I can't even list the restaurants we've been to, they've all been amazing. I do know we hit up Degas Cafe because it was covered in his art. I've had Muffeletas (or however it's spelled), Po Boys, chicken wings, shrimp, red beans and rice that **** killed, binegets (or however u spell it) and butter milk drops, some great gumbo both seafood and chicken/andouille.

I wanted to hit up Manning's in the Ceasar's Casino but my boy has an addiction problem which includes gambling and I can't in good conscience send him home to his wife with $0.

Beignets !! Ive never had them but boy they sound right up my alley

So glad you’re making the most out of the food down there. Sounds amazing. That’s nice of you to not tempt your boy with the casino.


—-

Absolutely loving s4 of True Detective. The Xmas Eve episode is as good as any episode Of Chernobyl. Really top shelf television.

And I'm back in L.A.

so there's a meme thing going on "Electoral Map If Kamala Harris"

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ele ... 23708.html

The electoral map if Kamala Harris banned LED headlights or if kamala abolishes “your item just shipped” notifications when it’s just “label created”, The electoral college if Kamala Harris pledges to ban the word "unalive" The electoral map if Kamala brings back original movies that don’t rely on IP. and my favorite: "Trump says he would offer Elon Musk a cabinet spot"

How is the general ambient, Kamala winning after the shooting would be an amazing turn of events.

Kamala has reenergized the race for sure, and it seems like Trump is already laying the ground work for calling it a sham election if he loses.

So the evolution of this Hawk Tuah girl has been interesting. So as a reminder, it’s this young early-20s white trash girl who gets on camera briefly and makes a funny joke about how you gotta spit on a hot, dry c0ck to keep things going.

So it goes viral and such.

But now she’s making the rounds on talk shows and this is the first thing that surprises me. The land of the free is very open and comfortable about every subject (violence, religion, politics, etc) except for sex. Janet Jackson’s nipple comes out and everyone freaks out, people get worried about their kids being scarred for life and network gets major fines.

But here’s a young girl talking about spitting on dry d’cks and she’s making the rounds. There’s nothing slutty about this girl either. She’s super simple and cute and not really wanting celebritism or anything.

Now the second thing that is really surprising me is the w0ke backlash at many MALE hosts that interview her. Bill Maher being the latest. So obviously when a young cute women and a man start talking about blowjobs, things are gonna get a little flirty or awkward. One of the other. Has to be. These aren’t doctors.

So the guy hosts are getting compared to Harvey Winestein cuz they’re sort of flirting with this young woman who’s only claim to fame is her little trick to keeping c’cks moist. So yeah, that’s not going to be a regular conversation


But everything that I’ve heard about this girl is really sweet and endearing. She’s as far as you can get from Cash Me Outside. This chick is flaunting sexuality when she was a MINOR and is now showing her labia on OnlyFans for millions of dollars. Millions.

Such a crazy world.

I know so much more about that girl than I want to (meaning more than zero). But I cannot imagine why you would be surprised by any of this, BB. She's going to end up super famous. She went viral, it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years she's Kardashian level - meaning a billionaire for being a viral personality as a result of something related to sex. I'm not at all saying that that will happen, but I wouldn't be surprised at all.

As for the backlash against male interviewers, seriously, and I mean this: who cares? It's all just social media nonsense.

Come to think of it, I don't even know why Weinstein got in trouble either. He is absolutely not the only person in Hollywood who traded sex for success. And Hollywood is also not the only place that happens. Did he commit crimes? maybe. But to be fair to him, it's hard to believe anyone going to his hotel room for an interview didn't actually know exactly what was going to happen. Honestly, it's borderline impossible for me to believe they didn't know. I was hearing rumors about this kind of thing, going on with new actresses all the way back to 1996. I'm not even kidding, this was a known thing for people who didn't even work in the industry, who simply lived in LA and had some connections.

I know girls in the FAST FOOD INDUSTRY that had that happen to them in the managers office. Luckily my ex just laughed and left

At a WENDY’s!!! So if it’s happening in crappy Wendy’s, I imagine no industry is untouched.

I was making your Winestein argument for years and getting in huge trouble. I found it nuts that people would willingly go to a hotel room and not be at all defensive and ready for what happened. I get told by people in the biz, that these types of discussions and meetings very often happen in hotel rooms. Which I think is nuts cuz these people have offices. So put an end to hotel room meetings and it sounds like lots of this goes away

Fox News chief and lead anchor both used their work offices for this tho lol


Anyway you’re totally right. It shouldn’t matter that people are mad at male hosts, it’s just social media noise and I should ignore it and not let it effect me

Bill Maher had a hilariously stupid take in his interview. He asked her why is she even famous in the first place? lol, Bill you’re the one that booked her on your show. She’s famous because of you. You’re the problem


—-

Btw in case it’s not clear, I WANT this girl to be successful. She grew up super poor, she seems super sweet and reminds me lots of early innings Jennifer Lawrence. She also doesn’t want to be a celebrity which I think is a good litmus test.

on the political side of nonsense some dems are wanting a hardline republican to call for an impeachment vote.

I don’t know anything about this… what’s the reason?

well the Oversight Committee report that came out last week accused Biden of "impeachable conduct" related to his family's business dealings but fell short of providing evidence of specific criminal wrongdoing which was then followed by some Republicans calling for a vote. "If Republicans succeed in impeaching Biden in the House," Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said, "Senate Democrats should hold a trial to "call their bluff. ... We should make them own it, every day on TV."

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/28/house- ... mpeachment

It's like i said nonsense.

Not sure what's more disgusting, that you have 2 spaces instead of 1 before each sentence, or that you are downplaying sexual assault and that you are doing victim-perpetrator role reversal.

I hate writing on the internet sometimes, because it is very hard to have a nuanced discussion about these things. But let me just say, first and foremost I am not claiming Weinstein is a victim at all.

I am saying that in the vast majority of the situations there may have been no victim. That is not at all the same thing, and perhaps warrants a much larger discussion.

Or let me put it a different way, because we may have a very different disagreement: Is prostitution, when both parties are freely, knowingly making the decisions, and both parties are adults, a victimless transaction?

It is my guess that often, with Weinstein, people knew exactly what they were doing, and what they were doing was getting paid for sex with fame and fortune.

And my weak-as-**** evidence for this, is that I was told everyone knew about this kind of thing in the 90s and that it was fairly ubiquitous, even with the men, btw... because that too was part of what I was told. Moreover, the way I was told about these things, was not "and this is bad" but rather that this is how people get the edge of other people to get the job they are all seeking.

Yes, all of this comes across as terrible, but don't shoot the messenger. Because I'm not saying ANY of this is okay.

____________________________________________________

The kind of thing that troubles me: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672

Second bullet:

"8 October 2017
It is announced that Harvey Weinstein has been sacked by the board of his company, with immediate effect. They say the decision was made "in light of new information about misconduct"."

"New information" is absolute weapons-grade ****. By this point, he had been doing that **** for 20+ years, and there is 0 chance that I was aware of this kind of behavior in 1996, and his board found out about it in 2017. 0 chance whatsoever. They would have had to be blind, and deaf on purpose to avoid knowing about something like that, when everyone else knew it was going on - the fact they didn't investigate him is very telling. This is not equivalent to sexual gatekeeping at a specific company, this was, from what I understand, gatekeeping for an entire industry.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

____________________________________________________

So maybe the real point that I SHOULD be making is: if what Weinstein did rises to the level of termination, destruction of his reputation, etc... why on earth is he the only one? I suppose there's the corner case that it was unique to him, and ALL of the rumors were based off of his actions, but I find that very hard to believe - I was told ubiquitous, not sometimes... meaning 'everyone in Hollywood **** their way to fame, and this is known to everyone in Hollywood.' And I find it impossible to believe that his board didn't know. Which brings up another question: why weren't his handlers accused of being accomplices? If any of this was criminal, which according to the courts it was, then why wasn't all of it criminal?

I still have no idea if I'm communicating the point clearly enough with all of the above (and preferably without coming across as an apologist ****).

It's called a sacrificial lamb

I just wonder why, specifically, him.

For example:

1) was he the worst offender?
1.5) was he the only offender? (it's not impossible, btw, just highly improbable)
2) the least important person?
3) did he piss someone more important off?
4) etc...

I mean come on...

Nobody high up at other production companies?
Nobody responsible for hiring fashion models?
Nobody responsible for hiring on air talent - like news personalities?
Nobody responsible for finding and recruiting future pop stars?

The whole thing beggars belief to me.

What happened to Roger Aisles (sp?). Those are the two highest profile ones I think. Obviously there are many others and I imagine many are much worse (there’s gotta be some rape cases).

It's hard to imagine anything worse than Weinstein -> he had 87 accusers, ffs (and I would be very surprised if that were a complete, or even close to complete, list of his victims).

Ailes died from a fall and hitting his head at 77, one year after being fired, and before (I think???) any charges were brought against him.

Note: there's a key difference between those two men. Ailes might have the ability to force one of his employees to have sex with him in exchange for keeping their job, or advancements or whatever, but he wasn't the guy deciding who gets to have that career in the first place. Those women had already walked through that door, so to speak.

Weinstein was a gatekeeper, Ailes is a very different (and much more common) kind of goon.

Its not a competition... Jeez.

You are completely missing the point with that statement.