Matt Walsh:
Matt Lauer, former host of the Today Show, stands accused of a multitude of sins, including exposing himself to his coworkers, handing out sex toys as gifts, and even having a special locking mechanism installed at his desk so that he could trap his victims in his office/sex dungeon.
Garrison Keillor, a broadcasting icon who has spent 40 years in the business, has also this week been accused of, and fired for, his own “inappropriate behavior.” Apparently he patted a woman on the back years ago, his hand went up her shirt slightly, and he apologized for it at the time. She forgave him, he says, but has now decided that it was assault. Maybe more accusations will surface against Keillor, but right now, as far as the public knows, that’s it.
The only thing that links these two men and their alleged improprieties together is that both are immediately assumed guilty and cast aside as dangerous predators. They will both be added to the same list — a list that includes men accused of child rape, men accused of making lewd comments, and men accused of something in between those two vast extremes — and their careers and reputations will be ruined forever. Neither will be allowed to defend themselves, neither will be permitted to tell their side of the story, and no evidence whatsoever will need to be presented against them. This is how the process works now. If you are a man and you are accused of any inappropriate behavior, of any kind, at any time, by anyone, you are guilty, you are scum, and your life is over.
I think, perhaps, we are setting a troubling precedent.
It seems that many of the men so far accused of indiscretions are indeed guilty. Some have even admitted to it. Some have denied it. One of the men, actor Jeremy Piven, even took and passed a lie detector test. He claims that three women have invented stories about him for personal gain, and he’s done what he can to achieve the impossible and prove a negative. Some of the men have been accused by hundreds of women, some have been accused by only one or two. But all are presumed guilty, all are assigned the same severity of guilt, and most have been fired from their jobs and will carry the mark of “Accused Sexual Predator” for the rest of their lives.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
As for Matt Lauer, he does seem to be a legitimate creep and a serial adulterer, at the very least. He has apologized for his behavior and implied that many of the stories about him are true or mostly true. Okay. But he also says, as several of these men have said, that not all of the accusations are correct and some of the incidents are being deliberately mischaracterized. That seems to be a relevant point. Shouldn’t we ask which accusations are incorrect? Which are being mischaracterized? Were some of the “sexually harassed” women full and eager participants at the time? Is it possible that Lauer is a pig whose piggishness is, in some cases, being exaggerated by ambitious people who want to destroy him? I’m not saying that’s the case, and I have no personal affection for Lauer whatsoever so I have no reason to hope that it is the case, but I also don’t know that it isn’t the case. And neither do you.
But we seem to be saying that none of this matters. A man who faces these sorts of allegations is expected to apologize, and if he does not apologize, if he attempts to explain, or add context, or defend himself to any extent, his stubbornness is just seen as a symptom of his guilt. Keillor denied the charges against him, and USA Today called his statement “defiant” and “weird.” What’s so weird about a guy claiming his innocence if he is in fact innocent? Have we completely ruled out that possibility?
The whole thing reminds me of the last scene of The Crucible, where John Proctor is told he must confess to witchcraft in writing or be hung for witchcraft. His choices are not ideal: either admit your guilt and be seen as a witch, or deny your guilt and be hung as a witch. Proctor chose the rope. Most of these men choose to confess. But does that mean they’re all guilty?
And even if they are all guilty, do they all deserve to be destroyed? Why are we putting sexual harassers and sexual assaulters in the same category? Why are we acting as though an incident of harassment 10 years ago is as unforgivable as repeatedly assaulting teen boys or masturbating in front of unwilling spectators?
We must stop allowing then to make up definitions. Their defintions are not exactly defined, its what ever they feel it means. At will they can rope in a second non defined accusation.
Accused = convicted.
Pedophile used to involve to pre pubescent now its anyone under 21.
Disagree or hold a different opinion = fascist nazi.
Say its ok to be white = evil racist.
Say America First = 1/2 the slurs in existence.
Poorly educated at a premium price, no logic at all none zip nada
With Lauer, Conyers and Franken we had accusations followed by apologies and, at least, tacit admissions of guilt….not in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion.
In the cases of Trump and Moore we had accusations followed by adamant denials of wrongdoing.
That’s the difference.
In all the cases of Trump and Moore accusers, the accusations have fallen apart when looked into in depth.
Also, how many of these Hollywood/media accusations are derived from what was originally a quid pro quo agreement? How many of these women got involved in a sexual situation with the promise or expectation of some career-enhancing benefit afterwards and either the enhancement didn’t happen or it did but they find the whole scenario disgusting now?
The accused are usually compromised by being married or having taken a staunch anti-sexual abuse position so they can make no feasible argument to defend their actions, regardless of the agreement at the time.
The only way to staunch the flow of malicious charges is for the accused to take the accuser to court. What the level of proof should be to substantiate the accusation will need to be established, but there has to be a penalty to be paid for making false accusations. As it is, if the accused establishes his/her apparent innocence the only response is a giant sigh of relief. Then it starts all over again.
From The Federalist, earlier today: Why Alabamians Should Vote For Roy Moore
Yeah, right. What’s the big deal?
Is Roy Moore one of the “people of the past?” Somehow I got the mistaken impression that he’s part of the present and running for the Senate in an upcoming Alabama election.
Read the rest of the Federalist article. It gets even better. Basically the argument runs, Even if Moore is guilty of molesting a 14-year-old and assaulting a 16-year-old in a parking lot, he’s still the lesser of two evils, and it’s your moral obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils.
@Greg:
Yes you are mistaken, he isnt 32 chasing girls today.
No proof of anything except perhaps some mentally ill, or over zealous politically driven women.
@Greg:
The biggest deal is that, to date, he is guilty of NOTHING. In fact, the stories of his accusers continues to erode. It appears these are partisan lies. Go figure.
When did sexual molestation, sexual harassment and sexual assault start to bother you? When these Moore stories came out? It obviously never did before.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #6:
It appears that Moore’s lawyer and campaign organization are trying very hard to sell that perception, doing everything they can to discredit the reputations of the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct. They’ve also been working the angles that such conduct isn’t really all that unusual or unacceptable—if you want to be the patriarch of a large Christian family, you’ve got to catch ’em young—and that Moore’s opponent is a liberal Minion of the Devil, who thinks women should have control of their own reproductive function, and that gay and transgender people should be given the same respect and rights as other human beings.
Apparently this isn’t such a hard sell in Trump country. It looks like Moore will probably be elected and installed into the U.S. Senate. This won’t even require the help of Wikileaks or the Russians.
@Greg: “Angles? You mean like proving he was never banned from a mall? Or his “signature” in a yearbook is a forgery? Or that the innocent little girl he supposedly molested was not innocent, didn’t have a phone in her room as she said, wasn’t even LIVING where she said she was and was a juvenile problem even before she says she hooked up with Moore… which he denies, anyway?
Only a liberal would consider the truth an “angle”.
@Greg: We know. You have a problem with those fair elections, resulting in duly elected politicians, where you find you’re in the minority.
You believe in lying and cheating to win elections, and that’s why the majority of Americans reject you and your Party.
If the majority had determined the outcome of the most recent presidential election, Trump wouldn’t be in the White House.
If the majority had their say about the Republican tax reform plan, it wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed. (Only 25 percent of voters approve of the proposed changes.)
The GOP Tax Cuts Are Even More Unpopular Than Past Tax Hikes
And yet they’re going to shove it through—because they don’t really give a doodley damn about what the people think. This could be their Really Big Score.
Republican Tax Bill Is Set to Clear the Senate
GOP plan will ultimately raise taxes on 50% of Americans, nonpartisan assessment says
@Greg:
The majority did. The fast majority of electoral votes. Just like it has been done in every Presidential election since George Washington. So, you are just going to have to accept it and try to defeat him, legally, electorally, in 2020. Apparently, you don’t have much confidence it can be done.
Even the popular vote is in question, since so much voter fraud has been exposed. I sincerely doubt Hillary even won that.
He’ll be lucky if he hasn’t been removed from office before 2020.
@Greg: We are not sure what kind of new changes have been made yet, I would like to see government get smaller so we worry less about the deficit rather than raise taxes to fund an ABC department. The computer allowed private sector to do more with less people but the government continues to grow and grow…why?
@Greg: Ha. If imagination could convict, he would have a worry. As it is, you liberals continue to shoot blanks.