Contrast Weinstein with the firing of an Army two-star general for...what?

As the avalanche of stories about powerful Hollywood males groping or raping women (sort of like Bill Clinton did) continue to mount--assaults many others knew about but kept quiet because they were unwilling to provoke the powerful--thought you should see the difference between how the folks in Hollywood and NYC reacted, and how people in a straight-shooting organization with values react to the same thing.

A two-star Army general was fired--and likely will be forced to retire--after he was accused of...what, raping a female subordinate? Groping? No, he was fired for sending "flirty emails" to a married woman.

In the civilian world powerful men can grope women--as Weinstein and Clinton did--and everyone keeps quiet.  But in the U.S. armed forces something as inoffensive as sending flirty emails gets even a two-star general fired--because the woman he sent the flirty emails to was the wife of an enlisted man under his command.

This is a big deal because when a commander flirts with the wife of an enlisted guy, the troops can't trust him.  For an army or other combat branch, that's fatal.

There's a reason--in fact *lots* of reasons--that moral, hard-working Americans trust the military far more than any politician, or the Lyin' Mainstream Media, or Hollywood stars. 

Simply being in the military--even making high rank--doesn't guarantee that someone is a straight arrow.  But if a commander can't follow the rules, the System has to step in and do what's right--something the civilian world rarely does.  I'm delighted to see that this two-star got fired.  It's the kind of "don't do this or else..." that the whole nation badly needs.