My Hypocrisy Detector Just Blew Up!


In a favorite episode of “The Simpsons,” the Springfield equivilent of Mensa is having a contentious debate. Prof. Frink, the local mad scientis, complains that the tone has set the readings of his newly-invented “sarcasm detector” dangerously high. “Comic Book Guy,” another brainy member of the club, snarks, “A sarcasm detector? That’s a real useful invention!” Whereupon the sarcasm detector blows up.

Well, my hypocrisy detector just blew up. The readings started going off the charts when I came across this item:

NEW YORK (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday night that excessive partisanship flowing through the nation’s political system is causing the U.S. to march “backwards instead of forward”…Clinton cited the need to “get back to evidence-based decision-making.”

Oh, you mean like telling America that the allegations that your husband had lied under oath about his sexual affairs in a sexual harassment lawsuit and was using the power of his office to obstruct justice and cover it up was the creation of “a vast right wing conspiracy,” Hillary?  When you knew that the allegations were true? That kind of “evidence-based decision-making”?

I swear, if this awful, dishonest, cynical and untrustworthy woman runs for President, everything here will be exploding—my sarcasm detector, lie detector, hypocrisy detector, head…you name it.

This was just a warm-up, though. Then I read a Washington Post puff piece on Anita Hill, who is peddling a new documentary that casts her as a hero, which is ridiculous on its face. Anita Hill is the walking, talking embodiment of feminist hypocrisy, especially when paired with Hillary’s target, Paula Jones. I remember back when I worked for a large trial attorney lobby and Monicagate was in full force. The female president of the association was going on about her support of Clinton and how this was all, well, Hillary provided the talking point, and I had the cheek to remind her that during Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings she wore a button that said “I believe Anita Hill.”

“Why did you believe Anita Hill, but not Paula Jones?” I asked. “Thomas had no established record of hitting on women in the workplace, and Clinton does. Jones’s complaint based on more recent events than Hill’s. Hill’s attack on Thomas certainly looks like it was politically motivated. Where do you see so clear a difference?”

She did not appreciate the question, and I got no answer. (I was also fired a short time later.)

The Post article, by Soraya Nadia McDonald, would have made that association president feel right at home. It begins:

There’s a point in the new documentary, “ANITA,” where Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) questions Anita Hill. “In trying to determine whether you are telling falsehoods or not, I’ve got to determine what your motivation might be,” Heflin asks at the 1991 Capitol Hill hearing. “Are you a scorned woman? Do you have a martyr complex? Do you see yourself coming out of this as a hero in the civil rights movement?” Hill, composed as ever, calmly answers, “No.”

Imagine if a male member of Congress tried that now: Feminist Twitter would nail him to the wall. There would be countless think pieces about institutionalized sexism and misogyny

Maybe she is right about the response, but there was nothing unethical, inappropriate, condescending or inappropriate about Howell’s questions. There still isn’t. I have those questions now, as they have never been satisfactorily answered. The fact that women now have the means and power to intimidate those who challenge their less-savory champions by calling them sexist is far from an advance, or even progress toward less gender bias. Once women were the victims of gender bias gamed, now they practice those games to for their own advantage. Yippee. “Tit for Tat” is not what I would call progress.

The article goes on…

..maybe that’s a measure of how far we’ve come in the 23 years since Hill testified about allegations of sexual harassment against her former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission colleague, Clarence Thomas. Hill’s credibility was impugned. “ANITA,” which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and opens Friday in D.C., states that Hill was essentially put on trial when the hearings were supposed to be an examination of Thomas’s character because President George H.W. Bush had nominated him to the Supreme Court.

What? To begin with, the hearings were supposed to examine Thomas’s legal and judicial qualifications, not his “character.” The much-revered liberal Justice William O.Douglas was a certifiable rake, but his hearings never touched on his sex life. Of course, that was before Democrats changed the rules and traditions, and rather than allowing Presidents of either party to choose whoever they wanted for the Supreme Court as long as they had the knowledge, experience, temperament and qualifications for the job, began using the power of the smear, first with Judge Bork, and then with Thomas, whose nomination was especially offensive to liberals because he was black, and everybody knows that blacks are obligated to be knee-jerk Democrats, or their “character” is flawed. (Cue for Prof. Frink’s machine to blow.)

Hill’s complaints only came to the attention of the Judiciary Committee after an F.B.I interview with her was illegally leaked. She should never have been called as a witness at all, because her statements were bound to be more prejudicial that probative. Her allegation were a decade old; her allegations, even if true, involved workplace flirtation that pre-dated laws and regulations sanctioning them, and her motives were indeed in question. The matter was bound to be a classic “he said-she said” that only served to embarrass Thomas and make him a target of liberal feminists like my association friend. It was a horrible, humiliating experience for Thomas that he was only able to rescue himself from by forcefully playing the race card, calling the attack “a high-tech lynching.” It was quite appropriate for her credibility to be impugned: why the assumption that Hill was credible while Thomas was not? This is “I believe Anita Hill” all over again—a double standard, bias, and hypocrisy. Clarence Thomas, because he was a man, bust mostly because he was a black conservative that had to be destroyed, was automatically presumed guilty because a woman had accused him. And in the biased judgment of the Washington Post reporter, he is still presumed guilty. She continues:

In some ways, the atmosphere is still just as adversarial as ever. Take for example, the case of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who received no jail time after he was convicted of sexual misconduct and accused of sexual assault. Rep. Jackie Speier called it a “mockery of military justice.”

Disgraceful. Sinclair admitted carrying on a long sexual affair with an officer under his direct command and to having improper relationships with two other women. How is his situation remotely similar to that of Clarence Thomas, who was proven guilty of no misconduct at all? Even making the analogy is unfair, and irresponsibly presumes wrongdoing by Thomas. Based on what?  Based on civil rights activist, feminist Democrat Anita Hill said so, choosing to make her first complaint about Thomas ten years after his alleged offense, when he was in the public spotlight. He’s a man, she’s woman, so it is just for her to be believed.

This isn’t merely hypocrisy, but brilliantly shining, defiant and astounding hypocrisy, and yet McDonald can’t see it at all, and apparently, neither can Washington Post editors.

If my hypocrisy detector hadn’t blown up, I would know just where to send it.


Sources: AP, Washington Post


10 thoughts on “My Hypocrisy Detector Just Blew Up!

  1. I’m impressed that your meter waited so long to blow. Mine blew to smithereens shortly before Clinton was elected. Something Hillary said about baking cookies and standing by her man.

  2. Anita Hill took a polygraph regarding her testimony, and passed. Thomas has refused to take a polygraph. Numerous other women also confirm Hill’s testimony regarding Thomas’s behavior. If true, you feel that sexually harassing someone at the workplace while being in charge of investigating sexual harassment at the workplace has no probative value into his judicial ethics?

    • In a word, crap and slander. Those “other women” are theoretical—they never came forward in a timely fashion, never made formal complaints, never have put themselves forward (like, for example, Clinton’s various victims) for scrutiny. One, the only one beside Hill who has a name, had been fired by Thomas…bias. Her testimony hasn’t been confirmed under cross examination and under oath, which means it hasn’t been confirmed in any way. Wait ten years, and any such accusation is unprovable, which means it is per se unfair to raise it.

      NO one should take polygraphs. There’s a reason they aren’t admissible in court—they aren’t reliable, and prove nothing.

      I don’t believe rumors and ad hoc attacks off topic have any place in confirmation hearings, no. Had a complaint been made at the time, that would have been relevant,as part of his career record. Too late, too suspect, too inherently prejudicial.

      Is there any liberal misconduct you won’t automatically rationalize?

          • “prove an argument idiotic, and conclude, on the basis of signature significance, that the one making the argument is an idiot” (from your Debate Cheats post)

            Would that apply here? If so Deery’s an idiot.

      • You asked why someone would assume that Hill was credible while Thomas was not. I gave a few reasons, including the fact that she did pass a lie detector test. It isn’t necessarily hypocrisy, just a difference of a opinion. You obviously don’t want to believe Hill, which is fine, but I don’t see why it is so outrageous that someone else might.

        As part of the standard background check for Supreme Court candidates, Hill was interviewed, where she recounted the incidents. This background check was supposed to be confidential, but her testimony was leaked. She did not come forward on her own. But once she was called to testify, should have refused? Lied? I think her testimony was specific enough to be believable, and relevant to the kind of person that he was.

        But reasonable people can disagree on the facts presented. Like most rapes, sexual harassment is wildly underreported, relying heavily on the “he said, she said” aspects, where each side has a heavy investment n making sure the other side has as little credibility as possible. But I’m still failing to see the hypocrisy?

  3. It’s becoming the standard rhetoric in sexual assault and related cases, isn’t it? If there’s a trial going on for assault and battery, the defense lawyer will try to show the alleged victim started it. A robbery trial might see a defense lawyer looking to prove the alleged victim wasn’t where he said he was. But in a sex crime trial the defense attourney looks to poke holes in the credibility of the alleged…

    STOP. Did you say ALLEGED victim? How DARE you? This woman was victimized! What do you mean you want to call her credibility into account? That’s victim blaming! NO you can’t argue the circumstances, or insinuate that someone might lie about a sex crime! NO you can’t attempt to show that a reasonable person would have thought the encounter was legal and consensual, that’s just mansplaining and slut-shaming and victim blaming!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.