Remember when Al Gore, environmentalist extraordinaire, lived in a ridiculous mansion that gobbled up twenty times the national average of electricity?
Turns out that number is a bit off. There are some mitigating factors. BUT STILL. Make all the subtle excuses you want, BUT STILL. How can such a man call himself an environmentalist, and then act that way? It’s bad optics, at the very least, to shine giant spotlights on your evergreens all night, and then hop on a jet plane to lecture people about Africans messing up the ozone with their cooking fires. At worst, it’s sheer, arrogant hypocrisy. He is the problem, but there he goes, telling us he’s going to save us from the problem. How dare he tell us he’s here to fix the very thing he’s bringing about?
But his liberal groupies just ate it up! They listened to him, and treated him like some kind of prophet or savior, even though he was doing the opposite of what he preached. They totally ignored his flagrant hypocrisy, because he said what they wanted to hear.
I know you remember this, conservatives. I remember being outraged myself, and for good cause.
So now hold onto that sense of righteous outrage, and say to yourself, “Roy Moore is a pro-life champion.”
Roy Moore, who, as of this morning, is credibly accused by eight women of unwanted sexual aggression when they were teenagers and he was a powerful man twice their age. Tell yourself this is the man you must make your senator, because he is so pro-life.
How dare he tell us he’s here to fix the very thing he’s bringing about?
Maybe you are asking yourself, “Okay, maybe he’s a little sleazy, but what does that have to do with being pro-life? Even a horn dog can care about babies. We’re not looking for a saint, here; we’re just looking for someone who isn’t actively in favor of infanticide.”
Well, if you’re familiar at all with the birds and the bees, you’ll recall that women cannot conceive babies all by themselves. They do need a male participant. Babies don’t come out of nowhere.
And neither does abortion.
Women seek out abortions for many reasons, and looming large among those reasons are: No one would help me take care of this baby. No one would believe me when I told them I was raped. No one would help me pay for the hospital bills. No one treated me like a person. He wouldn’t even admit he knew me. He saw me as an object for his pleasure. He told me no one would believe me. I was alone. I had no other choice. I was young and felt completely powerless. I didn’t even tell anyone. I knew they’d never believe me. I knew they would say it was my fault, so what other choice do I have?
How dare Roy Moore tell us he’s here to fix the very thing he’s bringing about?
No one, as far as I know, is accusing Moore of raping and impregnating them. But neither are any of his supporters acknowledging the basic fact that women seek abortion because they have been let down by men who act exactly as Moore is accused of acting.
Instead, pundits and politicians who call themselves “pro-life” are saying, “Well, it was a long time ago . . . well, even Mary was only fourteen . . . well, it was just a misdemeanor . . . .well, at least he’s not as bad as that other guy.” That other guy, who isn’t pro-life, like Roy Moore.
Listen. I believe it’s important to work for pro-life laws. I believe the phenomenon of abortion is a hydra with countless heads, and it’s perfectly legitimate to pursue legal avenues against it. But that cannot be our only strategy. Abortion will never decrease until we understand why it exists in the first place.
Or at very least, stop calling ourselves pro-life while ardently tending the gardens where abortion takes root. At very least, stop making excuses for predators. At very least, stop reminding women and girls in crisis that no one cares about the trivial little misdemeanors they were born to endure at the hands of men.
How dare he tell us he’s here to fix the very thing he’s bringing about? How dare we let him?
“Credibly accused” What’s credible about evidence-free accusations?
He deserves a fair trial and the legal presumption of innocence, certainly. I’m not sure however about your suggestion that because people apparently weren’t outraged then (the New Yorker article suggests otherwise) he should be judged by the standards of the seventies rather than 2017. Go too far down that route and you start defending all sorts of unsavoury behaviour – rock stars’ abuse of underage groupies, for example.
To clarify, this was directed to AH. I’d also add that the abuse of power is an important issue. A girl who is of age might appear to consent, but either feel under pressure or manipulated, or still be too immature to understand the inappropriateness of a particular man’s behaviour. A decent man does not coerce teenagers into sex or take advantage of a foolish crush, even if the girl in question is over the age of consent.
I’m not disagreeing with that. I agree that abuse of power is part of the equation. Nor am I saying that today he should be judged by the standards of the seventies. Nobody can go back in time. It would be impossible for us to even try to recreate the cultural context that was at play in a small town in Alabama in the seventies. Nor would it make assault or molestation ok. I’m saying his behavior then is undeniably being judged today by very different standards than it would have been in the 70’s, and he is being tried in the media which doesn’t really care about any of that anyway.
I love the fact that you aren’t party-loyal, and are willing to call out inconsistencies/corruption in both parties. That is what gives you credibility. I detest it when people imply that being conservative/Republican is synonymous with being Catholic. I do tend to vote Republican because abortion is my highest voting priority, and Republicans tend to be more aligned with this priority, but I also agree with you that sadly, many of them are hypocritical in this area. And that just serves to take credibility away from the pro-life movement.
Ok, I’m not being snarky, I really mean this…
Who the heck is Roy Moore? Admittedly I’m not really into politics, but the first I’ve ever heard of this guy are all these accusations. He’s getting a fair amount of publicity from doing something stupid, apparently (not saying that these articles decrying him shouldn’t be written! I agree that politicians and others in power need to be held accountable for their actions).
He’s one of the anointed politicians of Breitbart, a man who has used his long career to grandstand for a lot of church versus state issues (like having a copy of the 10 Commandments installed on government property). He’s contentious and corrupt (he and his wife made a lot of undisclosed income off of a nonprofit called the Foundation for Moral Law) and apparently likes to use his power to date minors.
He’s running for senate in Alabama. They’re having a special election on December 12th to replace Jeff Sessions, who used to be their senator but is now Attorney General.
Okay and here is where we diverge. So basically can someone tell me what the man is actually accused of doing and how it has been determined that this is all “credible”. Because all I get from the current outrage about various people and various accusations is that the world around us is seriously confused and not capable of even determining with any objectivity whatsoever what it wants to call “abuse”, “assault” etc. and what is not. I hear outrage, emotion, and horror, but I want to know what did the man actually do and how has it been determined that yeah, this is credible. Last I heard there were only two accusers.
As far as the “how dare he tell us ….” well then, the same thing should be said about a whole bunch of other politicians, media types, and probably just about everybody. Everybody has done stupid, sinful, obnoxious things, usually more when they were young and stupid. Nobody has a pure past. I know very little about the man, and if the charges are credible and serious perhaps they warrant his disqualification for leadership,and possibly more like criminal charges. However there’s nothing inherently bad about someone wanting to do good today even though they’ve done wrong in the past. That’s a good thing.
It seems like accusing a man in power is a fairly risky thing to do, so maybe that alone lends a bit of credibility ((shrug)).
I agree that there’s nothing wrong with doing good when you’ve done bad in the past…but there’s a difference between that and denying that the bad ever happened. I think that’s the problem.
The accusations date to when Roy Moore was over 30 years old. That’s not young and stupid. He was a grown man, and knew what he was doing. His behavior was recognized as creepy and predatory at the time, like hanging around the local mall to hit on teenagers, as recalled by lots of people from his hometown. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall
AH… If you sincerely do not know what Roy Moore is accused of, then I’m left to wonder if you are only watching FOX News – they are the only National News Organization that sidesteps any issues that makes the Republican establishment look bad. FOX News is what our Predator in Chief calls the only major station that disseminates Truth, while CNN and others are fake; actually, he’s got that backwards – FOX is the only major station that thrives on ‘Fake News’ and that leads to brain malnutrition. So, try adding a bit of vitamin “N” to your news information diet; tune into a few reputable channels for a broader view of the events of the day.
Okay so I’ve seen some of the accusations. There’s only one that looks like it could be credibly called assault. The rest are things like he said something, he went on a date, he was dating and touched a girl and then stopped when she was unapproving. A mother wouldn’t allow him to date her daughter. The one accusation of him using an intimidating posture and force sounds the worst and might be assault. Hanging out at the mall in the seventies…not a crime. Being 30 and going on dates with teenage young ladies definitely not cool in 2017, but not a crime or that uncommon in 1970’s. Doing awkward things trying to push towards a kiss, being rebuffed and then stopping, not a crime. Not that uncommon for men to try and date younger girls, now or then. Also the statutory age in Alabama at the time was probably 15 or 16. So if these are the accusations that make him an unredeemable perv, then that means probably 75-80 percent of all men are unredeemable pervs.
Unredeemable? No. Pervs? Yes. Even if that percentage is true. It just means far too many men have unhealthy mindsets. As a 26-year-old man, I am sick and tired of seeing male predation being normalized. It certainly doesn’t help me overcome lustful habits. Slavery was a legal, common practice at one point. Child “brides” is still not a crime in some places. Segregation was only recently condemned in the 1970s, which also gave us the horrifying Stanford prison experiments.
Besides: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-roy-moore-time-bomb/
”
Brad Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who studies marriage and families in the United States, said that while people tended to date and marry younger in the 1970s, when Moore allegedly was dating teenagers, an age gap such as that between Moore and the girls would still have been highly unusual. “In the South, in general, younger marriages would have been more common. But we’re talking here about … teenagers going steady in high school — maybe a year or two or three between him and her,” Wilcox said. “You don’t have 30-year-old guys dating a 14-year-old. It may have happened in some occasional context, but it would not have been a cultural norm.”
He said the reaction of most Southern evangelical communities would be “extraordinarily negative. … I would imagine a shotgun involved.”
“
One of those making claims against him was 14 years old at the time, so almost certainly under the age of consent. Another claims her assaulted her when she was 16 – so that would be classed as a crime even though she was of age, and thus more than “only” one woman he may have abused. And even if he “only” bothered those above the age of consent, it’s still sleazy and predatory.
As far as the “but that was then” argument, it’s actually something of a myth that girls always used to marry in their teens. Those from noble families did, to secure alliances, but most women married in their 20s. LM Montgomery’s “Emily” series from the very early 20th century recognise the inappropriateness of a 30-something taking interest in an adolescent girl, so this disapproval isn’t something new.
I agree that clumsy or ill-judged attempts at flirtation shouldn’t be conflated with rape, but equally, that doesn’t mean bad behaviour should just be shrugged off with flimsy excuses.
Sleazy, creepy yes. One that probably is assault. The other one involving the 14 year old, not sure if it would be assault? Or molestation? And people are rightly upset. He has disqualified himself from leadership and possibly should face some type of legal action. However, the stories like this that get tried thru the media are so focused on outrage that you really have to try to sort out what is known as fact. And it can’t be denied that we are judging his actions much differently now in 2017, than he would have been judged in 1977. He is also facing a sort of world wide presumed guilt on all of the accusations. That’s not a flimsy excuse, that’s reality. does he deserve that? Some people undoubtedly think so. it doesn’t really represent justice.