Thank you for this, I agree with every word. It is disappointing and scary how quickly a lie can spread compared to the truth and, unfortunately, once an association is made, it is extremely difficult to shake.
I saw some right-wing individuals calling for Mamdani to resign because of his mother's mention, with no awareness of what the context of that appearance is. I wonder if they have also been lobbying for Trump and others to resign too?
What’s worse, most politicians and pundits know the context, but they also know many of their constituents won’t look into and will just swallow the lie whole.
I agree with everything here, including the posture in holding your friend and other self-identified progressives to account.
It is not surprising, more like a given or simply innocuous, that AI-generated images would appear to accompany (and corroborate) the produced emails regarding Mira Nair's guest list—reprehensible would be another word for it. Conflating a pronounced and public dislike of someone's politics with what the right-wing regards as a three-legged table, tilted toward exposing only the conservatives, philanthropists and business leaders the left already considered of ill-repute is what we are seeing now.
These tranches of communications impugn by association but do not tell a complete story. As I have said elsewhere: the time for political leverage or jettisoning is past vis-à-vis the voluminous, centered in the locus of unimaginable American wealth and concommitant insularity e.g. shielding from criminal responsibility.
One-time New York City publicist Peggy Siegal's early emails to Jeffrey Epstein with their indiscreet, winking humor and comparing traveling companions splayed on the floor of an airport to the "homeless" and offering to pick up a couple of kids for him on a trip to Kenya ("so Madonna") is uncomfortable to read—including an addendum about "mud huts" and posing with "Obama's relatives."
She, along with many women who rank supernally on bicoastal social registers helped to assimilate and present a certain image of Jeffrey Epstein as someone you needed to know or associate with or include on your list of invitees. It was a facade of social carriage and purpose, lending credibility once the cracks emerged.
Vanity Fair published a 2020 piece (“Peggy Siegal Sends Her Regrets") with its typical highbrow mentions and nomenclature, a glissade which includes another notorious mention of "kitten heels," as well as a title which sounds like a play on a Cole Porter song.
What emerges is a professional, elegant and fashionably kept woman of a certain age who enjoyed the ensconcement of fabulously connected people's yachts, villas and prided herself on connecting and curating the right people in promoting the films and projects for her likewise ascendant and connected clients. In the self-professed business of perception, Peggy Siegal was admittedly not as perceptive as she should have been.
But comparing your career excision to those persecuted and subsequently exterminated in the holocaust—as a Jewish American woman—is mawkish at best and deeply offensive at worst.
Paul Schrader remains one of her modulated defenders saying unprincipled is simply part of the job description.
Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful comment, Jennifer. I appreciate the additional context for Peggy Siegal.
The other thing about these emails and texts that people don’t really talk about but that I find odd is the style of communication: It’s a sort of flippant, sneering, brutish shorthand.
Thank you for this, I agree with every word. It is disappointing and scary how quickly a lie can spread compared to the truth and, unfortunately, once an association is made, it is extremely difficult to shake.
I saw some right-wing individuals calling for Mamdani to resign because of his mother's mention, with no awareness of what the context of that appearance is. I wonder if they have also been lobbying for Trump and others to resign too?
What’s worse, most politicians and pundits know the context, but they also know many of their constituents won’t look into and will just swallow the lie whole.
Thank you for the sincere exchange, Pablo. I appreciate your presence and continued contribution.
I agree with everything here, including the posture in holding your friend and other self-identified progressives to account.
It is not surprising, more like a given or simply innocuous, that AI-generated images would appear to accompany (and corroborate) the produced emails regarding Mira Nair's guest list—reprehensible would be another word for it. Conflating a pronounced and public dislike of someone's politics with what the right-wing regards as a three-legged table, tilted toward exposing only the conservatives, philanthropists and business leaders the left already considered of ill-repute is what we are seeing now.
These tranches of communications impugn by association but do not tell a complete story. As I have said elsewhere: the time for political leverage or jettisoning is past vis-à-vis the voluminous, centered in the locus of unimaginable American wealth and concommitant insularity e.g. shielding from criminal responsibility.
One-time New York City publicist Peggy Siegal's early emails to Jeffrey Epstein with their indiscreet, winking humor and comparing traveling companions splayed on the floor of an airport to the "homeless" and offering to pick up a couple of kids for him on a trip to Kenya ("so Madonna") is uncomfortable to read—including an addendum about "mud huts" and posing with "Obama's relatives."
She, along with many women who rank supernally on bicoastal social registers helped to assimilate and present a certain image of Jeffrey Epstein as someone you needed to know or associate with or include on your list of invitees. It was a facade of social carriage and purpose, lending credibility once the cracks emerged.
Vanity Fair published a 2020 piece (“Peggy Siegal Sends Her Regrets") with its typical highbrow mentions and nomenclature, a glissade which includes another notorious mention of "kitten heels," as well as a title which sounds like a play on a Cole Porter song.
What emerges is a professional, elegant and fashionably kept woman of a certain age who enjoyed the ensconcement of fabulously connected people's yachts, villas and prided herself on connecting and curating the right people in promoting the films and projects for her likewise ascendant and connected clients. In the self-professed business of perception, Peggy Siegal was admittedly not as perceptive as she should have been.
But comparing your career excision to those persecuted and subsequently exterminated in the holocaust—as a Jewish American woman—is mawkish at best and deeply offensive at worst.
Paul Schrader remains one of her modulated defenders saying unprincipled is simply part of the job description.
Bye-Bye, Peggy.
Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful comment, Jennifer. I appreciate the additional context for Peggy Siegal.
The other thing about these emails and texts that people don’t really talk about but that I find odd is the style of communication: It’s a sort of flippant, sneering, brutish shorthand.
Exactly, it's that loucheness inherent in the highlighted excerpts, a class-conscious shorthand imbued with power and status.