December 5, 2017--The Ugly Reaility

The latest sexual harassment outing is of James Levine, not a household name, the former music director and revered conductor of the Metropolitan Opera orchestra.

These charges, as with Roy Moore's, go back many years, actually decades, to as long ago as 1986. Again, those who revealed the abuses spoke about how they feared accusing Levine because, as musicians, he might have on-going power over their professional lives. 

In addition, as with Moore's accusers they were ashamed of what happened, including how in some cases he lured them into "relationships" in which they continued to participate. 

Most of my information about Levine's behavior as well as that of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Louie C.K., Harvey Weinstein, and of course Donald Trump comes from the New York Times. Striking to me again yesterday morning when the Levine outing appeared was how graphic the gray-old Times has been in its reporting.

In the case of James Levine there were specific and vivid descriptions of how the conductor lead his young victims into reciprocal masterbation. With Weinstein we learned about his attempts to get aspiring actresses to massage him prior to forcing them to participate in various forms of sexual activity. We learned details of Matt Lauer's office set up, including the button he had at his desk so he could lock the door to provide a safe environment for him to have forced sexual intercourse with young staffers. And then there are the details of Mark Halperin's and Garrison Keiller's sexual proclivities and "techniques."

And not to be forgotten, was the Times's publishing the transcript of the Billy Bush tape in which Trump boasted about grabbing women's p****s. With the paper of record not using the bowdlerizing ****s.

Reading the article about James Levine yesterday morning I raised this graphic reporting with Rona. I indicted I was not comfortable with it, even wondering if the Times, competing for readers, was being so explicit in order to attract subscribers who would enjoy the soft-core reporting.

Rona said, "But that's the point. To make readers feel uncomfortable. Not just intellectually but to engage our sense of disgust. To employ euphemisms would take away some of that visceral outrage."

"Good points," I conceded, "I get it and think, in my case at least, it is working. I am fully disgusted."

"One more thing," she added, "And don't think it's a stretch."

"Go on."

"You remember, I'm sure, the mass murder at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut in 2012.  Do you recall how you said at the time that to make a powerful, maybe persuasive case for some form of federal control of automatic weapons and high velocity ammunition, rather than Obama and others just talking about it, to make the case more persuasively, they should have released the autopsy photos of the murdered children so that we could see the full effects of these kinds of combat weapons on small children. It would be hideous to see. But, again, that's the point."

"I do remember that. Maybe you're right. Maybe we have to stop covering up the ugly details of sexual abuse and even mass murder."

"We can't just sit around," Rona said, "and allow ourselves to become inured to it. It's not about pseudo-outrage and titillation. We need to find active ways to fight back."

December 12, 2013--Meow Lion, Meow

What's happening up at Columbia University, my old college? The Lions, instead of roaring, as our fight song says, are meowing. At the Law School.

It is rare that I agree with anything in Rupert Murdoch's tabloid rag, the New York Post. Actually, I never agree with him or the editorial positions of his newspapers or Fox news outlets. But this one time I do wholeheartedly concur with Tuesday's front page that bellowed--"Poor Babies! Cop Rulings 'Traumatize' Columbia Kids."

The story that followed claimed that the acting dean of the Law School announced that any students so upset by the grand jury rulings in Ferguson, MO and on Staten Island could arrange to delay taking their end-of-semester exams.

Of course skeptical that this could possibly be true (the Post relishes having or creating opportunities to bash liberal elites), I turned to the New York Times where, to my dismay, I found, buried on page A-26, virtually the same report with the more temperate headline--"Columbia Law Lets Students Delay Exams After Garner and Brown Decisions."

Between you and me, I prefer the Post's "Poor Babies!" That does a better job of getting to the essence of the matter.

The acting dean, Robert E. Scott, in an email to students actually did use the T-word: he wrote that following existing policies for "trauma during exam period" students who felt their performance on final exams would suffer because of the grand jury decisions not to indict white police officers who killed alleged African-American perpetrators, could defer taking the exams.

Refusing to say how many sought delays, a Law School spokesperson said a "small number" had.

To me, even one student seeking such a deferment is one too many.

Yes, the decisions not to indicate are upsetting, deeply upsetting, but unless the "small number" of students who are delaying their finals are members of Eric Garner's or Michael Brown's immediate families (I doubt it), it is hard to imagine being so traumatized that they can't study or concentrate.

This is particularly pathetic behavior for law students who presumably are being prepared to deal with just these kinds of circumstances. Actually, even worse circumstances. Say, like what happened exactly two years ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School where 20 five- and six-year-olds were slaughtered.

I could sputter on about this--how we are over-pampering our young people, even those in top-ten law schools; how no one these days wants to take responsibility for anything; how we have lost moral fiber and what my father used to call "intestinal fortitude"; how for too many it's all about getting and spending; how the world has become Oprah-ized; how . . .

But I will resist and allow the Post front page to have the final word.