Let's talk seriously about The Good Place

Let’s talk seriously about The Good Place

NBC’s The Good Place just wrapped up its second season, with a third in the offing.  Who says intelligently written comedies with a moral center can’t succeed on network television?  And what does it mean that I only watch two comedies on broadcast TV, and they are both created by Michael Schur (the other one being Brooklyn Nine-Nine)?  (Okay, I’ll admit I do still watch Modern Family and Big Bang Theory, but after so many years that is muscle memory, not conscious choice).

I do love The Good Place, with its intricate plotting, visual puns, three dimensional characters and completely gonzo sensibilities.  I think it is a sign of how well constructed the characters are that I can simultaneously ‘ship Eleanor and Chidi, Eleanor and Jason, Jason and Janet, and Eleanor and Tahani (my personal favorite).  The only dyad I can’t ‘ship is Tahani and Jason, which just feels like it would be awkward for both of them.

But as we delve more deeply into the actual machinations of, well, The Bad Place, the less sense it makes.  Not that network TV comedies HAVE to make sense (on Big Bang Theory, how can Raj be a prominent astrophysicist at a prestigious research university whose father paid all his bills for several years, and yet be poor?).   Take it as a sign of respect that I even have expectations that The Good Place’s moral compass should point to true north.  Or magnetic north, whichever makes the analogy work.

My first criticism is that, according to Michael’s first simulation of The Good Place, every action a person makes on Earth is allotted points, either positive or negative, depending on how the action affects others.  I am going to assume that this was NOT part of the artificial construction of Michael’s experiment Neighborhood 12358W, that Michael was telling the truth about the nature of the afterlife but was lying only about Eleanor’s, Tahani’s, Chidi’s, and Jason’s final score.  The best way to sell a lie is to make it as close to the truth as possible.

This means that individuals are evaluated on a continuum, with scores ranging from negative millions (Hitler) to positive multi-millions (Beyoncé).  Given the fine, granular nature of such an evaluation process, why is the resulting judgment binary, either Bad Place or Good Place?  The vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants have neither committed genocide, nor prevented genocide.  Most people have held doors for others (3 points) and occasionally prepared fish in an office microwave (negative a lot).  Assuming a bell-shaped curve distribution, the average point total is probably zero with one standard deviation around . . . oh let’s say 500 points.  Your view of mankind’s nature will cause you to pick an alternate average and decide if the curve is skewed instead of being bell-shaped.

If this is so, then why make the operational decision at the extremes?  In other words, as the show itself has asked, why isn’t there a Medium Place for all the people who are, in fact, medium?  Why isn’t there an infinite number of Places based on every possible final score?

The next question is why is the default for most people is, seemingly, The Bad Place?  The standards for getting into The Good Place seem incredibly high.  No US President other than Abraham Lincoln made it?  Jimmy Carter worked with Habitat for Humanity when he was in his 70’s (maybe older).  Dwight Eisenhower defeated the Nazi’s in World War II and had no hint of scandal in his politics.  I would think beating the Nazis would get you a boatload of points, but apparently not enough.

Look at the four individuals caught up in Michael’s experiment.  The worst of the four is probably Jason, a dimwitted buffoon prone to solving problems with arson and petty theft.  Chidi’s main sin was indecision, which is hardly one of the Seven Deadly ones, and which he paid for during his lifetime by alienating friends and lovers (and during which he instructed students on Moral Philosophy!).  Tahani is a pretentious snob and name dropper whom, we have learned, was not sexually promiscuous (other than snogging Ryan Gosling a couple of times) and who raised 60 billion dollars for charity.  Okay, her motive was to get acclaim, but she could have raised the money and spent it on herself instead of helping others (and $60 billion is a LOT of help).

Then there is Eleanor, who is hardly a “monster” as she describes herself.  Yes, she is self-centered, hedonistic, unreliable, and opportunistic, but she was raised by two absentee parents who essentially forced her to declare her emancipation and fend for herself at age 14.  The flower grows where the seed is planted, and it is hard to imagine a child raised in that environment turning out to be Florence Nightingale (who, by the way, didn’t make it to The Good Place).

None of these four did anything that would warrant eternal damnation in a fair and just system, yet here they are.  Is this just the writers of The Good Place having sport, or is it a deeper commentary on the irrationality of the afterlife beliefs of most major organized religions?

So, we are to believe that anyone who does not meet the astonishingly high standards of The Good Place is condemned for eternity to The Bad Place?  This does not seem like a system designed to distribute justice in the afterlife.  If you are a Kalahari bushman, or a Mongolian shepherd, or a banker in Timbuktu, you have to find a way to stop world hunger while remaining humble, or you’ll be physically tortured for eternity? 

Those in The Good Place must have really lame parties, because there won’t be a very sizable attendance (and given how few women have historically had the opportunity to achieve major policy outcomes, one suspects the male to female ratio is quite high).  Probably nobody brings a keg, either.

Of course my critique just ties into the existential absurdism at the moral center of The Good Place.  The afterlife can be portrayed as absurd because it IS absurd.  Showing an afterlife that was logical and sensible would be no fun at all.  Sort of like the Episcopalian concept of The Good Place.

2018 Hall of Fame--the silliest argument made

First off, congrats to Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Trevor Hoffman, and Vlad Guerrero, all very deserving entrants into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  As someone who believes closers are essentially useless I have a problem with Hoffman’s election, as I don’t think pitching one inning every four or five days makes you that valuable, but I’ll get over it.

I want to talk about an argument I heard last week on MLB Network’s 2018 Hall Of Fame show discussing the eligible players.  Someone (I didn’t get his name) made what is possibly the silliest argument for putting a player in the Hall I have ever heard (and there are three players who are in the Hall primarily because they were in a poem).  Someone argued that Andruw Jones should be admitted to the Hall because he had 10 Gold Gloves and 400 home runs, and the only other players in that category were Willie Mays, Ken Griffey, Jr., and Mike Schmidt.  Ergo, Jones should go in, QED.

This argument was apparently rejected by most voters as Jones got only 7.3% of the votes, above the five percent mark so as to keep him on next year’s ballot but far away from the 75% needed for enshrinement.  There are a number of reasons for seriously considering Jones’ credentials (his Hall of Fame numbers at Baseball Reference are close, but a tad low), but the Gold Glove/home run combo is not one of them.

First of all, the Gold Gloves are voted on subjectively, and often the winner is based more on reputation than accomplishment.  How unreliable are the Gold Gloves?  There are statistical analyses indicating that Derek Jeter is the worst fielding shortstop in the history of baseball, yet he has five Gold Gloves.  That’s like the Golden Globes giving an acting award to Pia Zadorra.  The fact that Jones has all those Gold Gloves is nice, and maybe he earned them, but I wouldn’t base his Hall campaign on something so subjective.

Second, 10 Gold Gloves is an absurdly high standard to start cutting off Hall membership.  Those three players in the 400 homer club are a high proportion of the Hall members with 10 Gold Gloves.  Part of this is because being the best fielder at a position for a decade is an incredibly high standard; partly it is because defensive prowess has always taken a back seat to offense when considering Hall credentials.  Ted Williams didn’t win any Gold Gloves, so should he be chucked out?  How much did Harmon Killebrew’s defense play in his election?  Bottom line, you can be a great fielder and not have close to ten Gold Gloves, and you don’t have to be a great fielder to get into the Hall.

Next, the fact is that most multi-Gold Glove players are either pitchers (Jim Kaat, Greg Maddux) or light hitting infielders (Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith).  A 10 Gold Glove player with some pop, like Ivan Rodriguez, could still only muster 311 homers in his career.  So pointing out that Andruw Jones has more power than pitchers and shortstops is hardly a basis for a ticket to Cooperstown.

The flip side of that is the fact that players with 400 home runs are typically larger players who would not be expected to be gifted in the field, unless they were a first baseman or catcher.  Mark McGwire managed to win one Gold Glove, and that is pretty impressive, but to expect a power hitter to win 10 Gold Gloves is an unreasonable basis for Cooperstown.

The bottom line is, winning 10 Gold Gloves and hitting 400 homers is a sign of a unique player, with an unusual set of skills, but not necessarily a Hall of Famer.  Many players with 10 Gold Gloves do not deserve admission; likewise for players with 400 home runs.  A player with both of those qualities should be inducted only if they possess some other qualities as well.

This is another example of the “Texas sharpshooter” fallacy that Bill James documented in his book “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?”  A Texas sharpshooter fires six shots at a wall, then draws a circle around the bullet holes and claims he hit the target every time.  A Hall of Fame argument can be made for lots of players if you carefully craft your criteria.  For example, [as James points out, all stats accurate as of 1995] an argument for Vada Pinson in the HoF could be made by saying he is the only player in MLB history with 2,500 hits, 200 homers and 200 stolen bases who isn’t in the Hall [note—of course Barry Bonds now meets this criterion, but he isn’t in the Hall because of steroid use, not productivity].  Stealing bases and hitting homers are not usually combined, so it is easy to say that few players had that combination.

As I said, I have n complaints about who was voted in to the HoF this year.  I am disappointed that Edgar Martinez was once again left out, but at 70% he should make it next year.  People, if we elected closers who only work one inning every few games, why not admit someone who only bats and doesn’t field?  At least he isn’t hurting the team by fielding poorly.

I just wish that the quality of arguments for enshrinement would improve.

2018 Early Oscar predictions!

2018 Oscar predications

I love predicting who will win at the Oscars.  Partly it’s because it is a black box—we know the results that come out, but we can only speculate on the process voters used to arrive at those conclusions.  And then there is the fact that the conclusion is an aggregate vote, meaning that we are ascribing a hive mind concept to what is, in fact, a few thousand people all with their own agendas.  Who deserves to win isn’t irrelevant, but usually the differences are so small they can be ignored and the decision comes down to “Who will the Academy like more?”

It has gotten more complicated since the Academy adopted the expanded roster of Best Picture Nominees.  It used to be that picture and director won in lock step, but since they started nominating up to ten films it hasn’t happened once.  Best Director tends to go to the most visually/technically impressive film (e.g. La La Land) and Best Picture to a more human-oriented film (e.g. Moonlight).  It also makes it more confusing in that the expansion of the Best Picture nominees was intended to get more Hollywood blockbusters nominated, but the effect has been to get even more small indie film nominated.

Best Picture:  A tough category to parse.  No major blockbuster (sorry, Wonder Woman).  A coming-of-age indie film (Call Me By Your Name), a low budget horror film (Get Out), an indie-fave comedy (Lady Bird), two old-fashioned war epics (Dunkirk, Darkest Hour), an indie fave drama (Three Billboards), a Spielberg film (The Post), a film from respected artsy director Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread) and a love story with the Creature from the Black Lagoon (The Shape of Water).  I think it boils down to Dunkirk and Three Billboards; the latter has been doing better at the Globes and SAG awards, but didn’t get a Director nomination.  On the other hand, I suspect Dunkirk appeals to an older demographic, and the Academy is, on average, old.  I am picking Three Billboards—confidence level 40%, with Dunkirk at 35% (Shape of Water 24%).  If there is another split between Picture/Director then Christopher Nolan will win Best Director and Three Billboards will win Best Picture; see the discussion of Best Original Screenplay below.

Best Actor:  Gary Oldman for Darkest Hour.  The Academy LOVES actors playing famous people (for Pete’s sake, Jaime Foxx won for a Ray Charles impersonation).  Timothee Chalamet is too young, Daniel Day-Lewis and Denzel Washington have already have multiple Oscars, and who the heck is Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out)?  Oldman is a prior nominee for Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy and is a generally respected thespian with a distinguished career.  The only hiccup is recent allegations of sexual harassment, but with the lack of a strong alternative I think this is a virtual lock.  Confidence level 90%.

Best Actress: Saorise Ronan, Lady Bird.  A very strong field.  Margot Robbie has the “impersonating famous person” factor, as well as the Charlize Theron “gorgeous woman getting unattractive” factor, but she has the lightest resume in the field.  Meryl Streep is, of course, Meryl Streep, but her recent win for The Iron Lady takes out the “hasn’t won in a while” factor.  Sally Hawkins plays a mute in The Shape of Water, which hits the “character with a disability” factor, but she’s gotten surprisingly little buzz.  The Academy likes Frances McDormand, but she already has an Oscar, while this is Ronan’s third nomination so she’s due (?).  Also, Lady Bird was a star vehicle designed for Ronan’s strengths as an actress.  Confidence level 60%; I think I am underestimating McDormand’s appeal with the voters.

Best Supporting Actress: Allison Janney, I, Tonya.  She’s gotten just about all the pre-Oscar awards, she is a fabulous actress with a ton of Emmys but no Oscar.  I would love to see Laurie Metcalf win for Lady Bird, but since I think Ronan will win Best Actress that means there will be no vote for Metcalf as a Lady Bird consolation prize.  Confidence level  99.99%.

Best Supporting Actor: Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards.  I am tempted to go with Christopher Plummer for All the Money in the World, both because he is a great actor and for the story of how they re-shot the film for him to replace Kevin Spacey.  But he won in 2012 for Beginners, and the Academy likes to share the wealth.  Richard Jenkins is a former Oscar nominee and might get votes if The Shape of Water looks to get shut out of the other categories, but that’s iffy.  Woody Harrelson will lose votes to his co-star Rockwell, and no one saw Willem DaFoe in The Florida Project.  Rockwell won the Globes and SAG, so this will make it a sweep.  Confidence level—85%.

Best Director: Christopher Nolan, Dunkirk.  Jordan Peele (Get Out) and Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) are both first time nominees, and with a horror film and a comedy, so they’re out.  Paul Thomas Anderson is respected, but does artsy films without broad appeal (on the other hand, this is his eighth nomination without a win so he is overdue).  Guillermo Del Toro is very respected, but mostly as a visual artist creating bizarre creatures like in Pan’s Labyrinth.  Christopher Nolan is respected even though much of his work has been in genres, and Dunkirk (despite its odd structure) is an old-fashioned World War II film.  Someone else winning the Director’s Guild Award would change my mind, but for now I’ll pick Nolan.  Confidence level—70%.

Adapted Screenplay: James Ivory, Call Me By Your Name.  Ivory is Hollywood royalty for all of the Merchant/Ivory films (he has three director Oscar nominations, this is his first for writing), and this is probably the biggest indie hit of the year.  Confidence level 79%.

Original Screenplay:  Martin McDonagh, Three Billboards.  Here’s where the Best Picture outcome gets interesting—Best Picture almost always wins best screenplay, but Dunkirk has very little dialog and isn’t nominated (nor does it have any acting nominations).  Greta Gerwig will get support for Lady Bird, and those who don’t support The Shape of Water for Best Picture or Director might vote for Guillermo del Toro here as a consolation prize, but since Three Billboards has a good chance for Best Picture, I favor it to win Best Screenplay.  Confidence level—74%.

The Rooney Rule

The Rooney Rule is an innovation developed by the NFL in response to concerns over the relative lack of African-American coaches in the league.  The rule, as laid out in an excellent book on the subject, simply requires teams searching for a head coach to interview at least one minority candidate before offering the job to someone.  It does not require that the hiring decision be based on race, only that the process include at least one minority.

The rule has worked well for the most part, when teams undergo honest-to-goodness searches for a new head coach.  Where it works less well is when a team is not searching for a head coach because the team knows who it wants, usually because of a past relationship with the team r someone in management.  In 2003 the Detroit Lions had an opening for a head coach, and ex-49er Steve Mariucci, a native of Michigan, was out of work.  The Lions hired Mooch without interviewing any other candidates, and in the first test of the NFL’s commitment to the Rooney Rule were fined $200,000.

A similar situation is now going on with the Raiders’ hire of former coach Jon Gruden, and http://www.nfl.com/news/stthe NFL is looking into whether the Raiders violated the rule.  One analyst has already rendered judgment and urged that the Raiders be fined a cool million dollars.  Many other have called the Raiders’ “interviews” of two minority candidates obvious shams and thus render the Raiders guilty, saying that sham interviews for candidates that have no chance are no better than no interview at all.

I think this misunderstands the purpose of the rule.  The Rooney Rule is not about results, but process.  Even if the process is a sham, the fact that qualified minority candidates are identified as potential head coaches does what the rule intended—it expands the pool of potential head coach hires outside the “old boy network.”  Maybe that team never wavered from their desire to hire a coach who happened to be White, but subsequent teams who perhaps are more open to making a minority hire will have a stronger pool of candidates to talk to.

Besides, how do you correct the Rule for when a team has already made up its mind on a candidate, because of his connection to the geographic area, the team, or the team’s management?  And talking to other candidates, Black or White, is still obviously a sham, and forcing them to NOT make it a sham by hiring a minority candidate exceeds the scope of the Rooney Rule.  The Rule is not about imposing a decision on a team, but broadening the pool of candidates for future openings.  A team shouldn’t have to offer a job to a minority coach who is their legitimate second choice to comply with the Rooney Rule.

I’m not saying teams that defy the Rooney Rule shouldn’t face punishment; the consequences imposed on the Lions in 2003 sent a strong message that the National Football League was committed to diversity among its head coaches, and as a result more minority coaches work in the NFL than ever before. 

One of the architects of the Rooney Rule has said that based on reports he's seen, the Raiders may have violated the Rule. It all comes down to exactly how vocal the Raiders were in telling Gruden about his status; was he a “front-runner” or did he essentially have the job?  Even though it is a legal question, it is a shame the decision might rest on such, um, legalisms.  Teams shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the team if they want to hire a white coach, but there the same “mens rea” (guilty mind in Latin, a legal term) if they want to hire someone who happens to be White for reasons unrelated to his skin tone?

The Raiders have perhaps the most storied history of diversity hires, including head coaches Tom Flores and Art Shell.  They are basically the Dodgers of the National Football League.  Perhaps they should be punished, to make sure the Rooney Rule still has teeth, particularly at a time when race relations in the NFL are at an all-time low (a White owner referring to Black players as “inmates” should be fined more than the Raiders).  But the NFL shouldn’t go crazy and treat the Raiders like those notorious law breakers, the New England Patriots.

Bills win despite trying to lose, and the NFL MVP debate

Football playoff time is here, and there is one question on the lips of most NFL fans—what the heck are the Buffalo Bills doing in the post-season?

According to the FiveThirtyEight website these Bills aren't particularly good.  That’s okay, lots of not-great teams make the playoffs; several years ago the 7-9 Seahawks made the playoffs and won a game. But what is surprising is that these Bills apparently deliberately lost a game in mid-season, indicating they thought at that point in time that taking was a better strategy than winning.

The Bills had a week 11 game against the San Diego, er, excuse me, Los Angeles Chargers.  The Chargers, playing at home, were mere 1 point favorites, so the game was winnable by the Bills.  But then the brilliant Buffalo Bills head coach, Sean McDermott, made a brilliant decision; he would bench uninjured starting quarterback Tyrod Taylor, and instead start nascent superstar Nathan Peterman.  Yes, that Nathan Peterman, who didn’t win the Heisman Award, wasn’t drafted in the first round, and had never done anything indicating that continued employment in the NFL was a reasonable prospect.

The result was a shocking one for everyone in Nathan Peterman’s immediate family but absolutely no one else—Peterman threw five interceptions and the Bills lost 54-24.  I suppose you have to give the Bills’ coach some credit for not sticking with future superstar Nathan Peterman and instead going back to starting Tyrod Taylor, who then led the Bills to a win against the Kansas City Chiefs the next week and ultimately proceeded to get the Bills into the playoffs.  By the way, I think this means the Nathan Peterman Era in Buffalo is over.

So, the Bills make the NFL playoffs with a 9-7 record that might have been 10-6 if they hadn’t punted that game against the Chargers.  Of course, the MVP for the Bills was probably Andy Dalton of the Bengals, whose late touchdown pass on a 4^th and 12 situation knocked the Ravens out of the playoffs and put the Bills in.  But when 2017 concludes and you make the post-season for the first time that century, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

The outcome of the NFL playoffs doesn’t affect the MVP vote, as it is a regular season award, but I think that is especially true this year.  By the way, why is there only one; baseball has one for each league, shouldn’t the NFL have one for both conferences?  Anyway, I usually argue that an MVP has to go to a player in a playoff team, but this year that’s not the case.  This year we have a clear case for a non-playoff bound player as MVP.

Carson Wence will deservedly get lots of votes, and might even win, but face it, the Eagles can still win with someone else at QB.  But look at the San Francisco 49ers: they were 0-10 and vying with Cleveland for the first pick in the draft, they started Jimmy Garappolo, and they finished 6-0.  From 0-10 to 6-0, and all after trading for a new quarterback.  I think that clearly makes Garappolo the MVP from last season.

Of course we should wait to see if the 49ers go 16-0 next season, but that's not how these things work.  Garappolo took a winless team, and they never lost again.  If that's not valuable, what is?

Sorry, but tax cuts don't stimulate the economy

Republicans have predicted that the just passed GOP tax cut bill will work like gangbusters on the economy.  And they are right, but for the wrong reason.  Tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy, but government deficits do, and the GOP tax cut bill promises to increase the federal deficit by around $1.1 trillion.

The same thing happened with the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s.  People forget the bad economy during the first part of the Reagan administration and only remember the strong economy after the 1981 tax cuts were passed without any corresponding spending cuts.  The cuts were supposed to “pay for themselves” but when they didn’t, the deficit soared.  Reagan and the Congress then passed tax increases to control the deficit (no one remembers “Ronald Reagan, tax raiser”), but the initial stimulus created the “Reagan miracle” of an improved economy.

Why doesn’t a tax cut stimulate the economy?  Don’t tax cuts put more money in people’s wallets?  Let’s look at the impact of a state tax cut on a state economy, one where the state has to maintain a balanced budget since states can’t pay for tax cuts by printing money.  Every dollar of tax cuts must be accompanied by a dollar of lower state spending, whether it be on education, social services, or the proverbial waste, fraud and abuse.  So the economy is stimulated by greater private spending, but retarded by less public spending.  The economy can’t tell the difference between a dollar spent by the state or a dollar spent by a private citizen; the net effects cancel out.

But wait, there’s more (as the infomercials say)!  Under standard economic theory, people don’t spend every cent of every dollar they earn.  Most people, especially those who are not in poverty, save some of their income for the proverbial rainy day.  Let’s assume that the typical person saves 5% of their income and puts it under their mattress, or in a nice savings account.  That means that a dollar tax cut only produces 95 cents of actual stimulus.

The government, of course, does not save for a rainy day (at least, not usually; some states, like California, have a “rainy day fund” to help the state during economic downturns. But these funds are usually a small percentage of the budget and are quickly exhausted during an economic downturn).  So when a state cuts taxes, it forgoes spending 100 pennies in order to give a dollar to a taxpayer who will then spend 95 pennies.  Thus state tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, they actually make it less robust.

Federal tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but only when they are accompanied by increased deficits.  It is the deficit that improves the economy, not the tax cut.  Republicans claim they hate the federal deficit, but they love cutting taxes that makes the deficit bigger.

There is one possible rebuttal to this analysis, that tax cuts do increase savings but savings are used by banks to lend capital, and capital is used to build businesses up.  That is factually true, but the mechanism by which increased investment leads to economic growth is not well understood, and the benefit should be delayed by several years.  Also, increasing the deficit by printing money will affect both inflation and interest rates in ways that difficult to anticipate.  That spending (either private of governmental) stimulates the economy is straightforward and incontrovertible.

So the GOP tax bill might stimulate the economy in the short run, but eventually the deficit-hawks are going to start demanding spending cuts (or tax increases) to pay for them and when that happens the economy will dip into another recession.  Yes, Republicans may think that taking food stamps away from hungry children is a lot of fun, but the money in that social program (and others) goes to farmers who support their families by buying consumer goods, and it then is spent by providers of consumer goods on their families, and so on and so on ad infinitem.

The next stage in this pantomime is that after a slight boom the economy will start to lag, Republicans will say it is the deficit’s fault and urge spending cuts in social programs, Democrats will counter with proposals to pare back on the tax cuts, Republicans will accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes yet again, and meanwhile the deficit will grow. 

The irony is that the Republicans are right to worry about the deficit, but will attempt to benefit politically from making the problem worse.  Will voters be smart enough to realize this?  That is what the 2018 midterm elections will show.

Sexual harassment is everywhere!

We are in the middle of a sexual harassment tsunami.  All over the place well-known producers, directors, actors and politicians are being accused of doing things that range from creepy to, well, really creepy, either to members of the opposite sex or, in some cases, members of the same sex. 

It is easy to believe these allegations when they are made against someone who looks like every wanted poster for a child molester ever made (Harvey Weinstein), or there is confirmatory evidence (Matt Lauer and his door that secretly locked), or are confirmed by photographic evidence (Al Franken).  With all these women coming forward under #metoo, what is next?

The next phase is inevitable: women with an axe to grind will start making false accusation against innocent people and hope to ride the coattails of outrage that accompany these revelations.  With all these seemingly credible accusations being made, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that we do live in a nation where the cornerstone of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty.  This is extremely inconvenient in the inevitable situation of “He said/She said.”

People tend to believe what they want to believe.  If you believe that all Hollywood producers have casting couches in their offices, then a wave of accusations vindicates your beliefs.  But the fact that evidence supports your pre-existing belief system does not make it more credible.  Creating a mentality where every woman’s accusation is accepted by a knee-jerk reaction as fact does not get to the truth.

Remember the security guard at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 who found a bomb, and was then accused of planting the bomb?  There was never any evidence against him, but people thought the narrative would make a good movie-of-the-week and so tended to believe the story, even though it was fictional.  We are so accustomed to seeing fictional stories in movies and on TV that we start to evaluate all stories not by their plausibility but by whether the story is entertaining.

To take another example, remember the McMartin pre-school case in the 1980’s, when people were convinced that there was a vast underground conspiracy of Satan worshippers in America, and these cults were systematically abducting very young children and subjecting them to horrific rituals?  People believed it even though it made no sense and there was no evidence, just because it was an entertaining, if disturbing, story.  The folks that ran the McMartin pre-school who were accused of being the ringleaders of these cults were exonerated, but only after a lengthy trial and even then, many people probably dismissed the not guilty verdict as a product of the Devil’s handiwork.

Thus far, the accusations of sexual harassment (and worse) that have been made have at least had the appearance of credibility, and few accusers have categorically denied the allegations.  But at some point (it may already have happened) someone is going to make a false accusation, and when that time comes it is important that the accused be given every o0pportunity to respond, including the presumption of innocence.

You can look at the tidal wave of disclosures about sexual harassment as evidence of just how bad the problem has been in Hollywood and in politics, but at some point, the insatiable maw that is the internet and the news industry will demand more victims, and someone out there will be only too happy to offer up some more examples of male oppression, even if they have to fabricate them.  When that happens, I hope that people can stop surfing the wave of accusations and start to evaluate these claims with a critical eye and a little bit of reason.