Louis C.K.'s earlier non-denial denial

Comedian Louis C.K. has come clean and admitted to having masturbated in front of numerous women, something he had been rumored to have done for years. He didn't even attempt to deny it, or throw any accusations back at his accusers, or lawyer up, or hire Black Cube.

He just said, yep, it's true. His straightforwardness was almost admirable. 

But it was a far cry from the way he had previously deflected the accusations when asked about them: 

”Well, you can’t touch stuff like that,” he told New York last year. “There’s one more thing I want to say about this, and it’s important: If you need your public profile to be all positive, you’re sick in the head. I do the work I do, and what happens next I can’t look after. So my thing is that I try to speak to the work whenever I can. Just to the work and not to my life.”

That's actually a masterpiece of obfuscatory language. If you were to hear it in person, it would be difficult to know how to respond, since the "answer" he's already given is so hard to digest. That blizzard of words was designed to leave you so confused that you would be unsure how to keep pressing him for an answer. 

But let's parse that statement, sentence by sentence.

"Well, you can't touch stuff like that."

Was Louis saying that the interviewer was venturing into forbidden territory by having the temerity to ask such a question? Or was he saying that it would be verboten for him to discuss it? And whom, exactly, did he mean by "you?" Himself?

Louis certainly had no qualms about touching his own stuff in the presence of all those female comedians.

"There's one more thing I want to say about this, and it's important: If you need your public profile to be all positive, then you're sick in the head."

You have to admire the way he emphasized his own statement's importance, as if it was an urgent moral message which everybody should pay attention to. But doesn't practically everyone in Hollywood need their public profile to be "all positive?" Isn't that what all those agents and PR people are for? And isn't that what all that virtue signaling is for? So is Louis C.K. saying that all of Hollywood is sick in the head?

Well, at least he was being honest on that score.

But when you claim that others are sick in the head, you're at least implying that you yourself are healthy in the head. Does a guy who forces women to watch him wank it really fit that description?

"I do the work I do, and what happens next I can’t look after." 

Imagine a foreman at the GM plant in Lansing saying, "I do my job responsibly every day, but after my shift is over, and I have a few brewskis, well, I can't be responsible for what happens next."

But isn't an adult supposed to be responsible all the time? And if you can't look after your own behavior, who will?

"So my thing is that I try to speak to the work whenever I can. Just to the work and not to my life."

See? He's just doing his thing. Which is to "speak to the work" whenever he can. (Is that phrase vague and meaningless enough for you? No one actually chats with their own work, so you have to think about exactly what he means.)

"Just to the work and not to my life."

His meaning might have been clearer if he'd just said, "I try to speak about my work whenever I can. Just about the work and not about my life."

Then again, Louis obviously didn't want to be clear. He wanted the interviewer to back off, confused.

It's a little ironic for Louis to be making that distinction between his work and his life, given that his life is his comedic material.

And, at the end of all that, he still hadn't answered the question.

Why couldn't he have just replied, "I'm not going to tell you."

Or, "I'll take the Fifth."

Or, "That's none of your business."

Well, because those responses would have been admissions of guilt. The response he gave was designed to make people think, "What? Wait a sec.....what am I missing here?"

The only reason anyone ever obfuscates like that is because they have something to hide.

Louis used his words the same way a squid uses a blast of ink: to cloud your vision while he makes his escape.

That skillful use of words is probably what made Louis C.K. such a great comedian.

Even if he was sort of a jerkoff.

Allegations are evidently enough

One of the striking things about the recent sexual harassment scandals is that mere allegations are all that's necessary to derail someone's career. Due process has been tossed out the window.

Now, I have no doubt that what all those women are saying about Harvey Weinstein and James Toback are true. And I'm pretty sure that the allegations against Kevin Spacey are true too. There are simply too many people pointing their fingers in the same direction.

But still, none of these guys have been convicted in a court of law, yet their careers have been derailed. Is this fair?

In the case of those three, their trespasses were so blatant, so constant, and so aggressive, that even if they somehow escape conviction, they deserve the verdicts handed down in the court of public opinion. And they deserve to lose their lofty Hollywood status.

But there have been other guys tarred by the #Metoo movement, guys who aren't really guilty of anything other than being a little pushy in the ways that guys often are.

Roy Price, whom I'd never heard of him before the scandal that enveloped him, had to resign from his job as head of Amazon Studios because the executive producer of one Amazon show accused him of lewdly propositioning her on several occasions in 2015. She didn't accuse him of grabbing her, or touching her, or being overly forceful. Merely of propositioning her.

Jeremy Piven was accused of putting his hands on the breasts and bum of Ariane Bellamar --

-- at a party at the Playboy mansion. I have no doubt that Piven's a jerk, and he's undoubtedly worse when he's had a few drinks. But does an awkward pass really reach the level of "assault?"

Dustin Hoffman has also been accused of sexual harassment. Hoffman evidently asked a 17-year-old intern if she'd had sex that weekend, and other mildly intrusive flirtation. He also reportedly put his hand on her butt a couple of times. I know Hoffman's type: an older guy who hides his horniness under the guise of friendly banter, as if he's just a playful uncle. Meanwhile, he's hoping that she'll give him some sign she's interested, but he's not quite willing to make an overt play because he doesn't want to suffer a rejection. (At least give that much to Weinstein: he put himself out there, and didn't play coy.) In any case, Hoffman's was a common type of behavior, and hardly worthy of being brought up 30 years later.

Another point has to be made here. If a good-looking guy acts in exactly the same way, and these women found him attractive, they might have just gone to bed with him. But when an ugly guy follows the same script, he's guilty of sexual harassment.

So the exact same behavior is either rewarded, or punished, depending largely on how good-looking the guy is. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right.

(Would this current #Metoo movement even exist if Harvey Weinstein weren't so hideous?) Note that Warren Beatty, one of the most famous womanizers of all time, has yet to be named.

Here's another thing to consider: would all of these women be coming forward if these men weren't famous? Of course not.

I made my share of awkward and occasionally overly aggressive passes when I was young. I guess it's a good thing I never became famous, otherwise I'd be up for my 15 minutes of shame. (To paraphrase Andy Warhol.)

At least, with all these new "victims" coming forward, let's stop calling them courageous. It would have taken courage to be the first person to accuse Weinstein, or someone else. But after all these other women have already come forward? It's merely lemming-like.

As I said earlier, Weinstein deserves the censure he's gotten, and if he's guilty of rape, he should go to prison.

But in the cases of some of the other guys, it's a lot more questionable. Just a few unsubstantiated allegations and someone's career is derailed?

This doesn't seem quite fair.

That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John McCain have all molested me.

"Video shows 'abducted' jogger unshackled, running to safety"

That sexy spokesmodel for Munchausen Syndrome, Sherri Papini, may have been lying about her purported kidnapping a year ago, but she certainly wasn't lying about being a jogger, as the video embedded in this article shows.

You can see her in the background in the first part of the clip, moving along at quite a respectable pace.

And if her original story is true, and if she was in fact wearing shackles while running like that she'd be an amazing athlete indeed.

Especially after two straight weeks of being starved and beaten.  

Wall Street sayings

Trading stocks or bonds is a big, complicated, murky business, and it's human nature to try to make some sort of sense out of it. Some of the expressions you hear regarding investing are basic good advice, but many are misguided, or conflict with each other. 

One of the things I noticed when I worked on Wall Street was that for many adages having to do with trading, there’s an equal and opposite expression. A lot of people will recite these cliches as if they’re giving you the wisdom of the ages, but once you’ve heard enough of them, you realize that many tend to contradict each other. And while there’s a little bit of truth to each of them, many are correct about fifty percent of the time.

When I worked there, my boss would say, “Cut your losses and let your gains run.” On other occasions he would say, “Bulls make money, bears make money, and pigs get slaughtered.” (In other words, don’t get too greedy.) But those expressions are diametrically opposed to each other.

You'll hear that "Wall Street is just a big machine for transferring money from the impatient to the patient." But you'll also hear, "It never hurts to go to the bank,” and "No harm in ringing the cash register," both of which contradict the first one.

Another expression you hear a lot is, “Be greedy when everyone else is fearful, and fearful when everyone else is greedy.” That's basically sound advice. The problem there is figuring out when the
"fear" and "greed" have run their course. Up or down a thousand points on the Dow? How about four thousand? Bear in mind that this expression applies much more to overall market swoons and peaks than it does to individual stocks, which can go up tenfold, or to zero (unlike the market, at least in the short term).

Another thing you’ll hear is, don’t use leverage (margin) and become overextended. That’s true: there’s no quicker way to go bankrupt (or to get rich). Think of it this way: the difference --  in terms of both peace of mind and lifestyle -- between your current net worth and zero is far greater than the difference between your current worth and double that.

Another thing you’ll hear a lot is John Maynard Keynes' famous quote, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” That's certainly indisputable: you may have logical, compelling reasons for why a stock – or the market – should be higher or lower, but that doesn’t mean that either will revert to reason in the near future. Another reason not to get overextended.

"Markets always tend to swing too widely." This echoes Keynes, and is often true: markets do tend to get overexuberant on the upside, and can reflect too much pessimism on the downside. (But neither necessarily implies an immediate correction.) You'll usually make money by buying the large swoons, but they don’t come all that often. And when they do come, the question is, as always, is this the end of the swoon? 

Another truism is to invest in what you know. The idea there is, if you go into, say, a Costco, and you like the way the store is organized and you like the prices and you see that they’re getting a lot of business, you should invest in Costco stock. The only problem with that is, a lot of other people have already been to Costco, and had the same idea, and Costco’s shopper-friendliness is almost certainly already factored into its price.

However, the corollary to that is unquestionably true: don’t invest in what you don’t understand. (Warren Buffett has always been a big proponent of this.) If someone tells you that such and such a company has a hot new product, unless you really understand how and where it will be used, and who the players are, and what competitive advantages each has, it might be best to stay away. Unless you have complete faith in whoever told you this. 

Another thing you’ll hear is, don’t invest more than you can afford to lose. That's inarguable. You can drive yourself crazy thinking, wow, with the amount of money I lost on that stock could have bought a new car! I’m not suggesting you torture yourself this way, but going through that mental exercise beforehand is worthwhile. It’s too easy to start throwing large sums of money around as if it’s a different currency than the one you use in your everyday life.

An investing expression I first heard a few weeks ago is, "All you need to do is find a two inch high bar and then jump back and forth across it." In other words, you're generally going to be better off finding a little niche and exploiting it than you are by making grand predictions about the course of the overall market.

I've never known anyone who's consistently right about market direction; I'm not even sure I've ever known anyone who was right more than fifty percent of the time. There are just too many variables. It’s like trying to predict the weather a year from now. No one can possibly take into account what the Fed, the dollar, the economy, world events, the stock market, interest rates, commodities, and computerized trading systems will do, and how they will all affect each other. Yet, some people try. One thing I found on Wall Street is that the surer someone sounds about market direction, the more full of crap he is in general.

"You're never as good as you think you are, you're never as bad as you think you are." This is another way of saying that luck plays a huge role in investing. With you, and with everyone else. Of course, people tend to use this expression more often when they’re doing poorly. But never underestimate how much luck has to do with outcomes. If picking the right stocks were purely a matter of intelligence, all you’d have to do is hand out IQ tests and follow the lead of whoever scored highest.

"He's talking his book." Often true. Fund managers often appear on TV to talk about how such and such a stock is a fantastic value. When you hear that, bear in mind that he’s merely trying to goose demand to send the price of a stock he owns up (maybe, so he can sell it). Likewise, bank analysts usually talk up a stock if their firm is handling its corporate financing. The “Chinese wall” that supposedly exists between the finance side and sell side of a bank has always been extremely porous.

"It's harder to manipulate the top line than the bottom line." In other words, you can always adjust things like good will, amortization, accounts receivable, set-asides for potential problems, etc., to fudge your profits. But it's much harder to massage the amount of revenues you have coming in. This
is true, and why companies always announce their revenues as well as earnings per share.

Another thing a lot of people look at is insider selling and buying. You always hear that insider selling means less than insider buying because there are always all sorts of reasons for people to sell a stock: because they want to buy a house, get divorced, diversify, etc. But if insiders buy, it’s almost always a good sign. Who else is in a better position to know that their stock is going up? Some investors base their stock trading entirely on following insider buying; that's not a bad strategy.

"Don’t get married to a position." If you own a stock for a certain period of time, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking, I’ve held it this long, just think how mad I’ll be if I sell and then it finally goes up. But that’s letting your own emotions – or potential emotions – drive your trading, and that’s never wise.

Those are sayings and bits of advice that have become cliches, some for good reason. Let me add a few things here I've learned on my own. (I'm not suggesting these thoughts are original, merely that they don't come attached to Wall Street cliches.)

As an individual investor, be aware that you're going to be the last person to hear about things that go wrong with a company. And there are an infinite number of things that can go wrong. A competitor could produce a superior product. The company could be sued for something not its fault. There could be production glitches. Any "act of God" -- as the insurance companies phrase it -- could go against them. Legislation, both foreign and domestic, could negatively impact them. Maybe they've been cooking the books. A single rogue employee could singlehandedly bring disaster. You can’t trade as if you’re always expecting disaster, but the possibility is something to be aware of.

Given that you're at an informational disadvantage, also be aware that the stocks of small, early stage companies are even more vulnerable to new information. Unless you have a network of well placed spies, you’ll be the last to hear news which could send a thinly traded stock soaring or collapsing. Given which, you may be better off sticking with huge, liquid, widely traded stocks like GM, XOM, AAPL, and AMZN, which react more to macro trends than to little bits of inside information.  

While we're on the subject of inside information, be aware that on the day before an announcement that a company is being bought out, its stock almost always trades up. It’s extremely suspicious, but only rarely does anyone gets prosecuted for insider trading as a result. (It happens, but rarely; my guess is, it’s far less than one percent of insider traders are caught.)

Be leery of taking friends’ advice. I’ve had a lot of friends give me a lot of advice. It was all well meaning, and I’ve never let a piece of bad advice affect a friendship. But just because someone is smart, or witty, or conversant with market terminology doesn’t mean he knows which way a stock is headed. And even if someone has a good track record, in the end, no one is infallible.

Even hedge fund managers aren’t necessarily better than the rest of us. They’re just confident guys with big egos who figured they could outperform the market, were good at convincing others of this, and thus were successful at raising money. Some did outperform the market, and got extremely rich by making bets with other peoples’ money. Others didn't, and simply closed up shop. And even those with good records don't have hot hands which last forever.

If you think that hedge fund managers are brilliant, take a look at their stock picks. It’s surprising how mundane many of them are. They’re usually invested in the most obvious, widely traded, heavily capitalized stocks. When you hear that a certain financial wizard’s largest holdings include Facebook, Apple, Netflix, General Motors, Exxon, Amazon, and Citigroup, it leaves you wondering, where is the genius in that? Most don’t seem to have researchers who tell them which small biotech is going to be the next 20-bagger. This is not to say that such people don’t exist, merely that most fund managers are simply good salesmen.

Some hedge funders have consistently outperformed thanks to insider trading. The Feds were convinced that Steven A. Cohen, who ran one of the biggest funds, was guilty of this, and managed to convict a couple of people who worked at his firm, but were never able to ensnare him. I, of course, don't know, but my guess would be that they were suspicious of him for good reason.

Mentally separate your long term positions from your short term positions. If you buy a stock because you think it can double, don’t then sell because it’s up a point. There’s no harm in day trading a small portion of a large position, to try to capture the daily zigs and zags. But unless the longer term trades start going against you in a big way, sequester them, and continue to think of them as long term. Likewise, if you bought something for a day trade, don’t let it turn into a long term investment.

If you see that a company is run by a guy who comes across like a sociopath, stay away. I’ve ignored that rule in the past, to my detriment. A sociopath is far more likely to be lying about results, or about expectations, or embezzling, or somehow using company funds for his personal use. Or, maybe he just has overly grandiose expectations for what he and his company are capable of, and thus is far more likely to be using leverage and getting overextended (sociopaths like risk). And, he’s likely creating discord within the company, and using bad judgment to drive it into the ground.

Also be aware that while sociopaths constitute only 3% of the overall population, they represent a far larger percentage of CEOs.

Most of us are easily conditioned by the last mistake we made. (And every trade, unless you put all your money in at the very bottom and then take every last cent out at the very top, can be defined as a mistake.) So if you overstayed your welcome in a stock last time, chances are you’ll sell early next time; and if you got out too early last time, you’ll likely hold longer next time. Half of the time that will be the right thing to do, the other half the wrong thing. Just be aware that you’re probably being a little too swayed by your last trade.

Maybe the most important thing is to recognize your own quirks. Are you by instinct a bull, or a bear? Are you a momentum trader, or a contrarian? Do you prefer value stories, or growth stories? You have to recognize your own instinctive tendencies and, if not counteract them, at least, take them into account.

Everybody has personal idiosyncracies in terms of how they invest. And you must be brutally honest with yourself about this. It’s the smartest thing you can do as a trader. The only way you’ll ever learn is by constantly asking yourself, how did I screw up this time?

I’m a contrarian by nature (in case that wasn't apparent from this blog). And one of my weaknesses is that I'm impatient, too quick to take a profit. So what I do more of these days is sell covered calls against stock I own. That way, instead of making one point on a stock if it goes up, I might make two. (And if the stock goes down, I'll be "hedged" by the amount of the option premium.) That limits my upside, but that tends to already be limited by my impatience anyway.

If you're a patient investor, that approach probably isn't right for you. But the point is, I try to be aware of and counteract my personal idiosyncrasies -- and so should you.

Finally, remember what I said at the beginning of this post, that a lot of Wall Street adages are right approximately 50% of the time – and that probably includes much of what I just said.

Does fame make people better-looking?

One of the things I've always been struck by is how some women who are famous are automatically thought of as great beauties, even when they're not. A case in point would be Jackie Kennedy:

Yes, she was good-looking, and yes, she was half of the twentieth century's most glamorous couple. And when someone is photographed as much as she was, the effect when you finally see them in person must be electrifying. But she really wasn't any great beauty.

If you didn't know who she was, and saw her for the first time, say, behind a cash register at your local Stop & Shop, and she wasn't all dolled up in the latest expensive fashions, with makeup perfectly applied, you might not even look twice. Her own sister Lee Radziwill was better-looking:

I was idly Google-imaging Anouk Aimee, the French actress, recently, which is what sparked this post. She was a rough contemporary of Jackie's, and in some pictures bore a resemblance to her, but was a real beauty:

The fame phenomenon seemed to apply to Princess Diana:

She was frequently described as a great beauty, but if you look at her face, feature by feature, it's pretty ordinary. Again, given how much she was photographed, she must have seemed magical to those who finally saw her in person. And, of course, having the best makeup artists and hairdressers helped too.

But all that makes you wonder how she would have been perceived if she hadn't been married to Prince Charles, and if she hadn't been famous. I can honestly tell you that if I'd gone to high school with her, she would barely have registered.

I've seen local high school girls, and local housewives, who are far better-looking than either Jackie or Princess Di, though they'll never become famous. And who knows, some of them may lose their looks by middle age anyway. But that doesn't mean they're not better-looking now than Jackie or Di ever were.

Fame, and glamor, are weird things. They put beer goggles on us, even when we're stone sober.

What effect will sexbots have on human relationships?

I realize this blog seems to have had a one track mind recently, and I'll get back to other topics shortly. But if the coming sexbot revolution is going to be as sweeping as some seem to think, it's going to have some devastating social effects.

I'm not talking about what some feminists are suggesting, that sexbots be banned because they will cause men to lose respect for women.

I'm talking about issues like, will spouses allow each other to keep a sexbot? Expect a lot of magazine articles to come out with titles like:

Why I won't allow my husband to have a sexbot

I was devastated when I found my wife had been seeing a sexbot

Is it cheating when your lover uses a sexbot? 

How I made peace with my husband's sexbot 

And Why I bought my wife a sexbot.

Will people become addicted to their sexbots? Will there be rehab facilities for these addicts?

Will people develop emotional attachments to their sexbots? A recent movie, She, portrayed a man who fell in love with a robotic voice; we were supposed to see him as a crazed fool. But if, for argument's sake, that's possible, wouldn't it be far more likely that people could develop romantic feelings for something they actually have sex with?

Will people see sexbots as a good way to "practice" and get better at sex?

Will doctors prescribe sexbots the way they used to suggest the "uterine paroxysm cure" for hysterical women?

Will a certain type of person absolutely have to have the latest model, the same way certain people couldn't bear to have the iPhone6 once the iPhone7 was out?

Will rich people accumulate harems? Will those harems spark jealousy?

Will certain older, classic models become collector's items?

Will sexbots become the new status symbol -- the new cars, so to speak -- where someone's self-image is inextricably tied up with the model he "drives?"

Will the availability of sexbots cut down on the incidence of rape?

If people have their sexual needs completely fulfilled by sexbots, will bars and nightclubs become quaint relics of the past?

Will sexbots make men feel insecure? I know what I'd feel like if I walked into some potential paramour's apartment and saw a handsome sexbot with a huge penis that never went soft: a third-rate substitute.

And how will wives feel if their husbands favor, say, the Blake Lively model sexbot, which stays forever young, effectively mocking them as they gradually age?

We may be living in the Dark Ages now, but one thing which won't change is human nature.

Forcing women to watch you masturbate

When most guys get rejected by a woman, their instinct is to slink away with their tail between their legs. They feel embarrassed, maybe even humiliated, and want to make a quick exit.

But evidently some guys have an entirely different reaction: they pull their tail out and wank it. That behavior may stop short of rape, but it's indecent exposure and a half.

Until recently, I didn't even know this was a thing. I had always heard that flashers were basically just guys who were impotent. Evidently not.

Harvey Weinstein has reportedly done this to at least two women who wanted no part of him.

Comedian Louis C.K. has been accused of having done this to several female comediennes.

And now MSNBC personality Mark Halperin is being accused of the same thing.

All three of these men were in positions of power, and the women they did it to were initially reluctant to complain because they felt it might have harmed their careers.

Prison inmates have long been known to do this to female guards. In a way, it's actually harder to blame them. Those who weren't animals to begin with may become that way after a stint in prison, and the female guards are the only females they have any contact with.

That certainly doesn't excuse it, but it does make it a little easier to understand.

I was originally going to describe this behavior as another red flag for sociopathy, since it combines a complete lack of inhibition with a complete disregard for the women forced to watch. And Weinstein is, as I've pointed out before, an obvious sociopath.

But looking through Louis C.K.'s and Halperin's biographies, there just isn't a whole lot else that spells sociopathy about either man. And both are of an age, and have led public enough lives, that, were they sociopaths, the syndrome would have manifested itself in any number of ways. And it just hasn't.

So I can't call the behavior a red flag for sociopathy. But it's probably a red flag for something; I'm just not sure what the syndrome is.

What will sexbots say?

Men obviously have different physical tastes in women. Some like blondes, some prefer redheads; some like buxom, some prefer slender.

Men also have varying tastes when it comes to personality. Since these new sexbots will evidently be able to "talk," there will undoubtedly be a variety of personalities -- and responses -- that sexbots exhibit.

Some guys like to be told how good-looking they are. Their sexbots should be programmed to say, "Oh, you're so handsome, you should be a gigolo!"

Some prefer shy and demure: "I've never done this before.....is it going to hurt?" Or, "I've been saving my virginity for you."

Others want a woman as lustful as they are: "Oh, please, give it to me now, I want it so bad....Don't make me wait any more. Please."

Some guys want to be complimented on their prowess. Their dolls should be programmed to sound as if they're having constant orgasms, one after another.

Others like the rape fantasy: "No! Please! Don't! I don't want to do this! This is so wrong!"

Others want to be told they're loved. "Oh....I love you so much....I want to be with you of the rest of my life." Actually, I'm not really sure any guys want to hear that during sex. That's something male sexbots might be programmed to say to women, though.

Some men are pretentious. Perhaps their sexbots can be programmed to quote Shakespeare: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou are more lovely, and more temperate." Or, "My bounty is as boundless as the sea my love as deep; the more I give to thee, the more I have, for both are infinite."

If television and the movies are any guide, some men like British accents. So maybe the bots will speak in those.

Some are into playacting; their bots could be programmed to be nurses, or schoolteachers, or schoolgirls. Or historical figures, like Mata Hari, or Catherine the Great.

Some like to feel smart. Maybe their sexbots could be programmed to act dumb, so they can feel intelligent by contrast. "Between you and I, irregardless of how this goes, I hope you know I'm not the type of girl who sleeps with a guy on the first date. You better still respect me after this."

There are guys who like to be humiliated: "Seriously, have you ever even done this before? You know, there's nothing wrong with you that a little Viagra couldn't cure."

All guys aren't in the mood sometimes, but some don't like to admit that. For them, sexbots could be programmed to say, "Oh my god, you're such an animal. I'm sorry honey, I just can't, I have another yeast infection." Or, "I'm right in the middle of my period, and I'm cramping really badly."

The possibilities are endless.

"Cops say details in 'abducted' jogger's story don't add up"

The NY Post ran a story this evening about the contradictions and inaccuracies in Sherri Papini's story about how she was kidnapped for two weeks.

I had pointed out back in December that there were a number of things about her story that didn't make sense.

And it emerged in March that Papini had a history of lying, and self-harming, and stealing things from her own family.

It's pretty obvious at this point that Papini has Munchausen's Syndrome: she concocted an elaborate hoax simply to get a lot of attention and sympathy.

And, please, don't forget that Munchausen's is nothing more than a form of sociopathy. A lot of people seem to think that it is a unique, standalone mental illness. It is not. It is merely the ploy of a an unscrupulous person to gain attention and sympathy through elaborately dishonest means.

Sherri Papini is a sociopath, plain and simple. Don't let that innocent face fool you:

Let Sherri serve as a reminder that sociopaths come in all shapes and sizes and levels of beauty.

Let's hope the judge, when sentencing her for filing a false police report does not feel sympathy for her and lessen her sentence because of her "mental illness."

That actually happened in the case of Lacey Spears, the woman who poisoned and eventually killed her own son in an effort to gain widespread attention and sympathy. (When you make someone close to you sick in an effort to gain sympathy, it's called Munchausen-by-proxy.) According to Wiki:

On April 8, 2015, a judge sentenced Spears to 20 years to life in prison for the death of her son. The judge in the case, Robert Neary, said that Lacey Spears suffers from Munchausen syndrome by proxy,  and therefore did not sentence her to 25 years in prison, the maximum possible sentence.

That was a miscarriage of justice.

Panini hasn't done anything nearly as bad. But as a sociopath, she's certainly a lot more capable of doing bad things than most people are.

Could you be turned on by a sexbot?

A friend recently sent this article about the coming sexbot revolution. It got me to wondering: could I get turned on by a robot?

Even knowing that it was just a piece of plastic, would I, at some level, be able to think of it as a human being? Wouldn't that put me on the same level as a pathetic dog which humps someone's leg?

Honestly, I don't think I could be aroused by that. I'm almost embarrassed to admit that, as it puts me into the "sensitive" cohort I usually despise.

But, that also makes me wonder if the coming sexbot revolution will be quite as big as some anticipate. According to the article linked above, 9% of women and 24% of men say that they would consider using a sexbot. Of course, there may be a certain social embarrassment element factored into those percentages. And that might change if such toys become more widely accepted: if all your friends are using them, wouldn't you be more inclined to do so yourself?

Which brings me back to whether I'd find that appealing. Like most people, I tend to assume others are like me. In my case that may be slightly more accurate since I'm so average in some ways: I'm not particularly nice, but I'm not a bad guy either. And I'm of average masculinity, neither wimpy nor a beast. So, I figure I'm a pretty good proxy.

And that makes me wonder how much demand there'll be for these things.

There's always been a small market for those blowup dolls which bear absolutely no resemblance to a real woman. And in the future, sexbots are going to be far more realistic.

There seems to be a vein of sentiment among some of the guys I've spoken to about how these things will be far preferable to real women. (Women aren't the only ones who, after a lifetime of experience, harbor a generalized resentment against the opposite sex.) These new toys will probably be fairly expensive, but once you've bought one, it won't spend all your money. It won't divorce you. And it won't ever tell you it's not in the mood for sex.

Of course, the fact that sexbots will be so acquiescent will also detract from their realism.

I suppose in order for a sexbot to convince me of its humanity, it would have to be programmed to say, "We don't talk enough."

"You haven't taken me out to dinner recently."

"Anything a man can do, a woman can do better."

"I have my own kind of logic."

"Who are you to say I'm not entitled to my own set of facts?"

And, "You're such an obnoxious asshole."

Then, maybe, I could believe it was real, and get turned on.

Or not.

Virtue signaling, high and low

One correlation that becomes clear when you look at the prison pen pal advertisements is that inmates who are obvious sociopaths always take pains to let you know what good people they are.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Death Row inmates. If you were to take them at their word, there has never been a more giving, loving, caring group of people.

Take a look here, and here, and here, and here.

They are, to use a phrase generally used in another context, virtue signaling.

And even with the inmates who were not on Death Row, generally, the worse the crime, the more effort they take to let you know how virtuous they are.

Inmates who are in for, say, a minor drug offense rarely take such pains to tell us what wonderful people they are. (Generally, they try to emphasize how sexy they are.)

We've seen that the only people who ever talk of their consciences as distinct entities are people who lack one.

And one of the distinguishing traits of sociopaths is their emotional falseness. We saw it with Lance Armstrong telling us that if he ever cheated at golf and got caught he would be heartbroken forever.

We saw it when Bill Clinton told us that he feels our pain.

We saw it with Karen Sypher telling that desk sergeant about what a devout Catholic she is, how much she cared for her dying grandmother, and how much she regretted her abortions.

We see it when Tony Robbins says, "To know that in some small way I’ve made a difference for at least one person and that I have helped them to begin to create the quality of life they truly deserve is what drives me most."

These are all just poses. And we see them over and over again.

(If you look closely, you'll see the more skillful sociopaths actually pose physically, too, as Bill Clinton demonstrated here and here. One sociopathic tell, as both he and Karen Sypher have demonstrated, is the wiping away of nonexistent tears.)

One thing that has become clear after the recent pecking party directed at Harvey Weinstein is how similar the virtue signaling crowd is. There's a strong parallel here with the sociopathic inmates: the more loudly people proclaim their goodness, the less of it there is.

I'm not referring to the women who were Weinstein's victims; they've had to keep their outrage and hurt bottled up for many years because they feared Weinstein's clout in the industry, and are now finally getting a chance to vent their anger. That's certainly understandable.

I'm talking about the people who were not his victims, but who are releasing statements about how shocked they are and how much they disapprove of that type of behavior. It doesn't take exactly the same form as when the inmates saying directly what loving, caring people they are; but the underlying message is exactly the same.

This is virtue signaling, plain and simple. And it's really not all that much different than when the Hollywood crowd virtue signals by paying lip service the right causes. (Actually, Harvey himself, an extremely outspoken liberal, is a prime example of that.)

It's like that old saying about how the only people who advertise their honesty and integrity are those who have none.

It's true of Death Row inmates, and it's true of Hollywood stars.

The harder they try to look noble, the worse they are. It's almost a straight line correlation.

A question for the guys

Would you let Harvey Weinstein have anal sex with you if by doing so you could be the next James Bond?

Now, most of you will almost automatically, reflexively, say, no way! But take a moment to think about it.

The next James Bond.

In return for, say, ten minutes of discomfort and disgust, you could have all the women you wanted for the next ten or twenty years, and tens -- if not hundreds -- of millions of dollars. You could support your entire extended family with that kind of money.

Sure, you'd have a bad memory to last a lifetime. But you'd also have hundreds of good memories -- of all the beautiful women you'd get to have sex with if you got the role.

All you single guys: how many women could you realistically expect to sleep with in the next ten years? Let's say, for argument's sake, you're not particularly into long term relationships. So, how many? Five? Ten? Twenty? (No need to be overly optimistic here: let your last ten years guide your estimate.)

If you were known as the actor who played James Bond, women would do their best to seduce you, just so they could boast about it. And that includes a lot of women far better-looking than any you would have had otherwise.

If you turned down this opportunity, you'd be being untrue to your own heterosexuality, given what you'd be sacrificing by saying no to Harvey.

If I'd been given this proposition at age 30, I think my immediate, instinctive reaction would have been, "Never!"

But now, looking back from the vantage point of 63, I'd urge that 30-year-old to say yes. I'd sure as hell do it now. (It'd be gay not to.)

One thing I could promise you -- if I did have that opportunity, and I took advantage of it, I wouldn't be coming forward twenty years later to say that I had been one of Harvey's victims.

No, that secret would die with me.

Rose McGowan, avenging Fury.

There seems little doubt that everything Rose McGowan has said about what Harvey Weinstein did to her two decades ago is true. But it's a little strange that now, a full two decades later, she would suddenly transform into one of the Furies of Greek myth.

McGowan's wrath has spread to others as well. First, she scathingly castigated all of the women who hadn't come forward to tell their tales of harassment by Weinstein.

She criticized Jeff Bezos for the fact that Amazon Studios had a deal with the Weinstein Company.

When Ben Affleck pretended not to have known what Weinstein had been up to, Rose Tweeted, "YOU LIE!"

Woody Allen's take on the situation was,  “The whole Harvey Weinstein thing is very sad for everybody involved. Tragic for the poor women that were involved, sad for Harvey that his life is so messed up.”

McGowan's response to that was to call Allen a "vile little worm."

Two days ago, comedian James Corden made a few jokes about Weinstein at an AIDS benefit. Among them:

“It has been weird this week, though, hasn’t it — watching Harvey Weinstein in hot water. Ask any of the women who watched him take a bath — it’s weird watching Harvey Weinstein in hot water.”

“Harvey Weinstein wanted to come tonight, but he’ll settle for whatever potted plant is closest,” he added.

McGowan's response was to say to Corden --

-- "YOU MOTHERFUCKING PIGLET!"

According to the NY Post, McGowan said:

“Hearing the audience’s vile roars & laughs show EXACTLY what kind of HOLLYWOOD you really are.”

She also demanded that CBS, for which Corden hosts “The Late Late Show,” to donate money to the East Los Angeles Women’s Center “OR YOU TOO SUPPORT RAPE CULTURE,” and added the hashtag “f–kjamescorden.”

To McGowan, even jokes at Weinstein's expense are unacceptable. 

(If a good-looking male actor referred to a fat female comedian as a "piglet," wouldn't that be considered irredeemably sexist and unforgivably fat-shaming?)

All of which makes one wonder, is McGowan the right person to be leading this charge? 

She is, after all, one of the eight women who took money from Weinstein on the condition that they sign a nondisclosure agreement. McGowan took the money, in 1997, on the condition she remain silent. So she lied when she said she'd keep her mouth shut. 

And not only is she violating the terms of that agreement, she is scathing towards anyone who doesn't speak up -- never mind that she herself remained mute for 20 years. 

Post-rape, McGowan starred in at least three more Weinstein-produced or distributed movies: Phantoms, in 1998; Planet Terror, in 2007 (Dimension Films was owned by the Weinstein Company); and Death Proof, in 2007. 

And, as commenter LBD just pointed out, in 2011 McGowan starred in Rosewood Lane, which was directed by Victor Salva, who had previously been imprisoned for child molestation. 

Here's a picture of Weinstein and McGowan in happier times:

But McGowan, with her demands for donations to a women's center and her talk of rape culture, now sounds like a fire-breathing feminist. And she currently sports a hairstyle to match:

In case you were wondering what a feminist looks like when she's young, here's McGowan at 25:

(I remember seeing pictures of McGowan with then boyfriend Marilyn Manson and thinking, can't she do better than that? What kind of sex do those two have? Isn't there some more healthy, masculine guy she'd rather be with?)

And here's the budding feminist at 35, promoting the Weinstein film Death Proof in 2008, 11 years after she says she was raped by him:

McGowan seemed happy enough to take Weinstein's money up until 2008, which makes her current role as ultra-feminist a little less convincing. I would as soon buy her as the one-legged machine gun artist in Planet Terror:

(This picture, by the way, doesn't seem a bad metaphor for her current incarnation as a Fury.)

If McGowan seems a little confused, you can hardly blame her. A look at the "Early Life" section of her Wiki bio is revealing:

Rose Arianna McGowan was born on September 5, 1973 in Certaldo, Tuscany, the second-eldest of six children of American couple Terri, a former writer and Microsoft employee, and Daniel McGowan, who worked as a commercial artist. McGowan also has two half-siblings. Her ancestry is French and Irish.

Her father ran an Italian chapter of the Children of God, to which both he and his wife held membership until 1978. McGowan spent her early childhood amid the group's communes, often traveling through Europe with her parents. When interviewed by Howard Stern in 2001, she stated she had avoided the group's calls for members to become sexually active as children and stated that she never personally experienced abuse as a child.

Through her father's art contacts in Italy, McGowan became a child model and appeared in Vogue Bambini and various other Italian magazines. Her parents returned to the United States when she was 10 years old, and settled in Eugene, Oregon. McGowan had a wayward childhood, living as a teenage runaway in Portland, Oregon and associating with a group of drag queens in the city. After her parents divorced, McGowan lived with her father in Seattle, Washington, attended Roosevelt High School and Nova Alternative High School, and worked at McDonald's. At the age of 15, she officially emancipated herself from her parents and relocated to Los Angeles.

It's enough to make you feel sorry for her. What was the story with her mother? (In 1983 it wasn't common for fathers to get sole custody.) And what does it say about her parents -- and McGowan -- that she would want to legally "emancipate" herself from them at age 15? A lack of stability early on in life generally presages instability later on as well.

(Her early association with drag queens certainly helps explain her comfort with Marilyn Manson.)

McGowan is fully embracing her role as rape victim (now, finally, two decades after it happened) and women's advocate. I've written before about how many of the prominent feminists of the past half century seemed to have come from mixed up backgrounds; McGowan fits that pattern.

Once again: I have no doubt that all those actresses, including McGowan, are telling the truth about Weinstein, who, as I pointed out a few posts ago, is a sociopath.

And Weinstein should, undoubtedly, be in prison.

But McGowan should probably be on a psychiatrist's couch.

Harvey finds out who his real friends are

I don't think I've ever seen a fall from grace (excluding those which involve murder) quite as quick as Harvey Weinstein's. The piling on has been fast and furious, to use the title of one of the few movies Weinstein had no hand in.

Now that Harvey's show biz career has gone the way of OJ's and Bill Cosby's, and now that he no longer has any power, everyone and their sister has come out to say that either (a) they, too, were a victim, or (b) they are oh-so shocked and offended to find out that Harvey was actually a serial sexual harasser.

At this point I'm almost more sympathetic to Weinstein than I am to his various accusers.

Rose McGowan got a settlement from him back in 1997, signed a nondisclosure deal, and subsequently got cast in at least three more Weinstein movies. But now she's violating the terms of her deal. And she's lashing out not only at Weinstein, but also at all those who've remained silent for years, conveniently forgetting that she, too, was one of them.

Jane Fonda has expressed her dismay, adding that Weinstein never hit on her since he "preferred the younger ones because they're more vulnerable." (No Jane, he preferred the younger ones because they're more physically appealing, though you were a beauty in your days as Hanoi Jane.)

Minka Kelly has chimed in to say how terrible it was that Weinstein offered her trips on private jets and luxury vacations if she would be his girlfriend. (I'm not sure exactly what the crime was, there.)

Anyway, you've seen the headlines; the list of Weinstein's accusers currently stands at 30 and counting.

Then there's Hillary, who released a vaguely worded statement expressing surprise at Weinstein's behavior and condemning that type of behavior. Hillary is obviously an innocent idealist who had no idea that these kinds of pay-for-play schemes go on, otherwise she would never have accepted Weinstein's political donations.

Some of the men who've castigated Weinstein for his behavior are equally hypocritical. Ben Affleck and Oliver Stone chimed in with criticisms, but it turned out that both of them had acted similarly.

I'd be impressed if just one guy were to say, "Listen, we all knew what he was up to. He had a reputation as a pig, and from what I saw, he lived up to it. Let's face it, with that mug there was no way he was getting laid without using his clout, so he used it. A lot of guys would have done the same. But, the guy treated me well. He produced my script, and even let me direct. So he was a mentor to me, and for that I'll always be grateful. I can't condone some of the other things he did, but I try to treat people as they treat me, and he treated me well."

I'd be even more impressed if an actress were to say, "Sure, I slept with him. I had to, to get the role. He didn't spell it out that blatantly, but it was always sort of understood. I was young and poor and needed the work. So, I held my nose and let him do his thing. Frankly, I'm glad I did. Look at the career I've had since. I'm rich, and famous, and even have a reputation as a good actress. And if I weren't doing this, I'd be waiting tables somewhere. Do you have any idea how many beautiful young women come to Hollywood because their friends told them they should be actresses, and never get anywhere? One thing I'll say for Harvey, he was good on his word -- he gave me the part. You have no idea how many guys will lie to get you into bed. At least Harvey delivered. Sure, he was a grotesque pig, but overall, I'm grateful to him."

I could respect that. Working hard -- and having sex with Weinstein has to qualify as that -- to get ahead is the American way. And honesty is a rare commodity, especially in Hollywood.

But, so far, no such people have emerged. All of his former friends and associates and beneficiaries have used the opportunity to come forward and burnish their own credentials for goodness.

All of this brings to mind Ted Bundy's mother, who, on the eve of his execution, spoke to him twice by phone, telling him, "You'll always be my precious son."

That is true loyalty. Bundy obviously deserved to be executed -- at least 36 times over -- and there's no justifying him in any way. But, the fact that his mother still loved him after all he'd done shows exactly what real love -- or friendship -- is supposed to be. And it's actually sort of moving to know that his mother said that to him at the end. Especially since she appears to have been nothing but a victim in that situation too: Ted was apparently the result of her rape by her father.

You can't compare a mother's love to a Hollywood "friendship." But the point is that real love -- or friendship -- sticks through thick and thin. Things are pretty thin for Harvey right now -- as they should be -- and there seems to be no one who has stood by him.

Not even his own brother, or his wife.

There hasn't even been a single positive word.

I'm not even suggesting Weinstein deserves to have friends. (No sociopath does, really.) But there must be someone he was good to -- at least one guy whose career he helped -- who ought to show some loyalty. (Quentin, where are you?)

But so far, no one has.

Ann Coulter on Stephen Paddock

Two days ago commenter Fled the Undertow mentioned Ann Coulter's article, Media Begging Us for Conspiracy Theories on Las Vegas.

Coulter points out a couple of things that don't make sense about the media's portrayal of Stephen Paddock. First, unlike with real poker tournaments, where a skillful player can make money, you can't be a consistent winner with video poker. And while you can win from time to time, it's certainly not, as the Los Angeles Times claimed, "a steady income over a period of years."

So, why would he be spending that much time playing it, and getting, at best, a 99 cent return on each dollar he spent, if not to launder money for some illegal business?

Coulter also asks why Paddock would be wearing gloves if he had been planning to commit suicide? And why did it take eight days to figure out when he checked into the hotel? And have any other mass shooters ever had girlfriends?

There's too much about this shooting that doesn't make sense.

Coulter then offers the following scenario:

[T]he probable illicit business requiring money to be laundered that leaps out at us in Paddock’s case is illegal gun sales. If true, it would not only explain the arsenal in his hotel room, but also raises the possibility of either an accomplice or different perpetrator altogether.

If this were a movie script, a terrorist would go to Paddock’s room on the pretense of buying guns, kill Paddock, commit the massacre, put his gunshot residue-covered gloves on Paddock’s dead hands and slip out of the room when the coast was clear.

Coulter then says there is no evidence for that theory, but at least it doesn't require us to believe that Paddock was making lots of money from video poker.

This makes sense for a couple of other reasons that Coulter doesn't mention. According to David Newton, an officer with the LVPD, when police first entered Paddock's room at the Mandalay Bay, they found "an armory. So many guns, so many magazines, stacks and stacks of magazines everywhere just in suitcases all neatly stacked against pillars that were in the room, all stacked up, rifles placed all throughout. All kinds of monitors and electrical equipment he had in there. It just looked like almost a gun store."

Paddock couldn't possibly have used all of those weapons in one shooting spree. So why did he have them all there, neatly arranged, looking like "a gun store?" Maybe because it was? 

There are problems with the terrorist theory too. First, why would Paddock have rented a room overlooking that concert if he thought he was just going to be selling guns? And why would he have rented a room overlooking the Lollapalooza concert in Chicago back in August?

The answer to that might be that the person or people posing as the gun buyer(s) might have rented the rooms for him, offering to pay for them, and Paddock just figured he'd take advantage of the freebie.

All we know so far is that there is no apparent motive for this killing. In the meantime, Coulter is right: there are a lot of questions about Paddock, many of which remain unanswered.

Georgina Chapman

Commenter LBD had some trenchant observations about Mr. and Mrs. Weinstein after the previous post. Her first comment:

When this first broke I told my husband, I'm counting down.....three, two, one...until his wife leaves him. She is twenty years his junior, very attractive, and he is now nothing but a liability to her. He has made her fashion company name toxic and is unlikely to earn much money in the future. If he were a nice guy with a giving heart I might believe she would like sleeping with him, but seeing as how he is a physically unattractive sociopath with a nasty personality and an odd kick in his gallop sexually, he is, as they say, neither use nor ornament.

Sure enough, today it was announced that she's bailing.

I replied:

You called it. You've described Harvey perfectly, and everything you say is completely logical, and makes sense from Georgina's perspective. But it also implies something about her that's less than appealing: that she married him for very cold, logical reasons that had noting to do with romantic feelings. Whenever I would see a picture of the two of them together, I'd always think, wow, that's one tough gold-digger. She was able to abide his appearance and his piggishness, all for the money. That implies a very calculating nature on her part as well.

LBD then answered:

John, it's not as simple as gold digging. I believe it was more like social climbing. She was capable of earning a more than adequate living by herself, but marriage to Fat Bastard brought both her and her company to what passed, until last week, for the upper echelons of society. The combination of film celebrities and political celebrities as "friends" must have felt like the ultimate in social clout.

Now that I think of the scenes in Austin Powers with Heather Graham and Fat Bastard, I can't help but think she and Mike Myers must have had ol' Harvey in mind when creating that character.

I replied: 

Ha, Fat Bastard, good analogy. And yes, they may well have based the character on Weinstein. And, not so coincidentally, Heather Graham was another actress who came out recently and said she had the impression Weintein wanted sex in return for a role. (One thing you have to say for Weinstein, he had good taste.)

You're right, social climbing had a lot to do with it too. I think the gold digging aspect shouldn't be underemphasized though (he was pushing Marchesa on all of the actresses who walked the red carpet of this films, and the brand would never have gotten that kind of exposure otherwise). But yeah, the opportunity to mingle with the rich and celebrated must have been a big part of the equation too.

One thing that nobody seems to be saying now is, "Oh, that poor put upon woman -- this must all be so difficult for her!" Everyone seems to realize that she knowingly made a deal with the devil. 

For her not to have known what he was like, she would have had to be incredibly stupid. And no one has accused her of that. 

She traded her looks for his influence and power, and as soon as his influence and power disappeared, she took her looks and departed. That's how business works. 

When one side doesn't fulfill their contractual obligations, the other side can back out.

Sociopath alert: Harvey Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein has been all over the news recently, mostly for the sexual harassment scandal, but also for the way he was nasty and unpleasant in other ways. In a way it's reminiscent of the Tiger Woods and Bill Cosby scandals: once the first couple accusers come forward, the floodgates open and a lot of others follow.

In that sense this post is just more piling on. But Weinstein is such a perfect illustration of how a sociopath operates, and succeeds, that it's worth pointing out how sociopathy informs his actions.

There are a lot of guys who, if they had the power to put beautiful women in their movies, and those actresses desperately wanted those roles, and were willing to do anything to get them, would probably take advantage.

It should also be pointed out that Weinstein hasn't been accused of raping anybody, which puts him a rung above Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby.

And, Weinstein hasn't been accused of explicitly telling an actress that a certain role would be contingent upon sex -- though one would think that was understood on a more tacit level.

Weinstein has long had a reputation for being hard to work with, meaning, he's temperamental. But he produced a string of Oscar-winning movies, and it was always possible -- from a distance, at least -- to see him as merely a demanding perfectionist.

It's not until you read the details of his behavior that you realize this is not a normal guy who succumbed to temptation. There's a certain forcefulness, and sense of entitlement, and utter contempt for others, that goes well beyond a normal guy's behavior.

In a recent article in the Huffpost, former newscaster Lauren Sivan said that Weinstein offered her a tour of a restaurant he partially owned, then dismissed the other employees and made a pass at her. She declined.

Imagine yourself (as the guy) in that situation. You've just been rejected; you'd probably feel a little humiliated, or, maybe just a little embarrassed. What would you do? Apologize and hope you hadn't offended her by making such an abrupt pass? Chat her up some more in hopes that she'll change her mind? Walk away with your tail between your legs?

Weinstein said, "Well you can stand there and shut up," then pulled his penis out and masturbated in front of her. He quickly ejaculated into a nearby potted plant, then escorted her out of the building.

Weinstein wasn't just a regular guy who enjoyed the perks of his position. That behavior shows a level of inhibition which is basically nonexistent.

Weinstein has reportedly come to eight separate financial settlements with various women for sexual harassment incidents. These couldn't have been just passes that were turned down, otherwise money would not have exchanged hands.

One woman, Jade Bukowski, worked as a waitress at the Tribeca Grill, and witnessed firsthand how Weinstein treated the help:

The staff could usually tell that the woman was there to meet him before she had even said a word. If a woman waited for him at the bar, he’d bellow furiously at more than one of us for not having seated her prior to his arrival, despite the fact that she’d insisted on it. “Why the f- -k isn’t she at the table?” he’d say....

As he attempted to charm his guests, he terrorized the wait staff. In his signature black T-shirt and jeans, he’d sidle over to one of his two favorite tables in the back. He would almost never look you in the eye, too busy reading the paper or biting off an assistant’s head.

Inappropriate touching was a habit of his. If you weren’t paying attention and the restaurant was loud, he might lurch at whatever part of you he could reach. Once, while I put in an order at the computer, he barreled up and body-checked me. Then, as if nothing had happened, he barked: “Back. Coffee. Tea. Now.”

Even though I’ve not seen him for six months, this week’s revelations brought back terrible recollections. The feelings of anxiety and degradation he inflicted on all of us — especially the women — continue to plague me to this day.

There's an old saying: if you want to know what someone you're having dinner with is really like, don't look at how he treats you; observe how he treats the waiter.

One thing that non sociopaths never quite fully fathom about sociopaths is the extent to which they view others as objects -- like a bicycle, or a remote control, or an article of apparel. If it somehow gets broken -- or if they break it -- it's no big deal. They just get a new one.

One thing that's become clear recently is that everybody in the business feared Weinstein for his temper. This is a classic sociopathic method of manipulation: to bend people to your will simply by making them fear your uninhibited outbursts.

In 2007, he married Georgina Chapman, a clothing designer. Since then, he has pressured a lot of famous actresses who have starred in his movies into wearing his wife's Marchesa gowns on the red carpet: Jennifer Lopez, Halle Berry, Cate Blanchett, Emma Watson, Renee Zellweger, Blake Lively, Uma Thurman, and Kate Hudson.

Much of Hollywood has remained strangely silent this past week -- which implies they're still afraid of him.

The statement Weinstein released after the NY Times expose came out last week was a masterpiece of evasion and misdirection and manipulation, all sociopathic specialties. [My words in brackets]:

"I came of age in the 60's and 70's, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then. 

[During the 60's, "free love" did not refer to cornering women in deserted hallways and then masturbating in front of them while ordering them to stand still. That was never "the culture" in this country.]

I have since learned it's not an excuse, in the office - or out of it. To anyone. I realized some time ago that I needed to be a better person and my interactions with the people I work with have changed. 

[Well, maybe in the past week.]

I appreciate the way I've behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it. 

[He's not just apologizing, he's sincerely apologizing; sociopaths are forever overusing adjectives and adverbs emphasizing their own honesty.]

Though I'm trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go. That is my commitment. My journey now will be to learn about myself and conquer my demons....

[He is now on a "journey," just like the protagonists of so many of his movies. And his use of the word "demons" implies that he himself is a victim of those "demons," which are somehow separate from himself.]

I so respect all women and regret what happened....I cannot be more remorseful about the people I hurt and I plan to do right by all of them.

[He so respects all women? Actions speak louder than words. No one, sociopath or not, actually "respects" every single member of either gender. And he "cannot be more remorseful?" Again, that telltale sociopathic emotional falseness.]

I am going to need a place to channel that anger so I've decided that I'm going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. 

[What anger? He was just talking about his remorse. And ah, how timely, after Las Vegas. If you don't come down too hard on Harvey, he'll help fight the good fight against our real enemy, the NRA!]

I'm going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah. I'm making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party. 

[What possible reason can there be to mention his Bar Mitzvah other than to remind the powers that be in Hollywood that he is their tribesman? And in another message to Hollywood, well, if you support Harvey, he'll also help oust our horrible President!]

One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC. While this might seem coincidental, it has been in the works for a year. It will be named after my mom and I won't disappoint her."

[See? He's just a mama's boy at heart, one who wouldn't do anything to disappoint dear old mama. And actually, that $5 million foundation doesn't seem coincidental at all -- it seems like a calculated attempt at image rehabilitation.]

All in all, it was a carefully worded statement: he confessed to less than perfect behavior in general without admitting to any specific wrongdoing.

A couple days ago, Weinstein issued a statement saying that the NY Times account was filled with factual errors, without saying exactly what those errors are. Denials like this are common; if some minor detail is wrong -- even if the gist of the accusation is right -- lawyers in prominent cases will always issue a statement saying that the statement is "factually inaccurate."

The most interesting question, as always, is why did Weinstein turn out that way? The "Early Life" section of his bio in Wikipedia really doesn't give any clues.

One small clue is that a number of people seem to be speculating that his own brother played a role in his recent downfall. You'd think his brother, of all people, would be loyal to him. But, he's shown the same amount loyalty to Harvey that Harvey showed to everyone else. And that makes one wonder about how they were brought up.

But, maybe it was just the case that his brother Bob was a decent guy who knew that Harvey was toxic, and was tired of covering up for him after decades of misbehavior. And, Bob was probably tired of being overshadowed. They were theoretically equal partners, yet Harvey was the larger than life figure who was the public face of the company and got to be photographed on the red carpet with various actresses.

But whatever Bob is, there's no question about Harvey's diagnosis.

The lesson Harvey Weinstein teaches us is not that he's just another sociopath who mistreats people and has no self-control or loyalty. It's that he got to where he got precisely because he was a sociopath, so instinctively knew how to manipulate people.

Weinstein was a lot like Steve Jobs and so many other successful people who achieved success essentially by bending others to their will: he had no special talent of his own, other than manipulation. He didn't write, or direct, or film. He merely produced, meaning, he orchestrated and schemed and dominated.

Harvey knew how to pay lip service to the right values. It's highly doubtful that he personally cares about fighting the NRA all that much, given that he glorifies guns so much in his movies (like Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained). But he cares about being seen as the type of person who is against gun violence.

It's highly doubtful that he cares so much for women's rights, given how he treats them personally. But he wants to be seen as the type of noble person who will endow a scholarship for women directors.

Weinstein desired a reputation for nobility and good character the same way he lusted for power and money and women and food and Oscar glory -- uninhibitedly. And he went after those things uninhibitedly, the way sociopaths do: using every trick he could think of. And that's undoubtedly why he was so successful.

Until you realize that, you don't realize how the world works. Sociopaths almost always triumph over the little people -- like you and me -- until the little people point out their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

(By the way, bravo to the New York Times for having written that expose; it was surprising to see them go after one of their own.)

Update, next day: Looks like I spoke a little too soon about Weinstein not being a rapist.

"Harvey Weinstein's brother may have been mastermind behind sex allegation expose"

The New York Post ran an article yesterday suggesting that Bob Weinstein may have been the one to leak the details about his brother's serial sexual harassment to the press:

It’s Cain and Abel — Hollywood style.

Disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein may have been stabbed in the back by his own brother, who, sources told The Post, has been trying for years to replace his sibling as the sole head of their marquee film studio.

Bob Weinstein, the disgruntled co-founder of The Weinstein Company, may have been the mastermind behind an exposé of lurid sex allegations that led to his brother's humiliating downfall, the sources said.

“Bob’s wanted Harvey out for years,” said a former staffer, who added that the two brothers are becoming increasingly suspicious of each other.

Insiders believe that Bob may have helped concoct the explosive New York Times story that exposed the harassment allegations from Ashley Judd, Rose McGowan and other former employees.

“Bob may have even fed this story” to the Times, the insider said.

There may have been a taste for vengeance in the brother’s fateful move, as another insider said, “Bob wanted Harvey to get what’s coming to him.”

The backlash from the scandal is expected to oust Harvey from the storied franchise — for now — settling a long-simmering feud between the two.

“There has always been a love-hate relationship between the brothers,” says a former Weinstein employee.

“There have been times they wouldn’t speak for months. Let’s just say they have an ‘inconsistent’ relationship.”

Another source added, “Bob’s trying to take over and push Harvey out” and also said that some staffers at The Weinstein Company believe Bob was a source of the damning Times story.

Call it Biblical, or Shakespearian; call it a tragedy, or a comedy.

It's probably all those things. Whatever it is -- somebody should make a movie about it!

Maybe we could even get competing versions, from Bob and Harvey.

Bob's version could be called, Sin City: Harvey-Style.

His brother's version might be called, Harvey Unchained.

So what SHOULD we do about these shootings?

As always, within a day of these mass shootings, the Left called for more gun control, and the Right accused the Left of politicizing the tragedy.

Personally, I have nothing against "politicizing" a tragedy like this: of course we should do what we can to prevent such occurrences from happening. But, the people who do so ought to at least be consistent -- and realistic -- in the way they do so.

In all fairness, the Right "politicizes" every terrorist incident by a Muslim, too -- as they should.

It's almost more off-putting how after every single tragedy we have to hear everyone from the President on down mouth the usual platitudes about how their "thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families" when they obviously are neither thinking nor praying about the strangers who were killed.

Anyway, let's look closely at the policies the Left advocates. 

One of the more consistent themes they sound is about "assault rifles." It's true that rifles have been used disproportionately in the recent larger mass shootings. Paddock, Adam Lanza, and Omar Mateen all used rifles. But the very use of the phrase "assault weapon" misleading -- all guns are meant for assault. (Why else would they fire bullets?)

If you look at the statistics, most gun-related murders are committed with handguns. In 2010, for instance, there were 6009 homicides known to have been committed with a handgun, vs. 358 by rifle. 

And fully automatic rifles are already illegal, though it's possible to convert a semiautomatic rifle to one which is closer to being automatic with a bump-stock converter kit.

The Left has also advocated much stricter gun ownership laws. They have succeeded in some places: Chicago, Washington DC (until recently), Baltimore, and California. Yet DC, Chicago, Baltimore, and Oakland have traditionally had some of the highest murder rates in the country. Detroit also has relatively strict gun laws, yet ranks as one of the murder capitals. 

All of which would tend to indicate that such laws don't work. 

In 2016 Chicago had 781 homicides, the vast majority committed with guns. That means that every month Chicago averaged 65 killings. (And this year they are on track to beat that number.) A mass shooting like the one in Las Vegas, of course, attracts far more media attention because of its sensational nature. But if you're serious about cutting down on gun deaths, shouldn't you be focusing on places with a consistently high murder rate, rather than just the latest highly publicized incident?

One tactic which has been shown to work in high crime areas is stop and frisk. But the same people who call for more gun control are adamantly against that, since young black and Hispanic males are stopped by the police more frequently. But if, as statistics show, they commit the majority of murders, shouldn't they be checked more frequently?

Liberals always point out Canada and Britain as places with fewer guns, and lower homicide rates. But they never seem to mention Switzerland, where every adult male is required by law to have a fully automatic rifle, and ammo on hand; Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Another suggestion we hear a lot is that guns should be kept out of the hands of the "mentally ill." This is easy to agree with in principle. But who exactly do we deem mentally ill? (I wrote here about the difficulties inherent in defining the "mentally ill" for purposes of gun control.)

A disproportionate share of the recent mass killers seem to have suffered from Aspergers Syndrome. (Think Elliot Rodger, the Santa Barbara shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, the Roseburg shooter, or Adam Lanza, who may have had a more severe form of autism; and there are undoubtedly others.)

Now, imagine Congress were to try to enact a law saying that no one with Aspergers can own a gun. How do you think advocates for that group will react? Pretty much the same way advocates for depressives, borderlines, and schizophrenics (Jared Loughner and possibly James Holmes) would.

Advocates for all of these groups would say that the vast majority of people who suffer from that syndrome are law-abiding and nonviolent, and that they deserve the right to protect themselves, too.

And they'd be right.

Per capita, men are more violent than women, and blacks are more violent than whites. Yet no one dares argue that a law be passed keeping guns out of the hands of black males. Do those who advocate keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill realize that they are making a parallel argument?

Likewise, a disproportionately high percentage of serial killers are homosexual. Would anyone on the Left ever dream of suggesting homosexuals be treated differently for that reason?

The fact is, many people with various syndromes go undiagnosed. And if people have been diagnosed, should their psychiatrists or psychotherapists be required to "out" them? What would that do to the principle of doctor-patient confidentiality? And how strongly would it discourage anyone from ever getting psychological help?

On top of that, how many psychiatrists and psychologists make misdiagnoses? We've all been told that getting a second opinion is always worthwhile; that bit of folk wisdom did not arise from the fact that all doctors always come to the same accurate conclusion. 

If you ask the populace to give up their registered guns, then that old NRA saying becomes true: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

And if that becomes the case, those outlaws will be emboldened to prey more on the law-abiding populace, and even carry out home invasions. There is some evidence that murder rates go down when concealed carry is allowed. 

The most central conceit of the gun control advocates is that a determined killer will somehow be swayed by local gun laws. A potential murderer is ready to risk death or serious injury (in case his intended victim shoots back) and also the death penalty (if he's caught) in order to kill someone. Is someone like that going to be concerned about the legality of the gun he's using?  

Think of it this way: when someone robs a bank, and maybe shoots a teller in the process, is the getaway driver's primary concern going to be whether he was parked illegally?

Likewise, the only people concerned with gun laws are people who aren't intending to commit worse crimes. Such as your average suburban homeowner. 

Every now and then one of those homeowners may go berserk for some reason. Stephen Paddock owned a home in the suburbs, and he went on a rampage at age 64. How could that have been predicted? The only honest answer is, it couldn't have been. 

If we're going to have a discussion about gun control, let's at least be realistic, and take into account how effective such laws are in the locales where they've been enacted, who exactly the "mentally ill" are, and how concerned a person bent on murder is going to be with local gun regulations. 

The most commonsensical reforms would be strengthening background checks, not allowing the sale of semi-automatic-to-automatic converter kits, instituting more stop and frisk, and having stiffer penalties for illegally-owned guns. Waiting periods (also known as "cooling off periods")  are a good idea too.

But most of what the Left advocates is simply not realistic.