Sexual

Let’s pretend for a moment you’re a Republican running for governor in the blue, blue state of California.

Your prospect of winning is small. So small, you could peer through a microscope, blink and miss it. How, then do you draw voters to your candidacy and boost your chances?

Actually, let’s not pretend. A very real flesh-and-blood Republican, Steve Hilton, is running for California governor and if your idea for grabbing attention doesn’t involve a make-believe lesbian couple, double entendre and a soft-core porn vibe, you’re very clearly lacking in imagination.

Hilton ran an ad featuring just such elements, garnering coast-to-coast notice, millions of views and ensuring the tagline — “Now lick it” — while not as resonant as, say, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” will forever live in political infamy.

What the spot tries to do, convince folks in this left-leaning redoubt to be venturesome and vote for Hilton, is not the least offensive, though your friendly political columnist, hardly a prude, found the execution a bit, well, icky.

Being a cis white male of a certain age, however, means perhaps we shouldn’t be the one to judge. We’re certainly not the target audience. So we turned to two of the youngish, hippest people we know, Daughters No. 1 & 2, who are both well-accomplished 30-somethings and truly upstanding citizens.

What follows is their spontaneous reaction.

Daughter No. 1: “Stupid, infantilizing.”

Daughter No. 2: “Wtf is this fake woke AI ad? Ew.”

(For the record, Hilton said the ad was not AI generated. He apologized, sort of, to those who took offense.)

We also asked the Fabulous Mrs Z. — who has impeccable judgment, notwithstanding all the years she’s stayed married to your friendly political columnist — for her response. “It’s just so strange and stupid,” she said. “Why would he approve this ad? It makes me question his judgment.”

What do the pros say?

Of course, that’s just four people — one of whom doesn’t even live in California — so it’s not much of a sample.

For more insight, we turned to some political professionals.

And who better to weigh in than Fred Davis, the madcap genius behind another infamous California campaign spot, the so-called Demon Sheep ad he concocted for Carly Fiorina’s 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. The Felliniesque production included lightning bolts, a Roman column and a man covered in sheepskin crawling on all fours and leering with a glowing red eye — the point being that Fiorina’s rival, Tom Campbell, was supposedly a profligate wolf in fiscal-conservative sheep clothing.

Strange, yes, but definitely more memorable than an accountant in green eyeshade laboring over the books.

Anyway, Davis — who’s featured Paris Hilton, bad hair and a giant rat in a crown as part of his out-there oeuvre — loved the new Hilton campaign spot, calling it “super attention-getting, super interesting.” (Which is not the least surprising from a man whose chosen epitaph is, “If you don’t notice it, why bother?”)

“I think it’s a brilliantly done ad,” Davis said, “wonderfully written.” And, he added, “I can’t imagine it gaining him one vote.”

Which was sort of the point, no?

Kevin Spillane also appreciates Hilton’s effort, given his own Sisyphean struggles as a Republican strategist in California.

A screen grab from Steve Hilton’s “Just Try It” ad. Columnist Mark Z. Barabak found execution of the spot a bit, well, icky.

(Steve Hilton for Governor)

“They’re doing something out there and on the edge. I don’t fault them for that,” said Spillane, who supports Hilton and has contributed to his campaign. “It’s a clever concept of trying to get people to do something that they’re not used to doing.”

Which is to say vote for a Republican for statewide office in California.

But Spillane, too, questioned the execution. “I actually was fine with the ad until they got to the ‘lick it’ line,” he said, insisting he is also no prude. “That’s just a little too explicitly sexual.”

Running, not advancing

To his credit, Hilton has been running hard for governor. Much harder than his Democratic rival and the prohibitive front-runner, Xavier Becerra. Hilton has issued an abundance of policy proposals and spoken before pretty much any group or microphone-wielding reporter or podcaster who’ll have him.

None of which has garnered Hilton anywhere near the publicity captured by his racy “Just Try It, California” ad.

Even before the spot aired, Hilton broke new ground during last week’s gubernatorial debate when he noted a former member of the Biden administration had referred to Becerra as a “bitch-ass” — apparently the first time that compound adjective had been used in such a high-falutin’ setting. Hilton shortly followed with a website, “Bitch-Ass” Becerra,” that outlines the alleged failures of the Democrat as President Biden’s Health secretary and during his time as California’s attorney general.

(For the record, Susan Rice, who used the epithet and was accused of creating an “abusive and dehumanizing workplace” as head of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, responded by stating her support for Becerra’s gubernatorial candidacy.)

It’s hard to see Hilton’s name-calling winning him a great many votes, any more than his risque campaign commercial, but maybe that’s beside the point. Maybe, as my columnizing colleague Gustavo Arellano suggested in his debate review, Hilton is merely auditioning for a return to his old commentator position on Fox News.

Hilton’s edgy attitude and pugnacious put-downs would place him right at home among the network’s collection of trolls, provocateurs and Democrat-bashing gargoyles.

But Hilton should leave the advertising to someone else.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Meet the Fox News correspondent leading the fight for press freedom at the White House
The deep dive: Trump calls it a war, then a ‘military conflict.’ Why the Iran fighting keeps changing names
The L.A. Times Special: What’s going to happen in the midterm election? Find out here. (Maybe)

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Student groups call for the abolition of Greek life and punitive action in wake of fraternity assault allegations.

Protesters in the United States have shattered a glass door at Cornell University’s main administrative headquarters and spray-painted messages on the building’s walls as backlash continues following allegations about a 2024 gang rape at a local fraternity.

In the early hours of Monday, the glass panes on an entrance door for the building, Day Hall, were smashed, leaving shards strewn across the floor.

Activists, outraged at the school’s handling of the case, also graffitied nearby walls with slogans like “At Cornell rapists are protected protesters are expelled” and “Smash the patriarchy”.

The predawn incident came ahead of a rally demanding “justice for survivors” by student groups on Monday.

Cornell spokesperson Kyle Kimball said Monday that the university was investigating the vandalism.

“We understand the frustration and strong emotions being expressed across our community,” Kimball said. “Those concerns deserve to be heard, but damaging property is not the answer.”

Cornell, a prominent Ivy League university in the state of New York, has been at the centre of a national firestorm over sexual violence on US campuses, after an anonymous student, Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit last month alleging a gang rape at the fraternity Chi Phi.

Her complaint accuses seven former students of perpetrating “heinous criminal sexual acts” against her during a fraternity party on the night of October 19, 2024, after she says she was pressured to drink and take the drug ketamine.

The fraternity, Cornell University and others are named as co-defendants in the suit. Lawyers for two of the former students have rejected claims that they participated in sexual assault.

The case has elicited outcry over how sexual assault is handled on campuses across the country.

At Monday’s demonstration, students demanded an overhaul of the university’s sexual assault complaint process, the termination of certain school officials and stricter disciplinary action against alleged abusers.

In a statement to the student news outlet The Cornell Daily Sun, student organisers wrote that they were calling for the “abolition” of the Interfraternity Council system on campus and the “expulsion/revocation of degrees for all Chi Phi members involved in the rape”.

They also demanded that Cornell’s Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards be replaced by a “democratic disciplinary system”. Monday’s protest, they added, was designed to draw attention to the systemic failures that allow sexual violence to occur.

“We wanted to ensure that Day Hall, the centre of Cornell’s administrative function, was not able to continue business as usual,” the students told the campus paper.

The alleged crime at the fraternity, they wrote, was part of a “rampant pattern of sexual assault perpetrated by members of Greek life at Cornell University and hundreds of other academic institutions throughout the country”.

Under pressure by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, the university announced this week it would be appointing a law firm to conduct an independent internal review of how it initially handled the case.

A transcript, obtained by US media, shows that although no charges were filed, Doe told campus police at the time that she could “say with 100% confidence I was raped”.

Her lawsuit also alleges that Cornell “afforded” the accused fraternity members “the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays” to the school. Two were later expelled, and another two were suspended.

New York lawmakers are renewing a push to change the state’s sexual assault laws after prosecutors in the United States said the current rules made it difficult to bring charges for an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house.

At issue is whether someone who willingly becomes intoxicated can be considered mentally incapacitated and therefore unable to consent to sex.

Under current New York law, only someone who was drugged or given alcohol without their knowledge can be considered “mentally incapacitated” because of intoxication and unable to consent. The same does not apply to someone who willingly consumed alcohol or drugs.

State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and State Senator Nathalia Fernandez are sponsoring bills in their respective chambers that would change that.

In the state Senate, the bill is known as S10632, and in the New York Assembly, it is filed as Assembly Bill A101.

In a post on the social media platform X, Dinowitz said the proposed law would allow prosecutors to focus on whether someone was capable of consenting, rather than how they became intoxicated, and whether the accused “knew or should have known” that the person was unable to consent.

He said people who voluntarily drink or take drugs currently face significant barriers in sexual assault cases, particularly if they remain partly conscious or responsive during an alleged assault.

“The fact that someone made the choice to consume alcohol or another intoxicating substance should never be used to undermine their experience or shift responsibility onto the survivor when they’ve been sexually assaulted,” Dinowitz wrote.

The years-long reform effort has gained new momentum after Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said the existing law was one reason his office initially declined to pursue charges against several Cornell students accused of sexually assaulting a woman on October 19, 2024.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was 20 at the time. She has since filed a civil lawsuit against seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity, as well as Cornell University and several other defendants.

The lawsuit alleges fraternity members gave her alcohol and ketamine and sexually assaulted her after she became incapacitated.

Doe also reported her allegations to campus police in November 2024.

In a statement explaining why his office did not pursue charges afterwards, Van Houten said Doe never claimed at the time that she had been involuntarily intoxicated, physically forced or unconscious. He also said she did not clearly express that she did not consent.

Any of those circumstances could have provided grounds for prosecutors to pursue rape charges under New York law, according to the district attorney.

“On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual,” Van Houten wrote.

“In this case, multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe’s statement and correctly determined the alleged facts as set forth in the statement do not constitute a crime.”

Since the lawsuit was filed, Van Houten’s office has faced intense scrutiny. It said on Monday that it will reopen the investigation and bring the case before a grand jury, which will consider whether there is enough evidence to indict anyone.

Van Houten also told CBS News on Wednesday that he had not seen a transcript of a campus police interview conducted three weeks after the alleged assault in which the woman said: “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

Cornell has defended its handling of the case, saying it investigated the allegations and disciplined the accused students, with penalties ranging from suspension to expulsion.

On Wednesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the university had agreed to her request to bring in an outside law firm to conduct a new investigation into its handling of the case.

Previous efforts to change New York’s sexual assault laws have foundered in the state legislature. Senate bill S10632 has passed its chamber but has never received a vote on the Assembly floor.

“Rape is the only crime that I’m aware of where, if the victim was drunk, they may not get justice,” Dinowitz, the assembly member, said in an interview with Reuters. “There shouldn’t be any difference in terms of the survivors of sexual assault between the people who are voluntarily intoxicated and who are involuntarily intoxicated.”

New York is one of 19 states where a person can be considered mentally incapacitated because of intoxication only if they did not willingly become intoxicated, according to Elizabeth Jeglic, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who studies sexual abuse.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Jeglic said. “If you’re incapacitated, you’re incapacitated, regardless of whether you consumed it yourself or somebody else gave it to you without your consent.”

The ruling seals six years of legal battles after Weinstein’s initial conviction for sexually assaulting TV assistant.

Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced movie mogul, has been sentenced in Manhattan to 15 years in prison for a felony sex crime in another #MeToo reckoning.

Weinstein’s sentencing on Wednesday for sexually assaulting one-time TV production assistant Miriam Haley followed a legal odyssey spanning more than six years, when New York’s highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. A second jury found Weinstein guilty again at a retrial last year.

Once among the most powerful figures in the entertainment industry, Weinstein was an Oscar-winning producer whose hits included “Shakespeare in Love,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Chocolat.” But his downfall came quickly after sexual assault allegations in 2017 set off the #MeToo movement.

Weinstein, 74, is expected to appeal and maintains that he never raped or sexually assaulted anyone. He is now likely to remain behind bars well into his 80s. Seated in a wheelchair, he was quickly moved out of the courtroom after the sentencing, while some of his accusers hugged and brushed away tears.

Haley, 49, appeared in court on Wednesday morning and delivered a victim impact statement in which she talked about enduring seven years of public smear campaigns and humiliation orchestrated by Weinstein, his legal team and allegedly paid podcasters aiming to sour her image.

Haley added that her experience following the assault had “already been a life sentence” for her, and implored the judge to take all of this into consideration.

Owing to a cycle of retrials, appeals and judicial proceedings, Weinstein has remained incarcerated since his 2018 arrest and is now serving time in a prison medical ward.

Weinstein, first publicly accused of wrongdoing in 2017, was detained a year later. In 2024, New York’s highest court overturned the original 2020 conviction that had sentenced the former Hollywood producer to 23 years in prison, ruling that the inclusion of extraneous, non-indicted testimony had compromised the equity of the trial.

Prosecutors attempted to retry the case last June, but it ended in a split verdict after the jury foreperson refused to return to deliberate amid a jury room feud. Weinstein was convicted of a first-degree criminal sex act on a separate count at the time, again.

Weinstein is also awaiting resentencing in a separate rape case in Los Angeles.