The recent high profile of the MeToo movement and the effect it has had on the careers of certain high profile men is a subject I have wanted to write about for a long time. The problem was that I had difficulty finding the correct words to express what I wanted to say.

After reading Andrew Sullivan article in New York Magazine, I now have the words I want. Sullivan’s point is that men and women have different attitudes about sex. Men are more horny, more handsy, take more chances regarding sex and that heterosexual women need to understand this. It’s just man’s nature. Men have more testosterone that creates a greater sex drive. He then points out that gay men fuck often and indiscriminately because they don’t have the restraining factor of a woman’s sexual drive.

So how should society deal with these different sexual natures? Sullivan thinks nothing, at least, nothing that would change men’s behavior. Sullivan argues, by and large, women understand man’s sexual nature and are OK with a it. Indeed women would become antagonistic to the MeToo movement if it continued their campaign to make men more accountable for their sexual harassment. He also thinks that nature is more important than patriarchal institutions in how sexual relationships proceed. The horny man is always going to be chasing after the less horny woman. Women would just have to learn how to put with the big lugs and there is nothing that society can do about it.

The very problem with Sullivan’s argument is his argument. He thinks men are different than females. If this is true, then might women take another view of men’s groping hands? Might women become irritated with men who make sexual innuendos in the office, particularly if she isn’t interested in the man and the man blissfully disregards her feelings regarding his innuendos? Might it be frustrating that in order to stop these harassments, the woman has to go to Human Resources and files a complaint about the man’s behavior. Wouldn’t it be easier for men to just behave appropriately? Take a slower path with his flirtation?

And this is where the patriarchy comes in. In Sullivan’s world, women should just understand a man’s nature. He doesn’t mention a reciprocal responsibility for man to understand a woman’s nature. Why is the woman stuck with tolerating the bores? Wouldn’t it be just as easy for men to behave appropriately at work. Oh that’s right because men will be men. Their bodies are full of testosterone, they just can’t think straight when a woman is around. It’s there nature.

What about women being women? What happens if the man happens to be the woman’s boss? In the past, the woman could complain to Human Resources but what would HR do? Would they listen to a low level employee over the word of an executive? The power is with the man. He controls her livelihood. He has the power to make the woman’s life miserable. So her choice is to live with the harasser or quit. How does Sullivan propose women deal with this difference in power? Particularly in the very awkward situation of a horny boss chasing his woman employee. Who wins this showdown?

Then Sullivan goes after the feminists who are leading the charge to change the argument. They are trying to give more power to the women. Sullivan finds their arguments alienating, that they are making men the enemy and regular middle class people will be alienated by their arguments. To a degree, he is correct. The vast majority of people won’t agree with Feminist ideology. Sullivan thinks this will drive these people into the Republicans/Right Wing. Why is Feminist ideology more alienating than Right Wing ideology? Finally, who usually fights the battles in these struggles? It would be nice to think that nice middle class people will start the battle. But usually they don’t. Who fought the opening battles for Women’s right? I believe it was the hated and alienating Suffragettes.

These battles have to be fought. More importantly, these battles require us to look at all types of harassment – from annoying to egregious. Al Franken’s boorish behavior is not the same as Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment. But how do we know until someone brings it up? Yes, it is messy. Yes sometimes it will be unfair. And we will only get better at dealing with these situations and distinguishing between behaviors as we look at them.

Requiring perfection stifles change. Sullivan thinks men and women have different sexual natures. Since better than 90 percent of the population are committed heterosexuals, how do we move forward recognizing these differences. To stop talking about sexual harassment because some men might be hurt only means women will keep their mouths shut. Women will put up with the roaming hands and sex jokes in order to keep their jobs. Not talking about sexual harassment doesn’t solve the problem, it just moves the pain to a different gender. Then you must ask are men’s lives more important than women’s lives?

I know London Spy is an old television show. Our viewing practices are to let someone else test drive the program first and wait for their recommendations. This means we are usually a good year behind everyone else which is why I am know talking about London Spy. It really irritated me.

Not at first though, in fact, the show caught our attention. It was fast, stylish, interesting characters, intriguing plot and good-looking men taking off their cloths for no particular reason. They had us hooked. Alex, lonely genius, brought out of his shell by good time party boy Danny. Everything is cupids and arrows until the mysterious Alex disappears.   Danny tries to contact Alex but he knows nothing about him – only where he lives. Then a key to Alex’s apartment arrives one day, which moves this from stylish love story to stylish spy story.

Danny finds Alex’s body. Things get strange. It turns out Alex was not the lonely virgin sitting at home pining for love. There is evidence at Alex’s apartment that suggest Alex was an S and M aficionado and had had numerous trysts with other men. Alex’s parents try to discourage Danny from pursing his amateur investigation. Danny continues. Danny’s friends in high places try to discourage him from continuing. He continues.

I was enthralled until I realized somewhere in the last episode that everything is falling apart. The big reveals meant nothing. The explanations make absolutely no sense in relation to plot already laid out. At the end, I realize that I have been hoodwinked yet again. Another television series has hooked me into watching to have my misplaced confidence shattered by an ill thought out, forced and ultimately nonsensical ending. For series television the ethos is the final episode doesn’t have to be good, it just has to end the series.

Spoiler Alert. I am about to reveal the end of London Spy.

First MI6 wanted to stop Alex from creating a magical truth algorithm. You see Alex had created this algorithm that could determine the truth of any statement. Bad idea Alex. Alex must be stopped. The thing I didn’t realize until watching London Spy was how incompetent and indiscrete television MI6 is. For example, every MI6 agent in a 20 mile radius of London descends on Alex’s apartment to discourage him from pursuing his algorithm. Klieg lights shine on the apartment from the outside just so everyone inside and outside can see as if it was daylight. Everyone who enters the apartment must also don a hazmat suit.

This seems, to my amateur eyes, overkill. All they want to do is to talk to Alex about his truth algorithm. Doesn’t seem like the Klieg lights and hazmat suits are all that necessary. Plus it isn’t like this clandestine spy agency is drawing any attention to their presence, I mean with the Klieg lights and hundreds of men walking around a quiet London neighborhood in hazmat suits. I’m sure that the none of neighbors took notice of all this falderal.

Then, for some reason that only television MI6 agents know, they stuff poor Alex into a trunk. You know those old fashion-travelling trunks that people used to take on long journeys. Why they do this eludes me. They are trying to talk sense into him, not get information out of him. Why not just sit him in a chair? Television MI6 has it ways however. They definitely think it is better to stuff Alex into a trunk where everyone must now yell at him to carry on a conversation.

They bring in Alex’s mother. Except she isn’t really his mother. Which was a big reveal and you think it means something and the importance of this fact will be explained. It isn’t. It is really just a red herring. It means nothing and doesn’t change anything. It did fill about 15 minutes or so of an episode so there is that. Mother or not, she has no luck in convincing Alex about stopping his truth algorithm. How do we know this? Why television MI6 uses the truth algorithm to determine whether Alex is lying. Which makes killing him seem kind of beside the point because MI6 has the algorithm which they don’t want anybody to use, except they have it and or using it. Why kill Alex? Well, says television MI6, we don’t want him to give the truth algorithm to some other hostile country.

Sometimes you just have to give into television logic. I gave television MI6 the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe killing Alex will stop him from giving the truth algorithm to the rest of the world. So all right kill Alex. Now this is the most baffling part of the entire series. Television MI6 decides to just let him suffocate in the trunk and leave his body rotting for a month until they then decide to pin the murder on the jealous Danny.

Do you have that? Now I am not a television MI6 expert by any means but it would seem to me that if you are trying to get rid of a body – you don’t leave it rotting in an apartment for over a month. And you certainly would look for easier way to do the job then suffocation via a trunk. Like any sensible killer, you would remove the body and dispose of it in a discrete manner. No body, no evidence, no police, no press and unfortunately no further story line.

Television MI6 decides to send Danny the key. Danny finds the body and calls the police to investigate. Since MI6 is trying to make Danny take the fall, they leave these sexually incriminating photographs of Alex laying around the house so this gets the press involved. MI6 hopes this will make Danny jealous and behave crazily so they then can pin the murder of Alex on Danny. Except Danny doesn’t act crazy enough, so in order to convince Danny that Alex was not a virgin genius but an S and M boy toy, they inject Danny with the AIDS virus. See Alex must have been sexually promiscuous because he gave Danny AIDS.

It was at this point that I decided that if I was a television British taxpayer that I would really be upset at the incompetence of television MI6. I mean there a lot better, more stupid and more evil projects that the television British taxpayer might want to see their taxes applied to.

I have been negligent with my blog. I have it written in over a month. I know it. I’m sorry.

I mean the absolute worst thing a blogger can do is to stop blogging. Like I said before, I am sorry.

I know I probably ruined your whole holiday season because instead of making merry with friends and family, you’re thinking where is the third installment of Customer Service Apocalypse and why hasn’t Tom published the end of the story. How inconsiderate of him to make me wait.

Look, I’ve already apologized. Twice.

I had things to do.

And, like, I am artist. You can’t force the Muse to produce when the Muse has job interviews and Christmas to prepare for. The Muse must prioritize.

But, as you are my loyal readers, and I appreciate your loyalty, I offer you now an explanation.

As you remember, I was writing a three-part expose that was going to blow the lid off of bad Customer Service called Customer Service Apocalypse. I carefully wrote my notes on the back of an old envelope while I was on hold with the Customer
Service agent.

 

Which I think I should get some ecologically conscious points for. It’s not like I took a clean piece of paper and started writing. No, despite my irritation with the customer service agent, I retained my eco-consciousness; I scrounged for an old envelope so I wouldn’t have to fell a tree using a blank sheet of paper. Because I care, you know.

 

The notes were fantastic. They ran across three old envelopes. Every word of my conversations with the Customer Service agent and her managers noted. I scribbled the wonderful, witty, sarcastic thoughts I was going to write when the time came. I counted the minutes I was on hold so you would get the sense of the time I was wasting. I noted the number of times I was transferred to illustrate the company’s confusion about what I was asking. Everything carefully documented. It was positively brilliant. The blog was writing itself.

Then Thanksgiving happened. We had houseguests. And I am not blaming the houseguests in any way. They were here however. This can’t be ignored. After they arrived, the muse somehow slipped out the back door. And, of course, while she was away things happened. Drinking happened. Dinners happened. Nights on the town happened. Movies in the afternoon happened. Late rising mornings happened. The muse is a sensitive being. She stayed away the entire time we had houseguests.

After Thanksgiving, the Muse was ready but I had a job interview. The Muse has to eat too. I prepared for the interview like a demon. I investigated the company. I diligently rehearsed replies to standard questions. You know the ones about my strengths, my weaknesses, and what my boss would say about my work. This takes a lot of time and the Muse wasn’t about to stick around the house for that. She is an artist after all. She wants to hang out with Tom the artist not Tom the job seeker.

So the day of the interview comes and damn if the interviewer didn’t ask all of the questions I so carefully prepared for. He pitched a question about my strengths. Kaboom. Home run. Then another question flew across the plate about my weaknesses. Kaboom. Home room number 2. Then a question about what my old boss would say about me. Kaboom. Home Run number 3.

I was batting 1.000 until he threw a curve ball. A really tricky curve ball. He asked why I managed less work than all of my colleagues. Now where did he get that information and who the Hell gave him that information? Well, apparently, I did. He shows me these numbers from my resume and quotes some numbers I gave him during the interview. He does some fancy math that proves I was managing less work than my colleagues.

There is no way his figures be right. He surely has made a mistake and I am the person to show him the errors of his way. So I do the math.

Not like any sane person with a piece of paper and a pen. Or quietly in my head. No I use that sure fire double combination of the invisible blackboard and mumbling incoherently. You see, I have to see numbers, if only for second in my mind, in order to remember the numbers I am calculating. I raise my finger to the air in front of me and begin writing so I can begin calculating. The interviewer awkwardly stops speaking and watches me do my math.

He hears something like this. “Murmur, murmur, murmur carry the two, murmur, murmur that makes this sixteen, murmur, murmur, no that can’t be right.”

The numbers, of course, don’t add up. I erase the air blackboard and try to recalculate. I still can’t get them to add up. Finally, the interviewer puts me out of my misery and says, “it isn’t important.” Except, for me, it has suddenly become very important. Every question afterwards is tainted with me trying to redo the math. I become distracted and don’t hear questions. I ask him to repeat himself. The great interview I was giving slowly slips into mediocrity.

Needless to say, but I will any way, I didn’t get the job. Which bums the Muse out. The Muse and I take a few days off to mourn my loss. And then, what do you know Christmas happens. Christmas requires a lot of attention and travel and well before you know it is a month without blogging.

So here we are today. I am trying to write Customer Service Apocalypse Part III. The muse is ready. My fingers are rested and ready to type. Full Speed ahead, right. Wrong. Unfortunately, the envelopes with all of my notes have gone missing. Well, I think they have gone missing. They may be somewhere on my desk. Chances are it is there because I never throw any of the scrap papers the Muse writes her fantastic ideas on.

Indeed, I have maybe thirty or so old envelopes and scraps of paper scattered across my desk. I have checked each and every one looking for my notes. And I rechecked them again when I can’t find my notes. There there somewhere I know it.

No problem says the Muse. You can write your story from memory. It was such a vivid and emotional experience. Just the type of experience that will stick in the old noggin, right? Wrong. I am at a loss about what happened and even how it ended.

The Muse is irritated. She suggests writing about one of my other ideas on one of the many scraps of paper on my desk. “You can return to Customer Service Apocalypse Part III when you find your notes,” she says.

Her response, of course, irritates me. She is all art art art. She wants to create. Lives to create but has no business sense or feelings of responsibility to our readers. Besides, I think, it was her damn idea to write my notes on all those scraps of paper in the first place. Now that we have a crisis with the blog, she is all forget it, move on to the next blog, don’t worry about any obligation you have to your reader to complete a story.

“Would Charles Dickens leave one story incomplete and start another one leaving his readers in the lurch?”

“Would Charles Dickens lose his notes in the first place,” she replies.  “ Besides, there are no rules to blogging. That is the whole point of blogging. You can do what ever you want whenever you want. “

I let her bully me into starting a new blog but I insisted on explaining to you dear readers who are waiting for Customer Service Apocalypse Part III what happened so I can lessen any anxiety you might be experiencing.

I am sorry if this upsets you. All I can say in my defense is I am artist.

Damn it.

In reaction to yesterday’s shooting in Texas, Donald Trump stated that this was a mental health issue and not a gun access issue. Well yes it is actually a mental health issue. If you gave a loaded gun to most sane people, they can be trusted to use it responsibly.   It really is a small dangerous few that are causing all the problems. Given that there are new slaughters of innocent people at the hands of these mad men, it would be a good idea if we could act quickly to stop the carnage. Clearly restricting access to guns isn’t going to happen. The second amendment to the Constitution established the right to bear arms. Even if it were possible to change the Second Amendment, which I strongly doubt, it would take years to change.

This leaves us with Donald Trump’s assertion that this is a mental health issue. I know that this is a little outside the box but perhaps Trump is on to something. Honestly, I really don’t want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and, if it is as Trump says, a mental health issue, I wanted to protect Americans from the criminally insane. Let’s make mental health a civic responsibility. If you are prone to be criminally insane then it is best for everyone, including the criminally insane, if they were off the streets and under protective medical care. Of course, we would need to change some laws but as long as they didn’t infringe on the second amendment, I am sure Trump and the Republicans could muster the will to get them through Congress. For example, once a year every American adult over the age of 18 must get a certification of sanity. If the person passes, then the process ends until the following year. If the person fails, then he would have to go through further psychiatric evaluations up to and including incarceration if psychiatric professionals deemed the individual criminally insane.

The advantages of such a system are so great that I am almost giddy from thinking about them all. I mean the unintended consequences alone make this project worthy of consideration. You heard me the unintended consequences make this a great idea. I mean, since everyone must get a psychiatric check up, we might get ahead of other run of the mill mental health problems like depression. Instead of waiting for a complete mental breakdown, like we do now, we might catch some of these conditions before they get out of hand. Also imagine the new data we would have on mental health. We would have the full range of the sanity scale from completely sane to totally out of their fucking mind and all the variations in between. This again would give us more information about everyone and we would better act as a community in stopping both the criminally insane and preventing your standard every day breakdown.

And let’s not take our eye off of the ball here. What we really want to do is stop mass shootings. If the psychological professional can determine these dangerous propensities before hand, we hopefully could stop shootings from ever taking place in the first place. Instead of police shooting and killing the mentally ill man who acquired guns and is running amok in a crowded mall. We can just take them off the street before they snap.

I know you are going to say. This sounds good and though I agree that this is a much better alternate than taking away law-abiding citizens right to bear arms but can we really afford this? And here is the beauty it will practically pay for itself. First, once people start coming in for their yearly examinations, there should be less mental health issues as we would begin to treat them before they got out of hand. We should see a significant reduction of urgent health care costs and move to the less expansive managed health care costs. Since more of mental health issues will be managed, there also will be a drop in time taken from work for mental health days, so productivity will go up. There will be less damage to public buildings and private property because fewer people will be shooting up public spaces. Since more people will be managing their mental health through medication, the pharmaceutical companies will be booming. There would be a need for more pharmacists and more psychiatrists so those professions should see an increase in their ranks. Best of all, the economic boom would be evenly divided throughout the country as every person in every state would need their sanities verified. And don’t get me started about the trickle down effect. It is a win win idea.

I agree with Trump completely on this. Let’s address this as a mental health problem. If it is a mental health problem then we need to hold him to coming up with a mental health solution because gun violence is now a mental health crisis.

 

When Americans talk about our national history, we tend to emphasize the positive. We like to talk about immigrants yearning to be free. It is a compelling national story which gives Americans a sense of pride in the nation we have built. Our history highlights our exceptionalism. The conversation grinds to halt however when we talk about the big divisive issue in American History – the Civil War and the racism that supported the institution of slavery. This is all rather unpleasant and difficult.

In the past few years, people have even tried to reframe the American Civil War. They say that most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, how could they be fighting for slavery when they didn’t own slaves? That had to be motivated by something other than slavery, something nobler. Or the rebels fought for states rights not the continuation of slavery. What upset southerners was the imposition of northern ideas on the South. We are told that Robert E. Lee hated slavery, so he fought for the South because he loved his home state of Virginia and could not fight his neighbors. The South’s struggle, in other words, had nothing to do with slavery and therefore racism need not be considered either when looking at the war.

More importantly, it saves us from thinking that our ancestors are racists. Making slavery irrelevant to the Civil War obfuscates the real causes of the conflict and makes the southerner’s position sound almost noble. It was just a dispute between two groups about how a democracy should function. One group believed that the Federal Government takes precedence over the State Government, the other side believed the opposite. After all, we still are debating the role of the Federal Government in American life today.

Except that it isn’t the truth. The truth, however, is pretty horrible and that is why people prefer to downplay the importance of slavery in the war. Because if slavery becomes the cause of the Civil War, then our ancestors are responsible for some pretty horrible things. What is slavery? Why did people want slaves? Why were black people made slaves and not white people? Why did white people think they could black people slaves?

Even now when we do learn about slavery, we learn about in the passive voice. Slaves were brought to USA. But exactly who brought African blacks to the USA? Who made them slaves? Who bought and sold them? Slavery and racism happened to blacks as opposed to someone imposing it on them. We use this passive voice because it is difficult to explain the ugly truth. White people brought African blacks to this country against their will for the purpose of slavery. The vast majority of white people in the south thought they were superior to blacks and that this gave them the right to use blacks as slaves. In 1860, white southerners thought that Lincoln would abolish slavery so they risked civil war to prevent him from taking away what they viewed as their property. Following the Civil War, when southern whites regained control of their state governments, Jim Crow laws were set up which created laws that blocked blacks from education, housing, jobs, voting and ultimately justice. While blacks gained full civil rights in 1965, whites resisted these new laws and continued enforcing Jim Crow laws on an informal basis well into the 21^st century. Blacks had to use the courts to force whites into complying with the new civil rights laws.

Racism didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It was created to defend whites owning slaves. This is why white people bear the burden of changing a racist society. Yes, there may be racist blacks but blacks have never held power over whites. And by power I mean the power to force whites to provide unpaid labor, to stop them from living in certain areas, to stop them from voting. Whites have done all of these things. You may argue – this is still unfair. Not all white people participated in slavery and Jim Crow. Yes but they did stand by when other white people did. Just because you weren’t a part of the lynch mob doesn’t exonerate your actions when you know who was in the lynch mob.

It is completely understandable why white people find it difficult to talk about slavery. It is embarrassing. Our ancestors were horrible. If white’s were to face up to this history, they would realize that, at best, their ancestors watched injustice go on for years without lifting a finger to stop it, and, at worst, were wrapping a rope around a tree. How do you explain this in school to students in a white majority nation? What would the students think about their history? Their ancestors? We can only change what we can face and it is time to face the ugly actions of our ancestors and move forward.

 

Today, I was trying to find new music. So, I googled top ten lists and I stumbled upon this song from Johnny Cash called “Hurt.”  I had heard Cash’s version of “Hurt” before and I knew I liked it. I can’t remember why I didn’t buy it back then. The song is an odd choice for Cash because Trent Reznor, lead singer for Nine Inch Nails, wrote the song. NIN is, for lack of a better categorization, a metal band and Johnny Cash is traditional country.  Cash, however, found the perfect song. It is brutal and haunting.  Cash’s voice, rough, deep and resonant, cracks with emotion.  Cash gives Reznor’s words a deeper meaning as it is coming from an older man who has experienced a world of hurt and personal mistakes. Now he is looking at his pain and the pain he caused with pitiless eyes.   It’s a great rendition of the song but it hurts.  It really hurts. I think these type of emotional wallops should be taken in small doses. Which is probably why I didn’t buy it the first time.  But, God, you should give it a listen.

One day my mother and I were watching football on TV. She asked me if I knew that Joe Montana, the quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers at the time, was born in the same year as me. Joe and I were in our late 20’s then so it wasn’t all that surprising. Most professional athletes are somewhere in their 20’s or early 30’s. My mother had something and I only had to wait a few seconds for the real reason that Mom brought up is age. “He just bought his parents a new house.”

Ba-da-bing. My first instinct was to tell Mom that Elizabeth Taylor was a few years younger than her and she let her children lead a life of leisure and luxury. I restrained myself. In the mean time, Mom hit her intended target – reminding me of my seeming lack of direction or ambition. I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she wanted me to work harder on my life, so I too could someday buy my parents a new house. However the result was something far different. I felt bad about myself.

This story came to mind the other day after I read some inspirational story that just pissed me off. This man became blind due to an accident when he was a teen-ager. Instead of letting the accident destroy his life, he went on to an Ivy League college, became an investment banker and now is a millionaire. The author’s intended message, I’m sure, was to inspire his readers to greater things. Unfortunately, there is also a barely hidden secondary message about all these whiners out there complaining about their hard lives when this guy was blind. If they think they have had hard knocks with racism or fatherless families or poverty, try being blind. There is someone who can complain about his lot in life but oh no he decided to become a millionaire instead.

I was uninspired to say the least.

I am getting this way with LinkedIn testimonies from the rich and famous. They have almost the opposite effect on me. These inspirational messages seem appropriate for a very narrow range of people, those with a driving entrepreneurial spirit and the money to support it.

Do something that you are passionate about.

You can be anything you want to be.

Know your value; don’t settle for less than that.

Don’t take no for an answer.

All, I am sure, very good advice, all not so relevant when you have bills to pay, food to buy and need to put a roof over your head. Those needs might require me to take a job I am far from passionate about or work a job that I would rather not do.  Asking millionaires and wildly successful people for their advise seems like a good idea on paper, in reality, their inspirational stories don’t match most people’s present circumstances or personality. It’s a one size fits all inspiration. When I read about the tech wizards like Jobs, or Gates or Zuckerberg, not their noble deeds now but how they got to where they got, I think these people are assholes, who wants to be an asshole. The spirit of work is not just entrepreneurial.

Perhaps this means I won’t be a billionaire who runs a tech company. And that is precisely the point. There are billions of people who probably won’t make that goal. There are billions of people who would very much like to work and do a great job. And, I am only speaking for myself and not the billions of other people, I just don’t think I can work up much passion for it. I will do a damn good job though.

Psychiatrists have an obligation to break their patient/doctor confidentiality if they believe their patient is a danger to themselves or to someone else. For some reason, I thought that lawyers would have the same obligation. It only makes sense that lawyers are ethically responsible, if they can, to stop their clients from hurting anyone. After reading about Harvey Weinstein, I realize I am woefully ignorant of legal ethics.

There are 8 known agreements between Weinstein and the women he has harassed and/or raped.  He paid his victims cash for their silence. All tied in a nice legal bow. Lawyers needed to tie this bow. Maybe, just maybe, you could justify a lawyer working with Weinstein once or twice. You could argue that there was some misunderstanding and that this is best settled out of court. Let’s give a two-time litigant the benefit of the doubt.

The problem, at least it is a problem for me, is there was a forth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth case. If it were me, I would begin to think Harvey has a problem here and that the women involved aren’t misunderstanding crazy Harvey’s intentions but, rather crazy Harvey might just be a sexual predator. What then is the lawyer’s responsibility in situation like these? Sexual Harassment is against the law. Rape is against the law. At the bare minimum, Weinstein is breaking the laws regarding sexual harassment but also might be breaking much more serious laws regarding rape. At some point, isn’t a lawyer required to say I can’t continue as your lawyer any more, I believe you are guilty and I can’t in good conscious represent you. To continue representing Weinstein would seem like an egregious breech of ethics on a lawyer’s part.

Don’t lawyers have an obligation to protect society at large? You have represented Weinstein several times regarding women bringing sexual harassment accusations against him. You see Weinstein continues to come to you with the same problem. You might argue that you don’t know that someone is going to continue harassing and raping women. You don’t know all the facts as no court has made a decision regarding the guilt of Weinstein. Besides it isn’t imminent harm and you don’t know who his next victim will be. Which I get and I realize it is a difficult issue. You should only break lawyer/client confidentiality if it is genuinely imminent and there is a known victim in danger.

And yet. And yet, from my understanding, Weinstein’s contract with his production company had a clause that states the company couldn’t fire him from sexual harassment suits as long as Weinstein took care of the payment himself and did not involve the company. Who puts that in an employment contract? Why would you put this in your contract if you were intending to change your ways? He obviously had no intention of stopping. What ethical lawyer would write a contract with such a clause in it? Is that even legal? Can you actually write a contract protecting someone from termination even when the person is committing a crime? So sadly, we know. The lawyers knew what Harvey was and, more importantly, they knew that Harvey planned on continuing harassing women. Isn’t this the point you get off the merry-go-round? I hope someone goes after Weinstein’s lawyers. Make them spend some of the dirty money they earned protecting Weinstein. Now that would be justice.

Finally, for anyone who doubts it exists, this is what privilege is. Justice, or rather injustice, can be bought. Rich people can buy themselves out of a whole lot of jams and, if their victims are poor, the victims will keep their mouths shut because they need the money more than the justice. How much better would life be if Weinstein faced justice when the first woman complained? Seven other women would have been saved their dreadful experience. Who knows, maybe even Harvey Weinstein could have been salvaged, learned his lesson, and moved on to still make great movies. We will never know now.

I don’t know Harvey Weinstein. I don’t know anyone who knows Harvey Weinstein. I am not privy to Hollywood gossip. Yet, somehow, I knew that Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator. I don’t know why I knew, but I did know. Maybe I had read it somewhere or seen it somewhere, maybe it was in the atmosphere. I am sorry I can’t pin it down, I wish I could. It’s all very vague but I knew before the news broke recently that he had a reputation as a sexual predator.

Now, if I, someone who has no connections to show business or to the people in the business, knows this, I am surprised to learn about all the surprise that Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator. I thought this was common knowledge because, surely if this information had drifted down to me, this information was readily available to anyone he worked with. So I am surprised by all the surprise.

I think the surprise may stem from the extent of his crimes and not so much the predatory aspect. Everyone knew he tricked beautiful actresses into coming to his hotel room and he made inappropriate advances on them, but, most certainly, didn’t know that he raped women.

A willful stifling of the imagination is taking place here. In their minds, they heard that Weinstein used his power and his position to get laid, now this is inappropriate but not such a big deal and I never dreamed he would take it any further than that. Unfortunately for Hollywood, the ideas regarding sexual harassment are changing and tolerating sexual harassment in any form is frowned upon. The Hollywood crowd were perfectly happy imagining that Weinstein was a perfect gentleman to the women he tricked into his hotel room once his advances were refused. This was sufficient for a long time but now it’s not. It’s all very confusing.

And what exactly should they do? They probably didn’t see Weinstein harass someone, they heard about it second hand. Should they call the police based on this information? Turn him into HR? What if it is just a rumor? Should I ruin my career based on a rumor? It’s really hard to be brave when you know you are correct, you have all the facts in your hand and they are irrefutable. It is nearly impossible to be brave if it is just a suspicion.

Or worse still, what if you are one of the actresses that acquiesced to Weinstein? Didn’t put up a fight, didn’t say no, weighed the options and decided that a one night stand with a creepy producer is worth the shot at becoming a movie star. What should she do now?  And how would this actress be treated if the world learned how she got her big break? Would this admission wipe out every good thing she had done? I am betting she would get destroyed.

Harvey Weinstein is a powerful man and powerful men are difficult to take down. People are rightfully scared and don’t know what to do. What we do know is that Weinstein has a lot of money and lawyers to help him cover up his messes. His victims and the people who may have known about Harvey may not have these same resources to fight back. Imagine if your choice was spend every penny you have to fight a man who can keep you in the courts for years, in the process destroying any chance you have of making it in a extremely competitive industry and taking every last dime you have in the fight in the process or you can take $100,000, keep your mouth shut and he will let you ply your trade?

And what, my friends, happens to whistle-blowers? From my observation, they get canned, and then shunned, and then spend years of their life in the wilderness, looking like a mad man, fighting Don Quixote’s battle, trying to get someone, anyone, to listen to them. The rich powerful man goes on as before as if nothing changed, or, at worst, glides to an early retirement with his golden parachute.

If I had only known what Harvey Weinstein was doing, I would have done something.

What would I have done given the same set of circumstances? I hate to admit it, because it shows I am not brave, but I don’t think I would have done anything. Particularly if all I had was hearsay evidence.

And, if I somehow mustered the courage to fight Weinstein, what could I have affectively done. The best I could come up with is that I would stop working with him. Except. Except, there are thousands of other people in Hollywood who will work with him particularly because he works on a lot of interesting projects. I doubt very much that my absence from his projects would be noticed, or, if noticed, cared about enough for him to change his ways. All for a rumor? All for a woman who doesn’t want me to bring this to anyone’s attention in the first place because she believes her life will be ruined? Why would I make her life and my life miserable if nothing is going to happen to the predator any way? He is, after all, the boss. He makes the company money. He is a success, who am I to get in his way? Do I really want to sacrifice my comfortable life to fight a losing battle?

What exactly do we want people to do?

Well, of course, the right thing. But, right for me? Or right for a much grander cause?

True bravery usually carries a terrible price. Everyone knows it. It is much easier to claim ignorance. Claim that I would have done something if I only knew. Really, I would.