Part 5—It's all anthropology now: Below, we'll show you some things Gene Lyons said about Juanita Broaddrick this week—about the accuser Michelle Goldberg has newly declared she believes.
First, though, a quick overview:
On Friday morning, November 10, the Washington Post published its first report about Roy Moore's conduct in the late 1970s.
In that 3900-word report, Leigh Corfman, an Alabama woman, alleged that Moore molested her in 1979, when she was 14 years old.
The report also cited three apparent "supporting witnesses," though they may not have seemed like supporting witnesses depending on the extent to which you longed to stampede.
Corfman was alleging a serious crime. From that day to this, the work of our pseudo-liberal elite has been inept all the way down.
Good God! So many questions:
Just for starters, four questions:Other questions pop into our heads as we watch the stampede of the pseudo-liberals. For example, do these life forms understand the meaning of terms like "alleged" and accused?"
1) Should people have assumed that Corfman's claims were true, right there that first day?
2) Should liberals have started name-calling the "If true" crowd—the people who didn't state an instant verdict?
3) Should people have regarded those apparent "supporting witnesses" as actual supporting witnesses?
4) Even now, should people be describing Moore as an "accused pedophile," given, for example, the meaning of the latter term?
Judging by parts of their current stampede, it isn't real clear that they do.
For ourselves, we know of no reason to doubt what Corfman told the Washington Post. We also know of no obvious way to swear on a stack of corporate liberals that her statements are accurate.
This is a basic problem which arises when we turn out politics into a series of accusations involving private behavior. Such accusations can be very hard to judge even in court. In the realm of public debate, the task becomes nearly impossible.
Most likely, a continental nation can't long endure once it decides to conduct its politics in this exciting way. But then, who cares about that?
Here at this award-winning site, we're not sure we've ever seen The Dumbness surpass the level it's reached in the two weeks since that first Post report. We'll only say this:
In the wake of this latest stampede, it's pretty much all anthropology now! We're no longer involved in press critique at this award-winning site. We're involved in scientific description of a badly misfiring life form, a life form about which sacred Aristotle was just hopelessly wrong.
Is man (sic) really the rational animal? So said the sacred Greek!
Today, we can see that he was hopelessly wrong. Today, it's abundantly clear that man (sic) is really the tribal animal, or perhaps the stampeding animal. Also, following sacred Wittgenstein, man (sic) is the animal which has trouble with words.
At some point, we may return to Professor Horwich with respect to that latter point. Today, let's look at what Lyons said this week with respect to Juanita Broaddrick, an accuser of Bill Clinton.
In the stampede which followed that Post report, the New York Times' Michelle Goldberg swallowed a snootful and wrote a column which bore this virtue-signalling headline:
I Believe Juanita
They're on a first-name basis now! Quite a few children cheered.
That said, there was no sign in Goldberg's column that she had any idea what she was talking about, or any clear basis for her shiny new belief. Sadly, the children were launching a new stampede, one which would distinguish their stampedes from those of their pseudo-liberal elders.
Sillily, Goldberg pretended to explain why she now believes Juanita, concerning whom Lyons has written such things as the text reproduced below perhaps ten million times.
We're omitting material from Lyons' column; you should peruse the full text. As Goldberg may have heard at some point, Lyons has written two books on these topics, one of which he co-authored with Joe Conason:
LYONS (3/22/17): Maybe something happened between then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock hotel room in 1979. Also, maybe not. However, to accuse a man of a vile crime like rape requires serious evidence. And I'm sorry, but there simply never was any, apart from Broaddrick's unverifiable tale—one she'd previously denied three times under oath and penalty of perjury.With apologies to George Carlin, you'll note that Lyons said the three words you aren't allowed to say on cable TV or in a New York Times column. Lyons said these three dirty words:
Then after falling into the hands of [Kenneth] Starr and his team of prosecutorial bedsheet sniffers, she sang a different tune.
[Broaddrick had] filed an affidavit and given a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
"During the 1992 Presidential campaign," Broaddrick swore, "there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late '70s. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."
So no, I don't know, and neither do you.
I don't know.
In the manner of the tribal animal, Goldberg moved from "I don't know" to "I believe" in the course of a single paragraph. That said, the story of our own liberal tribe is plainly ineptitude all the way down.
Allowing for the intermingling of simple dishonesty, it's been that way for at least the past twenty-five years.
Why did Broaddrick change her story when Ken Starr arrived on the scene? Like Lyons, we have no way of knowing, if you know what "knowing" means.
That said, Lyons went on to sketch the outlines of one possible explanation. Note! When we say it's "possible," that means we don't know if it's true:
LYONS (continuing directly): This too: Juanita Broaddrick ran a nursing home facility reliant on Medicaid and Medicare funding—a motherlode of potential federal crimes. Not because she was crooked. There's zero evidence of that. But that wouldn't have mattered once Starr's prosecutors put her on the rack.Uh-oh! Lyons suggested a possibility—the possibility that Starr's team threatened Broaddrick with legal actions, perhaps dishonestly, in ways which made her flip on her previous statements. Given the overall conduct of Starr's team, that possibility is depressingly real, unless you're a somewhat small child.
You wouldn't have thought they'd question the legality of [Julie] Steele's adopted child either. But they did.
So did Juanita choose the easier path? Which time?
The FBI couldn't decide.
Goldberg says that didn't happen. But how does this tribal star know this?
We suggest you read all of Lyons' column, in which he suggests you read the book he wrote with Conason. That will never affect this discussion, of course. Within the realm of the corporate "press," the talking Ken and Barbie dolls all say this when poked or squeezed:
Reading books is hard!
Did Bill Clinton rape Juanita Broaddrick? Like Lyons, Goldberg can't exactly know. She does know how to type this:
"It's fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick's allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society."
We default to our earlier question. Does this ridiculous person actually know what the word "allegations" means?
Our advice to you would be this:
If you want to understand the world in which we live; if you want to understand our tapidly failing nation; then you have to come to terms with this anthropological fact:
Aristotle was clownishly wrong about us so-called humans! The hirelings thrown at you by the corporate press tend to be the tribal and status-seeking animals, with "rational" lagging behind.
Hints of the rational may appear. But they're not required.
Should you "believe the accusers," full stop, no questions asked? Plainly, no, you shouldn't do that, and there's something else you should avoid.
You shouldn't believe the TV stars and the stampeding columnists. Our tendency to believe these types has proven to be extremely bad for the planet's troubled health.
Coming next week: Back to that first Post report. Also, Moore meets Leslie Caron!