crap, then other workers will leave in protest.

    Really your belief that unions magically make everything better is quite touching in its naivete.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:32 am

  27. doh @22

    ugh bad mental image.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:34 am

  28. Sorry I blame the lack of unions for that.

    Btw I believe Domnique Strauss Khan is a lefty.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:35 am

  29. BHL is a noxious elitist (and a crappy philosopher, as well — see below).

    BHL hoaxed.

    Comment by angeleno (ec0b60) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:37 am

  30. Pathetic.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:38 am

  31. “prove”

    Prove what? The Sofitel is union. The industry wide contract that the The New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council negotiates requires “just cause” for firing someone.

    I’m surprised to see doubt here. Of course not being an at-will employee provides some job security. That’s actually something that people use as a complaint against unions, that they make it hard to let people go. You don’t have trouble believing that, do you?

    “Really your belief that unions magically make everything better is quite touching in its naivete.”

    I said it should help. Not much magic there. If someone is concerned for their job reminding them in a time of trauma that they have a “just cause” clause should help.

    Please try not to change what I wrote. You will find less disagreement with me if you do not change what I write.

    Comment by Bruuuce (411830) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:05 am

  32. Actually you twit we find more disagreement with you.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:07 am

  33. Prove what?

    You took a discussion about a rape and trolled up a discussion about how unions saved this woman from being fired?

    You’d have to prove that she benefited from being in a union. I don’t think it’s common for rape accusers who are believed by most folks, in high profile cases, get fired. You asserted something that is ridiculous, and now say you don’t have to back that up.

    BTW, IMDW, it’s been reported that Brett Kimberlin, partner with Brad Friedman, was crying like a little baby when he was told to stop going on roadtrips and hanging out with an underage girl. He’s still the most likely murderer of the woman who cut him out of that child’s life. Creepy, right?

    Like, what a complete piece of human garbage he and anyone associated with him must be, since he was proven to be bombing people, and those bombings just happened to throw off the investigation into the execution of the old woman he murdered because he’s a crybaby who pursued children.

    Why do I bring that up, imdw?

    Well, at least I can say it’s got more to do with this rape case than your nonsense trolling about unions.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:17 am

  34. “I don’t think it’s common for rape accusers who are believed by most folks, in high profile cases, get fired. ”

    I got no reason to argue over what you “think” or what your basis, if any, for that is. However, both Aaron and I mentioned she was concerned about her job security. Likely we read similar reports in the media. So “common” or not, it’s what we’re dealing with.

    I just added that being union would help, since it would assuage that concern.

    Comment by Bruuce (f22ca9) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:34 am

  35. I got no reason to argue over what you “think” or what your basis, if any, for that is.

    You say that as though you aren’t the one who made a really ridiculous statement of fact that has absolutely no facts backing it up at all.

    I just added that being union would help

    Because you wanted to politicize a rape. That’s really what you were doing. Everyone agrees this is bad, and you want to troll on a partisan basis, so you asserted that unions help, and in a way that asserted a lack of unions would leave the poor rape victim unemployed.

    You are always like this about sexual matters. You used to make jokes about child rape, remember? You’d just assert some conservative had raped and murdered kids and then laugh about how the accusation is funny because conservatives are ‘wrong’.

    You’re a nutcase. Like Brett Kimberlin, pervert crybaby who shot an old lady and used bombs like a coward.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:38 am

  36. /others, if it looks like I’m threadjacking, one of the things I know about IMDW is that he really hates it when people tell the truth about Brett Kimberlin.

    And he always seems to have a major malfunction with sexual abuse issues. He likes to try to score partisan points in a way that tends to make no sense except that he’s trolling.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:42 am

  37. As far as I’m concerned, Joan of Arc had enough bravery to render the entire French nation brave until 2431.

    Comment by Jim S. (30949b) — 5/23/2011 @ 11:54 am

  38. Dustin – nothing wrong with pointing that out. Imdw would rather try to score some petty political point, inartfully, by politicizing a rape, than to habe his history of vile behavior be associated with himself. Hence, the 666th name change.

    AW – it was a statement of fact, not a question ;-)

    Comment by JD (306f5d) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:18 pm

  39. Bruuuce

    > Prove what? The Sofitel is union.

    You do understand the difference between proof and allegation, right. Also just because an establishment might have a union presence doesn’t mean every single worker is protected by the union.

    > I said it should help.

    Yeah, if everything you say is true it reduces her chances of being hired from 0.000000000000000002% to 0.000000000000000001%. seriously, what manager would say, “you were raped? THEN YOU’RE FIRED.”

    That is part of your naivete. I work for a non-union company with all of its workers at will. We would never dream of treating a woman so badly. And while I know of no rapes, I do know of domestic violence situations that ended up following some employees to work and we just beefed us security to keep the worker safe on the premises and moved on with life. That is without a union or any legal right to keep from being fired without cause, we spent additional money to protect our employees from assault by her husband.

    You naïvely believe in the fairy tale that if it weren’t for unions all the companies all kinds of horrors would follow.

    Its also worth noting that unions also reduce racial progress (remember this is an African immigrant, here), and prevent disabled people from getting accommodations. You have job security, if they let you in the club.

    > Likely we read similar reports in the media.

    So, you didn’t read MY REPORT. As in the one I linked to? And yet you talk about the issue?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:28 pm

  40. Hence, the 666th name change.

    Yep. It must be sad to constantly realize one’s name is mud, and you have to try to change personas again.

    The other sad thing is that imdw can’t seem to quit. It’s as though he’s fueled by hate. I’ve tried a few times to have a conversation with him, and he’s not here for that.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:30 pm

  41. seriously, what manager would say, “you were raped? THEN YOU’RE FIRED.”

    It’s like he’s living in an Upton Sinclair myth about capitalism.

    He thinks he’s cleverly shown us the folly of our ways, but all he’s done is told us something about how limited his idea of humanity is. In his head, the only that would stop someone from being a monster is a union? That just tells us about him, and how he thinks about women.

    And really, I buy into the idea that he would be completely callous to a victim of a sexual abuse, just given the way he see such issues as unworthy of serious discussion, opting to make an unrelated partisan troll fest.

    A lot of crazy people project.

    Its also worth noting that unions also reduce racial progress (remember this is an African immigrant, here), and prevent disabled people from getting accommodations. You have job security, if they let you in the club.

    That’s something I don’t have to worry about in my right to work state, but that’s always been my impression, too. The damage unions cause is substantial, so shills have to invent sob stories like imdw/Bruce’s.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:35 pm

  42. “Yeah, if everything you say is true it reduces her chances of being hired from 0.000000000000000002% to 0.000000000000000001%. seriously, what manager would say, “you were raped? THEN YOU’RE FIRED.””

    I don’t know where you’re getting these numbers. Both of us have written that she had concerns about her job security. We agreed on that before. I think the way it helps is it helps to alleviate her concerns and makes it easier for her to press charges, and thus find justice.

    “I work for a non-union company with all of its workers at will. We would never dream of treating a woman so badly.”

    Perhaps the appropriate way to understand this situation is not to generalize from our own experience, but to attempt to picture the situation faced by a low level, consumer facing service employee like a hotel maid. I don’t think we’d have to go far to find tales of bad behavior from consumers. Union just means you’ll have a few more protections from these workplace risks. If your company is good, it means you’ll have even more people on your side, both union and management.

    “You naïvely believe in the fairy tale that if it weren’t for unions all the companies all kinds of horrors would follow.”

    Why do you work so hard to misunderstand and rewrite the very simple things I say?

    Comment by Bruuuce (2ba2d7) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:50 pm

  43. Dustin – Don’t be too hard on imdw. She can double your money on a used car overnight.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:54 pm

  44. Dominique Strauss khan is an odious big government guy.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 12:57 pm

  45. There is one hopeful note in the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s alleged sexual assault of a New York hotel maid. The maid’s story was believed and quickly acted upon. And after an initially defensive reaction to DSK’s arrest, the French now face an opportunity for self-reflection.*

    is anyone else starting to sense that the dirty socialist media is seeing a chance to rerun their Duke narratives with a more agreeable fact set to work with?

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/23/2011 @ 1:01 pm

  46. Brucey

    > I don’t know where you’re getting these numbers.

    Its sarcasm, not literal.

    > Both of us have written that she had concerns about her job security.

    Yeah, unreasonable ones. Seriously.

    > We agreed on that before. I think the way it helps is it helps to alleviate her concerns and makes it easier for her to press charges, and thus find justice.

    According to you, it didn’t because despite the great union, she still (irrationally) feared being fired.

    > Perhaps the appropriate way to understand this situation is not to generalize from our own experience, but to attempt to picture the situation faced by a low level, consumer facing service employee like a hotel maid.

    Who said I wasn’t. I was talking about my whole company. are you being deliberately obtuse here?

    > I don’t think we’d have to go far to find tales of bad behavior from consumers.

    Do you mean customers? Assuming you do, then yes, you are right, AND THAT’S IRRELVANT. The revelant concern is not how customers treat employees, but how their bosses react when it happens.

    I would add that fear of sexual harrassment suit would have a greater impact on this discussion than a stupid union contract.

    > Why do you work so hard to misunderstand and rewrite the very simple things I say?

    You mean you don’t? you don’t believe that but for the union, she would be fired?

    Because you sure as hell have implied that all day.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 1:04 pm

  47. . I think the way it helps is it helps to alleviate her concerns

    ? How did that work? That’s the opposite of reality.

    Oh, I see Aaron responded.

    And now I see imdw has backed off the entire idea that unions protect jobs. Pretty damn hilarious.

    Good thing you don’t know my address, imdw, or you’d be posting it right now, right?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 1:09 pm

  48. You anti-communists want to take over the world

    /Strauss-khan apologists

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 1:11 pm

  49. btw, note the update. dna verified. so they definitely had a sexual encounter. only issue is consent.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 1:16 pm

  50. in prison you don’t get to have tasty healthful apple dip what you make by wisking together a half cup of low fat yogurt with a tablespoon of peabnut bubber, a half teaspoon of ginger paste and maybe an optional dash of cinnamons or nutmegs if you want.

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/23/2011 @ 1:20 pm

  51. “Yeah, unreasonable ones. Seriously.”

    But they’re still concerns. Just as you find it hard to believe “Dear rape victim, you’re fired” it’s also hard to say “Dear rape victim, just be reasonable.” This is a trauma victim we’re talking about, think compassionately.

    “I was talking about my whole company”

    That’s what I was responding to, your experience with your company.

    “I would add that fear of sexual harrassment suit would have a greater impact on this discussion than a stupid union contract.”

    The distinction between “at-will” and “just cause” doesn’t seem stupid to me. Plus maybe it would be better for the employee to have prospective protection from being fired that a contract brings rather than the retrospective litigious sexual harassment solution.

    “You mean you don’t? you don’t believe that but for the union, she would be fired?”

    That’s not what I wrote. I don’t think there’s support for that point. I think that’s why you like arguing against that point. Try to stick more to what I wrote rather than what you wish I wrote.

    Comment by Bruuuuce (e9ef3a) — 5/23/2011 @ 2:18 pm

  52. Hey SPRUUUUUCE. Why does your COMMIE PAL D-RAPE-STRAUSS-HAHN have a 3G per night Hotel room.

    That is so bougeous!!!!

    Comment by gus (36e9a7) — 5/23/2011 @ 2:24 pm

  53. Brucey

    > it’s also hard to say “Dear rape victim, just be reasonable.”

    On the other hand, you think it helpful to say, “don’t worry rape victim, you have a union.” Given that unions are socialist instititutions and Dominique (who is a man) is a socialist, I wouldn’t feel so good about that.

    > That’s what I was responding to, your experience with your company.

    Then you’re an idiot. Because we do in fact have people who work for us who are pretty much maids.

    > The distinction between “at-will” and “just cause” doesn’t seem stupid to me.

    It’s a stupid distinction in this context.

    > Plus maybe it would be better for the employee to have prospective protection from being fired that a contract brings rather than the retrospective litigious sexual harassment solution.

    Oh, God, you’re a moron. What happens if you breach a contract? you sue and recover damages, you know… JUST LIKE IN SEXUAL HARRASSMENT.

    See, you have this warped, fairy tale version of reality.

    By the way, if it wasn’t for unions strangling her company, they might have been able to afford more workers so she wouldn’t be going into those rooms alone. Didja ever think of that?

    > [me] You mean you don’t? you don’t believe that but for the union, she would be fired?

    > [you] That’s not what I wrote.

    Well here’s what you wrote:

    > Turns out she’s in a union, so that should help with getting justice.

    Implying that going forward it is easier for her to get a favorable verdict because she is in a union. And:

    > It appears that she at least got the job security that allowed her to tell on this guy.

    Which implies that you think they would actually threaten her with termination if she told.

    If you don’t realize that these are your implications, then step away from the keyboard.

    Just admit it, you made a stupid comment that took us off the subject, which is this socialist a—hole who may have attempted to rape her (but the more I am hearing about his lifestyle, the more I feel raped as a taxpayer).

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/23/2011 @ 2:31 pm

  54. If you don’t realize that these are your implications, then step away from the keyboard.

    Kman likes to obnoxiously oppose the obvious in bad faith. IMDW likes to make radical assertions that are extremely partisan, and then ignore what he said as long as possible, taking up as much attention as he can.

    He’ll just ignore whatever he needs to.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 2:45 pm

  55. Bruuuuce – how many names have you posted under? Been banned under? Are you ashamed of any of your vile cretinous actions?

    Comment by JD (85b089) — 5/23/2011 @ 2:50 pm

  56. speaking of Khans Mr. Aamir Khan – no relation to our rapey friend – headlined the #1 bollywood film of 2008 called Ghajinihere’s a video for the song Latoo from that film in which Aamir Khan does not appear… it’s sung by Shreya Ghoshal and “picturised on” the estimable young actress Jiah Khan – also no relation to our rapey friend – (she would have been 20 or so when this was filmed) … oh. That’s what they say in Bollywood when the actors aren’t the people that sang the song – that the song is “picturised” on them.

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/23/2011 @ 2:52 pm

  57. Bruuuuce – how many names have you posted under? Been banned under? Are you ashamed of any of your vile cretinous actions?

    Comment by JD

    Sadly, he’s tried to out 2 people’s private information in the context of shilling for someone convicted of bombing people. He wants to chill free expression.

    But he’ll ignore you if you ask him to account for it. Your pointing this out doesn’t even rate a response from this sneering hack. He’s simply decided some of us are unworthy.

    And that conceit shields his fragile ego from accounting for dumb reasoning, too. Just look at how he tries to argue his union point. He can’t keep it straight.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:07 pm

  58. The last time someone in my family was in a union, the union President was forcing office staff to do him a DSK or be fired and when caught, he absconded overseas with most of the local’s pension fund.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:12 pm

  59. But she was asking for it.

    /Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuce

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:14 pm

  60. SPQR, that’s terrible, and sounds like a small scale version of the socialist system DSK wants. Elites picking winners or choosers and getting sex and other fringe benefits. Either on a national scale, or a company or trade scale. No big difference in the reasoning.

    Unions are not freedom, and they sure as hell have nothing to do with civil rights. In today’s world, they are simply about the power.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:30 pm

  61. They call Dominique Strauss Khan a right wing member of the socialist party although people who think like him are lefturds.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:32 pm

  62. doh

    the members of the right wing party in france is generally to the left of Obama.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:38 pm

  63. he best thing you can say about Dominiques is he’s not half as rapey as your average UN peacekeeper

    On the contrary. What proportion of UN peacekeepers are rapists? One in twenty? Ten? Five? Even that would make the average peacekeeper only 20% rapey, while DSK is 100% rapey, which is a whole lot more even in the new maths.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:40 pm

  64. Really?

    So they aren’t really right wing after all?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:44 pm

  65. I read reports that she had concerns when she was found, and before reporting. She may simply not have known what job security she in fact had.

    Are you seriously suggesting that her job was ever in actual danger for reporting an assault by a guest?! Are you suggesting that the thought of firing her ever crossed her manager’s mind, only to be dismissed because she’s in a union?! Why would any hotel manager want to do that? To assure any future guests that the hotel tolerates rapists?! Yeah, because that’ll bring in business. I mean, come on, nobody could be that stupid.

    So I’ll assume you agree that her job was never even slightly in actual danger; the question is entire about her perception of such danger, and that perception’s effect on her likelihood of reporting the assault. But you’ve just conceded that her union membership didn’t affect her perception; so what good did it do at all?

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:47 pm

  66. There’s practically no European conservative party, that is truly center right, Thatcher’s Tories were the exception, but they ‘threw her under the bus’ and they wandered in the wilderness for a dozen years. Cameron is Edward Heath, with a nicer blazer.

    Comment by ian cormac (72470d) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:54 pm

  67. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267886/obama-goes-there-ireland-daniel-foster

    Comment by ian cormac (72470d) — 5/23/2011 @ 3:59 pm

  68. They are traditionalists.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 4:04 pm

  69. Also just because an establishment might have a union presence doesn’t mean every single worker is protected by the union.

    Yes, it does. If the site is unionised, then membership is compulsory. The right to work without joining an organisation one doesn’t like doesn’t exist on the east coast.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 4:07 pm

  70. tasty healthful apple dip what you make by wisking together a half cup of low fat yogurt with a tablespoon of peabnut bubber, a half teaspoon of ginger paste and maybe an optional dash of cinnamons or nutmegs if you want.

    Huh? Where’s the apple in that? Oh, I see.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 4:13 pm

  71. By the way, if it wasn’t for unions strangling her company, they might have been able to afford more workers so she wouldn’t be going into those rooms alone.

    You mean in two-maid “brigades”? Srsly, non-union hotels don’t send cleaners in pairs either, because it really isn’t necessary. Unless $3000/night suites are really big enough to need two cleaners, of course. But since it’s NY, I doubt it.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 4:17 pm

  72. I’m glad you said that Mr. Milhouse cause of I’m in the unfortunate position of having tasty apple dip at my casa but no apples – but I can fix that on the way home now that you remindered me – I’m excited!

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/23/2011 @ 4:22 pm

  73. Re: Khan, Kahn, and telling them apart. Khan is a central Asian name, meaning “prince”, as in Genghis Khan. It’s a popular name in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance. Kahn is a Jewish name, from the Hebrew “kohen”, meaning “priest”.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 4:23 pm

  74. And freedom fries were no more stupid than alsatians, liberty cabbage, and the House of Windsor.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 5:18 pm

  75. “On the other hand, you think it helpful to say, “don’t worry rape victim, you have a union.” Given that unions are socialist instititutions and Dominique (who is a man) is a socialist, I wouldn’t feel so good about that.”

    I was imagining more like “don’t worry, your job is safe.” Seriously? “socialist institutions” ? You’re losing it here.

    “By the way, if it wasn’t for unions strangling her company, they might have been able to afford more workers so she wouldn’t be going into those rooms alone. Didja ever think of that?”

    I like that this follows a “warped sense of reality.”

    “Implying that going forward it is easier for her to get a favorable verdict because she is in a union”

    You again are just writing what you wish I said. Her concern was about pressing charges and losing her job. Job security fixes that. It helps her get justice because pressing charges moves the justice system forward. This is really simple. But it’s hard to argue against, so you have to take all these elaborate steps and argue against something else. Why? Because it lets you identify institutions of worker solidarity that you ideologically oppose with one of the elites in a high position in world finance?

    Comment by Bruuuce (84ca1e) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:04 pm

  76. Gawd, the stupid doesn’t stop, does it? Bruuuuce, let me explain it in simple steps:

    1. There was never the slightest risk that reporting the assault might endanger her job.

    2. Being in a union didn’t change that.

    3. She seems to have thought there was such a risk. Why she did so I don’t know, but perhaps where she came from her job would have been in danger, and she didn’t realise the USA was different.

    4. Being in a union didn’t change that either.

    5. Supposing a hotel were for some inexplicable reason to fire someone for reporting an assault by a guest, she would sue and win.

    6. Being in a union wouldn’t change that either; the union would still have to sue, and it would win.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:14 pm

  77. “1. There was never the slightest risk that reporting the assault might endanger her job.”

    I’m not so sure about that. But the important thing here is… neither was she!

    “5. Supposing a hotel were for some inexplicable reason to fire someone for reporting an assault by a guest, she would sue and win.”

    If she’s at will, they wouldn’t fire “for reporting an assault.” It would be for some other reason, or hell, no reason. But I’m not so naive as to think that every wrong can just be fixed by an employee lawsuit. Sometimes job security is just that, security.

    Comment by Bruuuce (5e6f6f) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:20 pm

  78. “don’t worry, your job is safe”

    This is the clown, imdw, that was lecturing someone about compassion, earlier. Which is ironic, given his love of Kimberlin.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:21 pm

  79. Bwuuuuuuuuuuuucie – how many names have you been banned under?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:22 pm

  80. Well, when you turn over a cow-pie, don’t act surprised by what you find there.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (d20d78) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:28 pm

  81. Bruuuuuuuhahaha

    > Seriously? “socialist institutions” ?

    Yes, they are. are you unaware of this fact?

    > I like that this follows a “warped sense of reality.”

    No, its called reality. Every non-union company has a competitive advantage over union companies. Every union costs jobs and competitiveness. Some companies can overcome it, but not all of them can.

    > You again are just writing what you wish I said.

    No, I wrote out what your direct implications were. If you don’t understand that, then you literally don’t know the meaning of the words you write.

    But to be fair, you do seem to be clueless about basic facts involving reality. To the extent that this IS a defense…

    > Job security fixes that.

    Except it didn’t. you keep missing that fact. Despite the presence of your awesome union, she still believed that being orally assaulted would cost her, her job.

    The fact you CAN’T connect these dots. This was a stupid argument, trying to save the face of socialism from what was a disaster for it.

    > It helps her get justice because pressing charges moves the justice system forward. This is really simple. But it’s hard to argue against…

    Jesus you are an idiot. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRESSING CHARGES. It’s a media myth. The victim doesn’t decide if a case goes forward. It’s a complete media myth.

    > Because it lets you identify institutions of worker solidarity that you ideologically oppose with one of the elites in a high position in world finance?

    You mean the head of the socialist party?

    > If she’s at will, they wouldn’t fire “for reporting an assault.” It would be for some other reason, or hell, no reason.

    In other words, you believe they could make up a pretextual reason… so why couldn’t they make up pretextual cause for termination for cause?

    > But I’m not so naive as to think that every wrong can just be fixed by an employee lawsuit. Sometimes job security is just that, security.

    Then how do you think that union contract is enforced? BY SUING IF HER CONTRACT IS VIOLATED. Duh.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:38 pm

  82. “Being in a union wouldn’t change that either; the union would still have to sue, and it would win.”

    But you do bring up an important point here. There’s quite a difference in resources and incentives between her having to sue and a union suing. I hadn’t even factored that into the contract security. Solidarity does have its benefits.

    “Bwuuuuuuuuuuuucie – how many names have you been banned under?”

    Does everyone that posts from a proxy get assumed to be the same person?

    Comment by Bruuuce (d1acab) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:40 pm

  83. bruce

    > But you do bring up an important point here.

    I have never seen a union provide a free lawyer to a member in the rank and file.

    > Does everyone that posts from a proxy get assumed to be the same person?

    So you are using a proxy, eh? you see the written policy, below, right?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:46 pm

  84. Oh, good God. Here we have a woman, allegedly violated by a white, powerful man. Now we don’t know if any of the allegations are true. We have to wait for a trial by by an impartial jury.

    Yet, the arbiters of all that is good and holy are killing themselves to come up with a simpleton’s excuse that will protect her from a rich-beyond-dreams Socialist?

    Has it ever occurred to the left that we know the game and we understand the consequences? Does it ever occur to them, that despite their echo-chamber that the people they want to rule are not as stupid as they think?

    Nevermind, the answer is self-evident.

    Comment by Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:51 pm

  85. “No, its called reality. Every non-union company has a competitive advantage over union companies. Every union costs jobs and competitiveness. Some companies can overcome it, but not all of them can.”

    So the non-union company’s competitive advantage would be to… send in more than one worker to do the job already being done by one? I see.

    “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRESSING CHARGES. It’s a media myth. The victim doesn’t decide if a case goes forward. It’s a complete media myth.”

    It’s going to be hard to make a case if the police don’t even know there’ a crime, don’t collect evidence, and don’t have a complaining witness. But again, you’re forgetting that I’m just going by what we agree exists here — her concern.

    “In other words, you believe they could make up a pretextual reason… so why couldn’t they make up pretextual cause for termination for cause?”

    Why use other words when the actual words I used said they wouldn’t need a reason at all? Further they’d have to take their pretext through arbitration, whereas an at-will employee would have to wait till their day in court. I believe the burden is also shifted under the just cause standard.

    “Then how do you think that union contract is enforced? BY SUING IF HER CONTRACT IS VIOLATED. Duh.”

    Union solidarity gives them access to other tools besides litigation by a lone individual. Still loving the identification of the financial elite with solidarity though.

    Comment by Bruuuce (6fa251) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:51 pm

  86. ___________________________________________

    the only prudent thing to do is to doubt

    Not when I learned that Strauss-Kahn — who is an old geezer and well past his teenage and college-student years — is an out-and-out socialist. I don’t trust the judgment and normalcy of anyone who is as old as he is and still of the left, if not far left. Even more so since leftist biases appear to be a source of a lot of shamelessness, dysfunction and flaky, wacky non-conformity in many people.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:52 pm

  87. “I have never seen a union provide a free lawyer to a member in the rank and file.”

    Milhouse said the union would sue. But are you telling me a union would not defend its contract? Not even help with the just cause arbitration the contract calls for?

    Comment by Bruuuce (6fa251) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:55 pm

  88. “Bwuuuuuuuuuuuucie – how many names have you been banned under?”

    Does everyone that posts from a proxy get assumed to be the same person?

    How cute, now bwuuuuuuuucie is denying himself, again.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:58 pm

  89. “1. There was never the slightest risk that reporting the assault might endanger her job.”

    I’m not so sure about that.

    I don’t believe you. You are sure of it, and you’re just pretending not to be. Because nobody intelligent enough to use the language as fluently as you do could possibly be unsure of this. What conceivable reason would her manager have to fire her for reporting her assault? Suppose you were her manager, and suppose you had absolute confidence that you could fire her and get away with it; would you? Would it even cross your mind? If so, why?

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 7:58 pm

  90. Strauss Khan alledgedly to maid after he raped her-Do you know who i’am?

    He’s Dominique Strauss Khan ,B*tch

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:05 pm

  91. Bruuuuuuuhahaha

    > So the non-union company’s competitive advantage would be to… send in more than one worker to do the job already being done by one? I see.

    Yeah, two people together. Get the work done faster, and avoid situations like a naked guest trying to orally rape a maid and resulting in lawsuits.

    > It’s going to be hard to make a case

    Don’t bother. You proved idiotic on one of the most basic facts of criminal law.

    > Why use other words when the actual words I used said they wouldn’t need a reason at all?

    That’s not true. You also wrote this.

    > It would be for some other reason, or hell, no reason.

    Some other reason means a pretextual one. Liar.

    > Further they’d have to take their pretext through arbitration.

    Oh, so now you pretend to know that there is an arbitration clause in the contract—and that despite the fact that unions hate them. Prove it.

    And indeed, prove she was in a union. You never bothered to do that.

    > Union solidarity gives them access to other tools besides litigation by a lone individual

    Lol, like what? A strike. For just her? Don’t hold your breath.

    > Still loving the identification of the financial elite with solidarity though.

    As am I. You can deny the connection all you want, but its right there in the name of his party: socialist.

    And yes, prove to me a union ever provided free legal representation to any of the rank and file. Not to the president, or anything like that, but just the rank and file. I never seen it happen.

    You also didn’t answer my question:

    > So you are using a proxy, eh? you see the written policy, below, right?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:10 pm

  92. Milhouse is correct — Strauss Kahn is hardly ‘francaise de souche’ (look it up). He is, in fact, a rootless cosmopolitian Jew.

    And, as someone who served alongside the French, I can tell you their military goes to some sh*tholes (notably Africa) and does a fine job. They protected Chad from Kadaffy, for example.

    Comment by stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:10 pm

  93. doh

    its kahn.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:10 pm

  94. Oh i’am so sorry I hope he doesn’t sue me.

    Ah yes it’s da joooooooooooos right stari?

    Ron Paul and Stormfront says hihi.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:14 pm

  95. In case you don’t believe me, from ‘the Jewish Chronicle’

    “Sacre bleu – according to our team of halachic researchers, Strauss-Kahn is half-Ashkenazi, half-Sephardi, but completely Jewish by birth. He has associated himself with the fight against antisemitism – he was MP for Sarcelles, an area with France’s highest density of Jews, and said: “Antisemitism in our country is growing and it would be wrong not to see it.” His wife, Ann Sinclair, is also Jewish. Strauss-Kahn follows in a tradition of Jewish bosses of international financial institutions becoming embroiled in scandal… No, stop, we’re really not going to go there. Not helpful to the Jews. So we won’t even mention the trouble Paul Wolfowitz had at the World Bank last year.

    http://www.thejc.com/dominique-strauss-kahn/7260/how-jewish-dominique-strauss-kahn

    Comment by stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:15 pm

  96. “Ah yes it’s da joooooooooooos right stari?”

    Why is it okay to ridicule ‘the French’, but not the Jews? Mark Steyn (a righteous Jew, I think) ridiculed him, calling him ‘Horny Toad’ get it, toad, frog?

    Well, he isn’t. He may speak French, put his ancestors weren’t Gauls, or Franks, he was raised in Monaco and Morocco, he is married to a Jewish-American of some cosmopolitan sort.

    Nope, not French.

    Comment by stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:20 pm

  97. “Because nobody intelligent enough to use the language as fluently as you do could possibly be unsure of this.”

    I’ve seen a lot of victim blaming directed at her, and elites protecting this asshat. The risk is that attitudes like that exist within her management. There are terrible things in this world, and sitting here saying ‘you can just sue’ doesn’t really change that. Nor does it address a trauma victim’s fears.

    “Don’t bother. You proved idiotic on one of the most basic facts of criminal law.”

    It is something you quoted and read, right? It’s not hard for you to get that it’s not easy to make out a rape case without a rape victim.

    “Some other reason means a pretextual one. Liar.”

    And ‘no reason’ means no reason. Jeebus you have a hard time with this.

    “Oh, so now you pretend to know that there is an arbitration clause in the contract—and that despite the fact that unions hate them. Prove it.”

    It’s described on the The New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council. But how do you think just cause hearings are held? In a court? Really?

    “Lol, like what? A strike. For just her? Don’t hold your breath.”

    Not for her. For the contract. But besides a strike they also have stewards, grievance procedures, other source of solidarity etc… Think of all the sorts of due process that anti union folks complain about.

    “And yes, prove to me a union ever provided free legal representation to any of the rank and file.”

    You keep saying this ‘prove me’ stuff. It just makes you seem a little pigheaded, incurious and unaware. Are you familiar with the NYC teachers “rubber room”? The union provides lawyers there. Some Google searching should help you find some other examples. But it’s not just lawyers in court that a union will provide. It’s reps in other non-court procedures such as arbitration. Which, you assure me, “unions hate.”

    “As am I. You can deny the connection all you want, but its right there in the name of his party: socialist.”

    I can deny the connection all I want, but it’s right there in the name of what he does: head the international monetary fund. Seriously dude. You know what the IMF austerity programs do to unions?

    “You also didn’t answer my question:”

    I saw it.

    Comment by Bruuuce (196c0c) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:34 pm

  98. Bruuuuuuuhahaha

    First, who are you responding to? Some of these comments aren’t mine.

    > sitting here saying ‘you can just sue’ doesn’t really change that.

    But that is the only solution you have offered, and the false hope of a free union lawyer.

    > It is something you quoted and read, right?

    I can read that a green dragon saved her from the bad, bad man. But it will no more make me believe in that mythological creature than the mythological practice of “pressing charges.”

    > And ‘no reason’ means no reason.

    So what? My point was you admitted it would be easy to fabricate a pretext.

    > It’s described on

    Prove that.

    > You keep saying this ‘prove me’ stuff. It just makes you seem a little pigheaded,

    Yeah, god forbid I ask for evidence of happenings that I have literally never seen in my life.

    > Some Google searching

    Do your own google searching. You claim to know it.

    > but it’s right there in the name of what he does: head the international monetary fund

    And stalin was a socialist and head of the Russian government. That’s just the point. Socialists pretend they are creating a worker’s egalitarian utopia. But there are always people on top. The question is how are they chosen? By ruthlessness, in the case of stalin, or by connections?

    > I saw it.

    Then answer it. last chance, bucko.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:47 pm

  99. I’ve seen a lot of victim blaming directed at her,

    Really? I’ve seen none. I’ve seen some skepticism of her story, but no victim-blaming at all.

    The risk is that attitudes like that exist within her management.

    You’re still not making sense. Why would her manager want to fire her?

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:51 pm

  100. milhouse

    you have to understand in bruhahaha’s mind, a dickenson movie is a documentary… of what is happening right now.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 8:57 pm

  101. “You know what the IMF austerity programs do to unions?”

    Bruuuce – Please provide us with some specific real world examples since you brought the subject up.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:08 pm

  102. imdw – Does the IMF require unions to accept fire at will clauses for rape accusers?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:13 pm

  103. “But that is the only solution you have offered, and the false hope of a free union lawyer.”

    Do you understand how the just cause protection in a contract would work? Like grievance procedures, etc…? Do you think they’re followed at all?

    “So what? My point was you admitted it would be easy to fabricate a pretext.”

    And that they wouldn’t even need one, supposing it turned out to not be easy.

    “Do your own google searching. You claim to know it.”

    It’s not that hard to acquire a basic familiarity with this stuff.

    “Socialists pretend they are creating a worker’s
    egalitarian utopia”

    What’s enjoyable here is that you demand “prove it” to some rather basic things, but then, when the world’s financial elite simply sit behind a label of “socialist” you credulously accept that this would have a connection to the solidarity and other procedures that exist to protect a worker from on the job risks and the predations of, well, financial elites.

    “Then answer it. last chance, bucko.”

    You asked “you see the written policy, below, right?” And that’s my answer: “I saw it.”

    Comment by Bruuuce (954132) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:16 pm

  104. Unions help her? Not if she admits to supporting Scott Walker than it’s go f*ck yourself.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:18 pm

  105. Meghan Mcain is a democrat not a republican.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:21 pm

  106. Milhouse–I know South Carolina is a right to work state, and I’m fairly certain so Florida is as well.

    Comment by kishnevi (d6767c) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:23 pm

  107. What happens if Dominique Strauss Khan strips naked?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:24 pm

  108. he will try to rape something with his europenis?

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/23/2011 @ 9:35 pm

  109. Brucey

    you need to learn an important lesson in life. don’t irritate an admin. You have been lying and using a proxy. more than enough reason to get rid of you.

    cya.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:11 pm

  110. Socialists like Dominique need to be punched in the nuts.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/23/2011 @ 10:32 pm

  111. stari: Mark Steyn has repeatedly said he is not Jewish, even though people think he is because of his name. Obviously you don’t read what he has written. Do you even bother to search information before you open your yap?

    I still think the maid should have taken a big bite and at least sent him to the hospital if not cause worse damage. Perhaps then he wouldn’t have been so quick to engage in his favorite pastime activity.

    Comment by PatAZ (96c670) — 5/24/2011 @ 8:58 am

  112. The New York Post this morning reports that DSK’s supporters are trying to buy the maid’s silence through her relatives in Guinea. Totally the action of an innocent man.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/24/2011 @ 9:23 am

  113. Milhouse–I know South Carolina is a right to work state, and I’m fairly certain so Florida is as well.

    Yes, geographically the “east coast” extends down to Florida. But I meant it in the sense that stops a bit south of Washington.

    Comment by Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/24/2011 @ 12:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3890 secs.