Smoking Gun has set the entire Rub and Tug industry back years by publishing this indictment. Many customers will now shy away from paying for the extras that allow these young women (and men) to put food on the table, not to mention the higher overall stress levels in the population generally resulting from the inability to obtain relief. There could well be a domino effect, not unlike the melting of the polar ice caps.
 

This is prurient, Richard. I'm really ashamed of you. I'm hereby cancelling my subscription.
 

Are the Red Sox implicated?

Should they be? Are the Bosox players willing to testify in the case? If not, why not?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

You had me until that final paragraph. Wasn't "because I think the obscene wealth of a handful of Americans is a real problem for this country" sort of a leap? You were making up for the naughty bits weren't you? Don't bother--nothing wrong with poking fun at shameless egomaniacs. But I can't say as I see a trend in billionaire behavior here.
 

Last poster: Really? Don't you think Epstein, insulated from reality by his servants and courtiers (including Clinton, Lieberman, Summers), thought he "deserved" to be serviced by 14-16 year old children precisely because he was so "successful", i.e. was a billionaire. Rich is right that the astronomical increase in the wealth/poverty gap is going to lead to more manifestations of the master/serf model, from purchase of sexual service to organ donation, and everything in between. Doesn't mean every billionaire will behave like this wanker (sorry about that!), but look for more stuff like this.

He'll walk of course, because although money can't buy you love it can with the likes of Dershowitz buy you success in the courts. The Florida DA is already on the defense team from the looks of it.
 

To Anon 12:41 -- While the rich/poor gap certainly creates social problems, you are taking a man's life and making things up. You have no idea what he thought he "deserved" or why. I think the problem with Rich's comment, is not that it might not be true, but that it reflects the kneejerk reaction of turning a specific event, however complex and gritty and perhaps unknowable, into an opportunity for broad social comment. That might not be a good way to approach socio-political issues, but it certainly obscures whatever insight can be gained from the particular case. Here's my speculation on that: The guy is a sex addict. That can strike people of all socioeconomic levels. Sure, there's a power imbalance (master/serf) involved in the transaction -- one that probably feeds into the underlying addiction -- but I would suggest that what a rub/tug scenario fundamentally expresses is lack of self-worth. Those who would mock, rather than pity, this hedge fund billionaire should make sure they aren't casting stones from glass houses.
 

If the charges prove true, will Harvard return the funds this guy gave? He was a favorite of important people at Harvard--especially Henry Rosovosky. He was invited to events that only the most favored donors get to see--like the honorary degree dinners.
 

I wouldn't think Harvard would return the money, no—and in this case, I don't think it should. What's done is done. At the time of the gift, no one had any idea that this guy might be anything other than an interesting, generous and extremely wealth man. Who knew that he wanted to have sex with underage girls?
 

Males are hard-wired to want to have sex 24-7. The line between lusting after women generally, and lusting after underage women, is a fine one, mostly socially determined. Glass houses is right.
 

That's why we have laws, to maintain that fine line. And we're not talking about "lusting after", as is clear from the sordid "affidavit prepared in Epstein's arrest" in Rich's post
 

Glass houses? I'm not so sure. We 40-ish men may sometimes look at a much younger woman with lust in our hearts, as an upstanding man once said. But there are reasons why we don't act on that desire, much less pay a series of sixteen-year-olds to perform sex acts on us. The law is one. More important, I think, 15, 16—that's just too young.

As for pitying Jeffrey Epstein—well, with the possible exception of Donald Trump, I wouldn't want to see anyone go through this experience. But pity is pretty far down the list of emotions one would feel in this matter.
 

Last poster: admit it, you found that affidavit enjoyably titillating!
 

To Rich: presumably, then, you agree at least that turning a powerful man's life inside out for the pleasure of the reading public can pose some complicating issues. It can be hard to focus on the right things when something so enjoyably titillating as this story is thrust in one's face. Epstein broke the law, and broke a social compact, and he deserves opprobrium. Fine. Larry Summers did lots of bad things and he deserves to be criticized. Fine. But there's a kind of glib pleasure being taken in the fall of these "great" men that I find a little questionable.
 

Strike "questionable". The word should have been "interesting."
 

I don't think that Epstein's life was turned upside down for the pleasure of the reading public; I think Epstein got himself in trouble because he broke the law.

I took no glee in Larry Summers' downfall, although obviously I did not think he was the right leader for Harvard.

Do I take a little glee in Jeffrey Epstein's? Well, yes and no. I don't know much about Epstein, and he may be a lovely guy in many respects. So I keep an open mind.

But do I like to see the mega-rich take a fall? As a general matter, yes. I think it's a healthy thing.
 

There's an additional basis for a little Schadenfreude in the present case. Posters on this very list have been crowing about how (righteously) angry Harvard's mega-donors are that the brilliant leader Summers was driven out. As Peter Ellison said that ouster came down to character, so it's interesting to see that one mega-donor was maybe not so well-equipped to judge in the area of character. I too generally like to see the mega-rich take a fall, though I prefer to see them do what Warren Buffet did.
 

It's not a healthy thing to take glee in anyone's downfall, I think. What's the difference between taking glee in a mega-rich guy's mega-embarassment and taking glee in a delightfully nasty review of an author's book? Do you favor the former and frown on the latter?
 

I like both.
 

Anon 11:20
What were the bad things Larry did?
Inquiring minds want to know.
 

The bad things involve youthful (not to say underage) minds. They involve dribbling food down the front of his shirt. They involve nervous gestures. They involve impolitic firings, impolitic hirings. They involve arrogance. They involve stupidity. They involve power hunger and the involve insecurity. They involve calling yourself a change agent when you're really not. They involve refusing to talk to a writer writing an unauthorized book about you. They involve being a big fat white guy. They involve being reflexively pro-Israel. They involve seeing anti-semitism hiding everywhere. They involve not being nice.

Wait a minute, didn't I read all that somewhere.....?
 

from anon 2:08 to anon 3:32.
You said:" The bad things involve youthful (not to say underage) minds." What does that mean? Am I missing something? What are you implying? Why don't you say it (flat out) if you have something to say, rather than writing nebulous phrases (it looks as if you will have to go back to remedial expos).You said: "They involve dribbling food down the front of his shirt. They involve nervous gestures. They involve impolitic firings, impolitic hirings. They involve arrogance. They involve stupidity."
It seems to me, that some of those things might be foolish (perhaps very foolish), but bad... not at all!? Furthermore, what is your problem with nervous gestures? Harvard has brilliant faculty members who stutter. Some faculty can't hear very well. Some people have physical problems through no fault of their own. Are you perfect?
In this situation (as Harvard's President), bad things, might be defined as doing something deliberately wrong, knowing that what you did would irreparably harm the University. I don't believe that Larry ever did that, nor do I believe he would ever think of doing it.
You referred to the "impolitic hirings" that he made. What, specifically, were they?
I look forward to your answers.
 

The bad things Larry Summers did involve firing people who were doing a good job (a whole sequence of Deans, among others). They involve telling untruths about plans for the Graduate School and about the Schleifer affair.
 

anon 12:05
You are a poor impersonation of someone who wants to be thought of "as in the know."
Who were "the whole sequence of Deans",and who were the people who were fired and were doing a good job?" The bad things involve "telling untruths about plans for the Graduate School."
What were the untruths?
If I were in your position, I might learn how to spell Shleifer.
Your comments are pathetic.
 

The Deans were Harry Lewis, Elizabeth Nathans, Peter Ellison, and William Kirby.
The untruth Summers told about his plans for the Graduate School was his statement at an FAS meeting that he had not been discussing, even in a preliminary way, the possibility of having the University offer Ph.D. degrees in areas outside FAS. (For details, see Peter Ellison's interview with the Boston Globe last Spring.)
The untruth Summers told about the Shleifer affair was an answer he gave to a question about that matter that was raised at an FAS meeting: Summers said he had no knowledge of the Shleifer case.
 

Bill Kirby doing a good job? Bill is a wonderful guy, but was an extremely poor dean.
 

Summers fired two of the big deans he appointed (Kirby and Lagemann). The point is not whether they were doing a good job. These are yet more examples of Summers' managerial incompetence. Either he did not support them so that they could do a good job, or he made a collosal error of judgment in appointment them in the first place.
And he gets no credit for the dean appointment that is generally regarded as his best (Kaga). This was a no brainer--overwhelming inside favorite of the faculty in question. The new B School dean accepted the appointment only after he saw that Summers would be leaving.