Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/21/18: BREAKING! Bill Clinton Harassed Women!

Good morning!

Me? I’m thankful that I’ve had the Warm-Up to fall back on when I’m too busy trying to sleep off this ^$$@!#^& endless chest cold, so I can at least keep a little bit current on Ethics Alarms. Today, the hell with it! Mind over matter, exhaustion be damned, I’m going to work, shop, make delayed client calls and research until I drop, literally. Time to stop being a weenie. Then tomorrow I can be thankful that I’m still alive.

1. Do not let the Clinton defenders off the hook.  For me, this is head exploding: the New York Times is crediting an A&E series about “The Clinton Affair” with suddenly, remarkably, making it possible to see that Paula Jones, as well as Katherine Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, were not just “right wing conspiracy”- primed bimbos weaponized to bring down Bill Clinton. Ah! Now, through the sudden clarity provided by the #MeToo movement, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media feels that the truth, so impenetrable all those years ago,  has been revealed! Jones was credible! Willey and Broaddrick were (and are) credible! What a shock! Who knew?

Excuse me if I barf. I knew, and, I submit, so did the New York Times et al,, including my hypocritical feminist lawyer friends at the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, where I worked during the Clinton years. “I believe Anita Hill!” boasted the button worn by the association’s first female President. “Really?” I asked her? Then why didn’t you believe Paula Jones? Clinton has had a history of sexual harassment and predator allegations; Clarence Thomas hasn’t.” Her answer was, to paraphrase, “Humina humina humina…’ She had no answer. She knew she had sided with a powerful man against a powerless woman for purely political reasons, and credibility and justice had nothing to do with the calculation. So did the New York Times. All of the defenses of Clinton were rationalizations—all of them, every one. I argued, and I taught at the time, that the Lewinsky affair was classic workplace harassment where the disparity of power made true consent impossible, even as such feminists as Gloria Steinem denied it, because, you see, Bill supported abortion rights. Of course he did. I’ll bet those rights served him well at one or more junctures in his rise.

Now, though, the realization of what Clinton was really doing has come into focus, as if it wasn’t deliberately blurred by the same forces now proclaiming it. In her essay for Vanity Fair earlier this year, Monica wrote that #MeToo had given her a “new lens” for seeing her own story, writing “Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern.”

Well, you’re slow, Monica, but at least you have an excuse. The New York Times is simply covering up a lie. It has no new lens: it was just pretending, along with the Democratic Party and most of the news media, that it didn’t know what was obvious to anyone with a neutral perspective. Bill Clinton was a serial harasser and sexual predator. He used his power in office to abuse women, and then to cover up his misconduct. Hillary Clinton was his accomplice, for her own gain. The President lied under oath in the Jones suit, a genuine, proven, “high crime.” It was not personal conduct, but professional, official, workplace misconduct, by well-accepted standards in the employment law field. That other Presidents, notably Kennedy, hasalso been sexual predators was not an valid excuse or a defense. The Democratic Party’s alleged feminism and dedication to women’s rights has been pure hypocrisy and cynical misrepresentation as long as the Clintons were embraced as allies and icons, a situation which existed right up through the 2016 election.

How dare the Times pretend all of this was unfathomable before 2018? Are Times readers really this corrupt and gullible? I know I especially resent it, because everything the paper says is suddenly, amazingly “in focus” was clear to me 20 years ago, and I got the same sneering condescension from my left-corrupted friends then that I get from them now, though on different topics. I’m thankful for the Clinton Ethics Train Wreck, because it started me writing about ethics on-line. But I am not letting these liars and hypocrites off the hook. Neither should you.

2. Fortunately for the Left, its next generation is equally good at denial…A new (and dubious, but so are most of them) academic study found that Hillary Clinton’s defeat during the 2016 election has primed a mental health crisis among college students. University of Miami Professor Heather Claypool‘s study sought to determine if the election results would effect  students’ mental health and well-being. She surveyed 262 students at the school before and after the 2016 election. “Among Clinton supporters, the more liberal they were, the more they experienced her electoral defeat as personal rejection, reporting less belonging, less meaningful existence, and worsened mood,” reported Claypool. Those “who felt especially close to Clinton and identified as especially politically liberal exhibited these [negative moods] most strongly” Claypool says.  A another study surveyed 200 Clinton voters after the election and found that many are “still grieving” Clinton’s loss.

There is no rational way an individual who is cognizant of the degree of mendacity and power abuse used by both Clintons in their ruthless rise can possibly grieve over Hillary’s loss, unless such an individual is also a sociopath. Grieving over the election of someone like Donald Trump as America’s President can certainly be justified, but not suffering from depression that the voters had the sense to reject a character as openly corrupt as Clinton. But, you see, the news media’s slated reporting and Democratic propaganda worked: the typical low-information, liberal bubble student is easy to deceive, and continues to be.

3. Of course, that Big Lie and race-baiting also helps...CNN contributor and USA Today columnist Kirsten Powerssuggested, in a burst of anti-Trump hate and frustration,  that anyone who voted for Trump over Clinton is a racist. Is this the coming rationale for the entire Democratic Party that voting against any Democrat is racist, since the entire Republican Party is racist—you know, because conservatives oppose race-preferences in hiring and college admissions, recognize the insanity of open boarders, believe that police officers who shoot blacks aren’t automatically murderers and think voters should be able to prove their identity and citizenship, all positions labelled racist by progressives?

4. I have noted before that Althouse may be losing it…Ann Althouse is probably my favorite blogger—she is certainly my most quoted blogger— and the one who most resembles me in my proclivities, if not interests. Lately, however, I have worried that retirement is getting to her, as her penchant for free-associating and obsessing about word meaning seem to be spinning out of control. THIS, however was really troubling: she was watching the A&E series about Clinton referenced above, and wrote…

“I’m still interested in the question whether Monica Lewinsky loved Bill Clinton, whether he loved her, and whether they loved each other. I was watching a TV special last night about the Lewinsky affair — Monica looked beautiful (in the present) — and I still after all these years imagine real love…I believe Bill Clinton loved her and that he watched this show and felt deep pangs of loss of her love and her company these past 20 years. I’m not saying he’s a good person. I’m just observing the fact of the sheer magnetism of Monica Lewinsky. I wish Bill Clinton had simply resigned and walked away from the presidency — given it all up for love. I think she deserved it, she whose youth he appropriated, she who really did love him.”

This sentimental romantic nonsense is signature significance for something, but I’m afraid to think what. There are few sociopaths and narcissists in American history who have made their diagnosis as easy as Bill Clinton has, and such people love only themselves. It worries me that I have accepted seriously analyses of  so many complex topics by a blogger who could write something like that.

I realize that I’m in a rotten mood today…

 

22 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Character, Education, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Research and Scholarship, U.S. Society, Workplace

22 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/21/18: BREAKING! Bill Clinton Harassed Women!

  1. adimagejim

    Re: 2 & 3

    When you believe your own propaganda, you find evidence for, justify and publicly assert stupid shite. All too predictable.

  2. Cynical John

    Regarding Number 2, what else can we expect from a generation that was raised with “Everybody gets a trophy,” “Everybody’s a winner,” and “We can’t hurt his/her self-esteem.” An old joke: New college graduate to the World: “I’m ready for you now; I have a B.A.” World to new college graduate: “Congratulations, kid. Now sit down, and I’ll teach you the rest of the alphabet.”,

    • Junkmailfolder

      Have had my first few experiences interviewing true millennials this last month. I’m technically a millennial but there’s a gulf of difference between those born in the early 80s and the rest of them (frankly my childhood was much closer to Gen Y than the millennials).

      Asked a candidate just a few months out of his master’s why he was considering leaving a Big 4 accounting firm, rather than staying in for the customary 3+ years. His response was that 1. no one listens to his ideas, and 2. promotions are at least partially determined by longevity so he wasn’t going to be promoted as quickly as he deserved.

      He wasn’t brought back in for another interview. It’s getting hard to find younger candidates who don’t have these mindsets.

  3. sgs

    Re: the mental health study. I have some insight into quantitative analysis and “big data”. I submit that such surveys of WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations are more meaningless than surveys in general. The population they represent are not a reflection of the general population that voted for Clinton, let alone a reflection of the general population that voted for anybody. People lie in surveys all the time to feel special and to conform to their perceptions of what the surveyor wants to hear.
    Of course this sense of being personally attacked, of feeling bereft and loss-y after a political loss is encouraged by the left, with its endless sloganeering of “the personal is the political”.

  4. Willem Reese

    Re: #2
    I’m constantly trying to wrap my head around the fact that those who usually miss no opportunity to declare how strong and self-reliant their particular identity group is, contrarily seem to melt into whimpering, triggered, safe-space residents at the least disappointment, and bemoan their inability to deal with adversity or life in general. In the same breath they proclaim their strength and competence, they demand someone provide protection from the things they’ve declared themselves fit to resist.

    Perhaps that’s why the term “snowflake” has gained traction as a descriptor.

  5. A.M. Golden

    Maybe Althouse has come up with a new rationalization or subrationalization: “The Lover’s Sacrifice” or All You Need Is Love”. A crime isn’t a crime, an offense isn’t an offense; a duty shirked is noble if it’s done in the name of love. Similar to It All Turned Out Well In the End.

    This has been going ’round since Edward VIII gave up the throne to “marry the woman I love”. The romantic idea that, if love is the motivating factor, any other actions or consequences don’t matter. Leave your kingdom in the lurch and force your unprepared brother into the spotlight? No matter, it’s for love. Have sex with your 13 year old student, giving birth to his children and marrying him when he’s of age?. Not a big deal – Love Conquers All. Or, in Bill’s case, have a fling with a naive young woman that humiliates your wife and child publicly, undermines the dignity of the Presidency and encourages Americans everywhere to believe that lying about sex is okay because it’s all about sex and not about coercion or manipulation? But you’re in love!

    I don’t believe one minute that Bill was in love with Monica. She may have thought she loved him, but I’m guessing she was more infatuated with his charisma and the allure of his position as President than anything else. I’m not convinced Althouse really thinks Bill or Monica was in love, either, but this whimsical speculation on her part doesn’t do any good. The notion that Bill would resign and go live happily ever after with Monica isn’t romantic, it’s would have been a dereliction of duty that would have endorsed consequentialism had the relationship lasted any length of time.

  6. crella

    The ending of the article about Paula Jones is-

    ‘she took them all the way to the Supreme Court and won. In another world, she would be hailed as a feminist icon. But not in this world — not yet.’
    Poppycock! She would have been hailed as a feminist icon if it had not been Bill Clinton.

  7. 4–Althouse PLEASE!!!

    The Former-Serial-Sexual-Predator-In-Chief may have had some feelings for her, perhaps just mere thankfulness that Lewinsky’s unconditional acceptance of the unacceptable stoked his voraciously sociopathic ego.

    But he had to have realized that his future would be best served HRC, an inveterate, serial, reflex, congenital liar whose take-no-prisoners-the-ends-justify-the-means approach to The Grift would cover any indiscretions that might’ve hampered his craven needs.

  8. I’m thankful for the Clinton Ethics Train Wreck, because it started me writing about ethics on-line. But I am not letting these liars and hypocrites off the hook. Neither should you.

    John Kass wrote about what else you can thank the Clinton Ethics Train Wreck for.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-clinton-women-kass-0518-20160517-column.html

    Just consider the mental gymnastics it takes to excuse perjury in a sitting president. Consider the lack of character it takes to defend it. Consider the lack of foresight it takes to do this while avoiding the effect it could have on the republic.

    Not only was sexual harasser and liar Bill Clinton defended, but he also was politically rehabilitated by many of the same actors, by feminists and by the Democratic insiders. And the damage was done.

    Hillary and Bill and their meat puppets told us then that character didn’t matter. It was all a private thing.

    In essence, they helped give birth to Trump. You might say Hillary — protecting Bill to guard her own ambition — was midwife to the Trump campaign.

    Because without a rehabilitated Bill Clinton there could never have been a Trump candidacy. Trump would not have been conceivable, let alone possible.

    • “Just consider the mental gymnastics it takes to excuse perjury in a sitting president […] the lack of character it takes to defend it […] the lack of foresight […] it could have on the republic.”

      Great points, ME; the ends justified the means, am I right?

      But HRC midwifing the Trump Presidency?

      Fuckin’ Priceless!!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.