If, in fact, what the LAT has reported is true - and given that AS has never filed any sort of libel action regarding the stories, one has to infer he accepts the reporting as valid - yes, I think "apologist" is an entirely apt word for a columnist to use in reference to AS' defenders.

Do you really think there is any significant amount of doubt that AS comitted - if they had been filed on at the time - multiple counts of at least misdemeanor sexual battery over the course of his career in Hollywood?

What was the final count, 16 women? 17? who alleged they had been man-handled, groped, etc? None of which have ever been sued by AS for slander, if I understand correctly...

Or in a civil universe, that there is little doubt he could have been sued, repeatedly, for sexual harassment with multiple causes of action?

And, given what appears to be a pretty easily demonstrated pattern of behavior, I don't know that it would have been real difficult getting a verdict finding in favor of the putative plaintiffs...

If what has been alleged regarding AS had been alleged against an executive or manager in ANY other industry but Hollywood (imagine a cop or miltary officer at the center of the same situation, for example) he would have been destroyed.

Even AS admitted "where's there's smoke there's fire" if I recall correctly.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

The point, Brad, is not anything to do with the guilt or innocence of AS. The point is that a columnist at The Times is presumptuous enough to presume to dismiss all ten thousand people who cancelled their subscriptions as "Schwarzenegger apologists." Not hardly, I would bet. Many I'm sure were simply apologists for responsible journalism.

I have no quarrel with Lopez's use of "apologist." Seems to fit the facts pretty well.

But the reference to our thespian gov and the ex-Times readers among his fans was just a throwaway line in what turned out to be a very funny column. I read the whole thing and had to laugh out loud -- but gently, of course, because I like Santa Paula and think it's a very pretty place.

And, OK, I'll admit a touch of amusement at the thought of my good friends in the Times' Ventura office enduring a demonstration on the sidewalks outside. Have been through a few of those myself.

If what has been alleged regarding AS had been alleged against an executive or manager in ANY other industry but Hollywood (imagine a cop or miltary officer at the center of the same situation, for example) he would have been destroyed.

Or impeached -- not that anyone noticed.

Stephanie
("Hitchens Democrat apologist for responsible journalism")

Joseph, how is reporting what apparently even you are unable to dismiss not "responsible journalism"??? Please explain...

Stephanie, I'm glad someone on the other side of the X/Y chromosome divide weighed in; I've never understood the women who have A) defended AS, or B) criticized the LAT, in all this. I've had to deal with the aftermath of sexual harassment and worse for women I know; I'm not sure why any woman would see AS's behaviour as forgivable.

Tim, I'm ROTFLMAO ... I bet you are amused. Hey, interested in coffee next week? I'm probably going to be in downtown.

It's been a while, Brad, since I fit neatly into any political categories or had predictable "left liberal to libertarian feminist (Paglia or otherwise)" opinions about anything.

The Clintons' approval of calling Paula Jones "trailer trash" and NOW's refusal to support her (or Juanita Broaddrick) in an obviously legitimate lawsuit (that should have destroyed him) changed a lot of things for me. Mercifully.

So, as far as I'm concerned, all my once fellow diehard liberal Democrats who had no problem with Clinton's abusive history with women should have no problem with Schwarzenegger's history. At least he's not calling his accusers class-related names, huh? I happen to find his entertainment/body building industry behavior far more understandable and less offensive than the "vast right wing conspiracy" of the co-dependent slimy Clintons.

I was disgusted with the timing of the LAT's "reporting." It tainted my reading of the paper -- and continues to inform my reading of it daily. As above, I am not anyone's apologist -- authentic integrity (and the ability to face the music, own mistakes and make amends as humanly possible) matters pretty much above all else to me.

So: I'll take bipartisan Schwarzenegger's "deep apologies" over slippery Clinton's "trailer trash" any day.

What I still can't figure out about LA Observed is the predominance of so many right wing Ann Coulter impersonators from my side of the chromosome. :-)

Stephanie

I know someone who cancelled because on the day the hit piece was reported on Page One, deaths of soldiers in Iraq were on the back pages.

That's an "apologist" for Arnold?

I, for one, can't dismiss the allegations of the Arnold hit piece. I think they were on the money. I didn't vote for the jerk. But I was disgusted with the timing of the story, and the failure to report similarly sourced stories abot Gray Davis. I am not going to get into another long debate about why -- if you really care, it's documented at my web site, extensively.

All I'm saying is that you don't have to be a Schwarzenegger apologist to have been appalled at the way the Times handled that whole affair.

All I'm saying is that you don't have to be a Schwarzenegger apologist to have been appalled at the way the Times handled that whole affair.

Brad, that's really all I'm saying, too. This blind hubris from the LAT about 10,000 apologists for Schwarzenegger really takes the cake (and, sadly or laughably, is true to the paper's often adolescent and narcissistic character). (But I am so sorry all around that you've had to deal with "the aftermath of sexual harassment and worse" with women friends, and hope things are getting better all around.)

Stephanie

I think we're on a couple different wavelengths...

Clinton's offenses were, as far as I was able to follow them after $70 million, Starr, the impeachment, etc, pretty exhaustively explored in several legal arenas, true?

AS's - even after the Times did the work - never have been, true?

And again, I'm not certain how two wrongs make a right, or that one man's transgressions excuse another man' misbehaviors...I don't get that at all.

But as far as the Times' work goes, I don't understand where the "timing" issue makes any difference ... as a voter and a Californian (and a husband and father of daughters), I certainly was glad to know AS' history before the election, rather than after ... aren't you?

And as far as women who have dealt with sexual harassment or worse, I've seen the aftermath of such situations as a friend, a colleague, a manager, and a reporter: that experience is a big part of why I can not forgive anyone for taking advantage of position to abuse someone else.

experience is a big part of why I can not forgive anyone for taking advantage of position to abuse someone else.

You're preaching to a beyond weary member of that (child advocate) choir. Sometimes the ends ethically justify the means, sometimes they don't. I hear your desperation about Schwarzenegger's (and the Schwarzeneggers', meaning his wife is deluded?) history. I'll inform myself as best I can about all allegations and reexamine my thoughts.

Stephanie

Fair enough, Stephanie.

Take care

Brad,

Are you pretending that my problem with the timing is that it was before the election?

Can you say "straw man"?

The problem was that it took so long. They should have run with what they had several days before. They did follow-up anyway. Focus on fewer incidents, impose upon yourself an earlier deadline, and you look a lot more credible.

I love this.
Brad: "given that AS has never filed any sort of libel action regarding the stories, one has to infer he accepts the reporting as valid"

Yeah Brad, that's the standard you should use. Because we all know how often politicians sue newspapers when they disagree with their reporting. So every description (both positive and negative), every statement, every charge made against all politicians must be true since no libel action was taken against anyone. So Bush IS Hitler, Clinton IS a rapist and you are SOOO smart. You infer guilt. I'll infer we have a First Amendment

Schwarzenegger has repeatedly apologized for past "wrong" bawdy behavior (with positively glowing wife and children beside him), Clinton authorized the covert or overt trashing of any woman who came forward about him (with a positively hapless daughter placed between him and his positively seething paranoid wife), Michael Jackson pays $20 million settlements, dances on SUVs and hires Uri Geller and Muslim goons, Bush admits to past problems with addiction while Hitler is understood as irrelevant hyperbole. Which of these things are not like the others -- using the first amendment as intended, to make sure every citizen is heard and no citizen is wronged?

Okay, so AS is to be forgiven? All's fair if you're a Hollywood millionaire, Pat and Mike?

I'm just trying to figure out what the CW is here...

It does remind me why I want to keep my daughters out of the industry, however.

Carry on