Roy Moore, as I think everyone knows, has been accused of sexual abuse. Depending on whose count is accepted, between 4 and 10 women have claimed various degrees of sexual abuse at ages 17 and below. Moore's lead in the Alabama senate race shrank from 10 points to trailing by 5. He now leads by 5 again. The MSM are outraged by this, and there have been various articles slamming Moore's responses- Slate, NYT letter, New Yorker, Salon, etc, etc.
There is a very nice (or terrible, depending on your point of view) discussion of Moore's accusers in Breitbart. For those who sneer at Breitbart, I have noted previously that now on 5 occasions Breitbart has carried fact and data that were correct in the face of a MSM values consensus that was wrong. So, for all its low-quality writing and editing, for all its hysterical screeds (all of which I ignore), Breitbart ought to be read to get a full view of the socio-political spectrum, and sometimes there is good material there. Here is the Breitbart article.
In essence, Moore is accused of multiple incidents of child sexual abuse, a really horrible crime in anyone's moral construct. There are multiple problems with the accusers' stories, including a (to me) very damaging refusal by Gloria Allred to produce the yearbook for analysis. In searching this issue, it is revealing that the top searches are all to Youtube videos and conservative sites pilloried by the MSM, including Fox, the Blaze and....Breitbart. Here is the search result. We are offered the choice between believing the accusers, or believing Moore, a choice framed by much of the MSM as between truth, feminism and justice, and support for child abuse.
This is, however, a false construct. There is a terrific article from the NYT about the injurious character of unsubstantiated accusations like these. The Federalist raises the issue of legal process being subsumed by the media. These are both fair and troubling points; however, there was a terrible and apropos analogy that popped to mind this morning- the Duke lacrosse case.
For those who have forgotten it in the constant media outrage barrage, in 2006 3 lacrosse players at Duke were accused by a woman of rape. There is an excellent and comprehensive, referenced Wikipedia article on the case. The three were white, and by the very fact of their attendance at Duke, intellectually, financially and socially 'privileged'. The accuser was black. A frenzy ensued that makes sharks and blood look like a tranquilized fish tank. The three men were kicked off the team and then suspended from school. The lacrosse team had the rest of its season canceled. The players lost their athletic scholarships. 88 faculty members signed a letter proclaiming the students racists and rapists. The text of the letter is remarkably hard to find, since a couple of days after causing furor it disappeared from web sites. Here is an archived pdf.
Of course, the entire accusation was a fraud. There was no rape. The accuser was not the innocent, victimized woman of color portrayed in reports. One player had overwhelming exculpatory materials ignored by a zealous prosecutor. DNA exonerated the students.
In the aftermath, the professors who signed the infamous letter refused to apologize. 10 years later they claim they only wanted to 'start a discussion', and complained that the racial problems at Duke were ongoing. The prosecutor lost his job.
And Duke paid 20 million dollars to each falsely accused man. I suppose this is adequate compensation for the destruction of their youth, but there is, understandably, permanent emotional injury.
One professor described the mess as a collision between due process and political correctness. That is exactly what we have now. No one, at least no person of quality, condones sexual assault or harassment. On the other hand, to attack a person requires evidence, not allegations, especially when the attack has significant social or political consequences. The differential standard being applied to John Conyers and Al Franken does nothing to dispel the sense that some of these accusations are professionally and/or politically motivated, and false.
False accusations of past deeds are even worse than false accusations of rape. At least those can be adjudicated by the police and cleared. Old allegations can never be defended, and the style of the day is to accuse and then shout that the denial is proof of guilt. This is legally flawed, but also socio-politically flawed. As noted in the NYT, this will lead to women's complaints being discounted all over again, and it further erodes what little trust our media still have.
People have wondered how anyone can vote for Roy Moore. The answer is they have looked at the evidence themselves, and unlike our MSM, have decided it's bunk. Much like the choice between Trump and Clinton, few people will say Moore is a great candidate, but they would rather have him than vote to destroy a man over allegations that have insufficient merit. The Duke lacrosse players were outrageously falsely accused, and rational thinking and feeling people do not want to repeat such egregious errors.
Ted
There is a very nice (or terrible, depending on your point of view) discussion of Moore's accusers in Breitbart. For those who sneer at Breitbart, I have noted previously that now on 5 occasions Breitbart has carried fact and data that were correct in the face of a MSM values consensus that was wrong. So, for all its low-quality writing and editing, for all its hysterical screeds (all of which I ignore), Breitbart ought to be read to get a full view of the socio-political spectrum, and sometimes there is good material there. Here is the Breitbart article.
In essence, Moore is accused of multiple incidents of child sexual abuse, a really horrible crime in anyone's moral construct. There are multiple problems with the accusers' stories, including a (to me) very damaging refusal by Gloria Allred to produce the yearbook for analysis. In searching this issue, it is revealing that the top searches are all to Youtube videos and conservative sites pilloried by the MSM, including Fox, the Blaze and....Breitbart. Here is the search result. We are offered the choice between believing the accusers, or believing Moore, a choice framed by much of the MSM as between truth, feminism and justice, and support for child abuse.
This is, however, a false construct. There is a terrific article from the NYT about the injurious character of unsubstantiated accusations like these. The Federalist raises the issue of legal process being subsumed by the media. These are both fair and troubling points; however, there was a terrible and apropos analogy that popped to mind this morning- the Duke lacrosse case.
For those who have forgotten it in the constant media outrage barrage, in 2006 3 lacrosse players at Duke were accused by a woman of rape. There is an excellent and comprehensive, referenced Wikipedia article on the case. The three were white, and by the very fact of their attendance at Duke, intellectually, financially and socially 'privileged'. The accuser was black. A frenzy ensued that makes sharks and blood look like a tranquilized fish tank. The three men were kicked off the team and then suspended from school. The lacrosse team had the rest of its season canceled. The players lost their athletic scholarships. 88 faculty members signed a letter proclaiming the students racists and rapists. The text of the letter is remarkably hard to find, since a couple of days after causing furor it disappeared from web sites. Here is an archived pdf.
Of course, the entire accusation was a fraud. There was no rape. The accuser was not the innocent, victimized woman of color portrayed in reports. One player had overwhelming exculpatory materials ignored by a zealous prosecutor. DNA exonerated the students.
In the aftermath, the professors who signed the infamous letter refused to apologize. 10 years later they claim they only wanted to 'start a discussion', and complained that the racial problems at Duke were ongoing. The prosecutor lost his job.
And Duke paid 20 million dollars to each falsely accused man. I suppose this is adequate compensation for the destruction of their youth, but there is, understandably, permanent emotional injury.
One professor described the mess as a collision between due process and political correctness. That is exactly what we have now. No one, at least no person of quality, condones sexual assault or harassment. On the other hand, to attack a person requires evidence, not allegations, especially when the attack has significant social or political consequences. The differential standard being applied to John Conyers and Al Franken does nothing to dispel the sense that some of these accusations are professionally and/or politically motivated, and false.
False accusations of past deeds are even worse than false accusations of rape. At least those can be adjudicated by the police and cleared. Old allegations can never be defended, and the style of the day is to accuse and then shout that the denial is proof of guilt. This is legally flawed, but also socio-politically flawed. As noted in the NYT, this will lead to women's complaints being discounted all over again, and it further erodes what little trust our media still have.
People have wondered how anyone can vote for Roy Moore. The answer is they have looked at the evidence themselves, and unlike our MSM, have decided it's bunk. Much like the choice between Trump and Clinton, few people will say Moore is a great candidate, but they would rather have him than vote to destroy a man over allegations that have insufficient merit. The Duke lacrosse players were outrageously falsely accused, and rational thinking and feeling people do not want to repeat such egregious errors.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment