The New Yorker leading the Gay vs Straight witch hunt

What would happen if a white cop only seemed to bust blacks?

Something.

What happens when a homosexual makes a career out of going after straight white guys?

Applause, applause.

Lastly, riddle me this. What would the child of Truman Capote and Lee Harvey Oswald look like?

I mention the child of two MEN, because "there's nothing wrong with that." Doctors trying to find a cure for cancer should drop that shit, and concentrate on finding a way for homosexuals to give birth.

Also, we don't really know who Ronan Farrow's Daddy is. If you remember, this guy who is now the hero of investigative reporting, played it coy. When crazy Mama Mia smirked and said he was the son of Frank Sinatra, Ronan (re-named, to further distance himself from Woody Allen) did not confirm or deny. His pouting puffy pink lips formed a coy bow.

You might think that Ronan got his writing talent from his real father, Woody Allen, but this is a guy who has only quietly hinted he's a "member of" the gay community. He may never really come out and identify as "son of Woody." We also don't know if he actually writes his own stuff, or if he's just a strawberry blond figurehead and has The New Yorker supply him with a staff of researches and re-writers.

It's more than ironic that The New Yorker, which so desperately needed another Thurber, and was so delighted to have Woody Allen's comic pieces in the magazine, now has Ronan Farrow working for them. Do they even acknowledge Woody wrote for them, or, like the Carlyle Hotel, have they written him out of their history on the basis of one charge that never went to court? Do you need to have taken Psych 101 to get the idea that every heterosexual male Ronan Farrow goes after, has Woody Allen's face superimposed in his mind?

Ronan's latest target is Les Moonves, going back several decades, to when Les allegedly was boorish with a few women. He didn't force himself on them, didn't drug them, but he may have been caught up in being the POWERFUL MOGUL. A surprise? The phrase is "POWER CORRUPTS." It's not often that you hear about the "nice guy" who runs the gigantic corporation.

Here in New York, the other headline of the day was Sheldon Silver being sent off for seven years because of...well, yes, abusing his power to make a lotta money for himself. That he had not been alleged to have been sexually abusive is just too darn bad, because political scandal isn't nearly as much fun as sex scandal.

Ronan Farrow's narrow vision is not political. The New Yorker could care less too. The New Yorker, struggling with its identity, has seen competition from New York magazine and Time Out (a gay oriented New York magazine). With the old rich money types no longer sashaying to the opera, the ballet, or in support of real theatre (who IS the next Edward Albee or Arthur Miller), and most of them DEAD, The New Yorker's subscription list has shrunk. So...let's be more like the tabloids. More like "Entertainment Weekly" (which has a flamboyantly out gay editor) and let's...make a name for ourselves by witch hunting famous heterosexuals.

And if we can't catch them doing crap NOW, in the age of #metoo (like Weinstein) let's go after them for what they did YEARS ago.

This is like the Amsterdam News trying to get somebody fired for using the word "Negro" -- in 1968. "Hey, never mind WHEN...you SAID IT." "But everybody did. It was not a perjorative word." "You a racist! And look at how many copies of our newspaper we sold today for calling you one!"

And so The New Yorker hoped that the hoopla about Les Moonves would push sales of the new issue...or else...they'd have to put a pregnant Cardi B on the cover, like the failing Rolling Stone did?

The New Yorker will need to do more than kick straight white men in the balls. A big problem in the publishing world is that everything is stolen, plagiarized, or simply "re-written." Why buy a magazine on a newsstand when DECIDER and NEWSER and HUFFITY PUFFITY and all the others give you all the details FREE on the Internet?

Go to any newspaper's website and, even with AD BLOCKER TURNED ON, you get all you need.

The New Yorker might not get much of a "BOUNCE" from this, and they already have the full page ads selling male perfume. Ronan Farrow, however, has raised his profile, and may get another shot at a cable TV show. The first one flopped, but he IS such a cutie pie. Too bad HE didn't have his picture in this typical squib (from Yahoo News) but he did get his name mentioned very prominently. Not the New Yorker. RONAN FARROW:

What Moonves allegedly did is no more odious than things Anna Wintour did. Right? Do we know? No, we don't, because the people who go after Les Moonves would never go after Anna Wintour. "She's on our side." That she still thinks fur is fashion, is just the mildest of her tyrannical ways, but as long as she's in favor of killing animals and might not make sexual demands of someone wanting to write for her, she's ok. Oh, it's OPEN at VOGUE, don't you know? You don't have to know somebody, sleep with somebody, or offer perks to somebody to get a story published in there, or get a photography assignment. A straight white male is more than welcome at VOGUE (or "Entertainment Weekly.")

Is anyone looking into the favoritism and crap Meg Whitman pulled at Ebay? Would anyone buy a magazine to read that she demanded oral sex or some man or woman, or had somebody wipe her poodle's ass or some secretary blow on her morning coffee for her? Nah. Do we want to take a close look at what powerful Black leaders or Gay leaders or women in power have done with their influence and their ego? Not too often.

Besides, it would be "human nature" and justified if somebody Black, gay or female took it out on helpless people trying to get ahead. Humiliation and abuse is as old as fraternities and Marie Antoinette and Evita Person and Countess Bathory.

If Anna Wintour was extravagantly abusive, well, that's her style. People admire "The Devil Wears Prada" and only WISH they were in a position where they could be a dictator and throw tantrums. It's a big snicker if a Martha Stewart or Anna Wintour is obnoxious. If it's a white guy and involves a kiss...hell no. If Wintour's STILL being abusive, so what. The latter part is what's doubly wrong. It's one thing to go after Matt Lauer or somebody who, despite #metoo, is making the workplace obnoxious. It's another to "dig up the dirt" on someone who MAY have learned that "in this day and age, you do NOT abuse your power...not sexually, politically or financially."

Les Moonves, who certainly did NOT get along with David Letterman, might be as much of a prick as George Steinbrenner or any other well-known boss. Is it ok, as long as it's not sexual? As long as it's the boss from hell who merely yells a lot, treats everyone like servants, and keeps everyone walking on egg shells and taking tranquilizers?

Mel Brooks had a comic catch-phrase in one of his movies: "It's GOOD to be the king." For way too many people, the idea of being KING or being PRESIDENT or being THE BOSS, is to have the power of Hitler and De Sade combined. We can go back to the true movie moguls who could even cover up murder.

What is important NOW, is to keep an eye on what bosses are doing NOW. Male or female. Straight or gay. What is important, and what we look to in larger issues than the President of CBS, is the President of the United States, and the rulers of Russia, China, and every other nation. We want to do something about the way POWER CORRUPTS. We want to do something about arrogance.

We want to also take a closer look at the continuing problem of religious leaders being abusive because they know they can. A much, much less covered news item of the day was about THIS guy:

No, he's not the head of CBS who has given the world diversity in programming, he's just another very prominent religious leader...the kind who gets "reassigned" when there's an allegation.

A mogul like Weinstein might head to prison. That's rarely the case with a religious leader. Most of 'em even get to "keep the red hat" and must be addressed with solemn reverence. No mention of prison for this guy.

This guy didn't get the cover of the NY Post. He isn't as amusing as a network exec making a move on some D-lister.

We also want to keep an eye on the motives of people who supposedly are doing things for heroic reasons, but who pick and choose their targets with an assassins's precision, like Julian Assange or Ronan Farrow.