|
- It IS possible to prove by induction (and to confirm using FBI profiling of the POWER ASSERTIVE serial rapist) that the degenerate is a sexual predator and rapist.
- There IS evidence that clinton raped Broaddrick. There ARE multiple witnesses to whom Broaddrick contemporaneously and independently and consistently told the story of her rape by clinton. There IS a witness to Broaddrick's injuries, shock and torn clothes, who saw all this evidence within minutes of the rape.
- Evidence that clinton raped Broaddrick (and others) exists. It is (was?) in the Ford Building. Ask the Congressmen who courageously confronted it (and the Senators who assiduously avoided it).
- That the clintons are run-of-the-mill rapists is not beyond the ken of thoughtful liberals like Susan Brownmiller (of Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape fame) and Christopher Hitchens.
|
Bill Clinton, Jack Rabbit
(Irreverent Opinion)
by Susan Brownmiller
Nothing sickens me more than the specter of famous-name feminists jumping to the defense of President Clinton whenever a new story emerges about his sexual habits. I voted for the lyin', cheatin, cutie pie twice, in line with the "lesser evil" theory of electoral politics, and I'm not sorry I did, but you won't catch me apologizing for him in public. On the other hand, I haven't been screaming for his resignation, either. Let's face it: the amiable rake with the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am compulsions has shadow-boxed feminists into a corner. It's time for my sisters who sold their souls to the Democratic Party to fall on their swords and admit they've been mightily bamboozled, rather than pooh-pooh each fresh accusation.
The cost of defending our prez has become entirely too high. It's turned into a repudiation of everything we've said for years about rape and sexual harassment. It's placed us in the disgusting, anti-feminist position of blaming the victim. It's ceded the moral high ground to cynical right-wingers who gleefully employ our rhetoric for their own nefarious ends. And it's prevented us from reminding the public that the charismatic liar with the crooked finger and lopsided grin has failed us on the important issues over and over.
Let's get real. So what if he had a long, secret affair with Gennifer Flowers? What's evil is that he lied about it to save his political skin. So what if he let California bunny Monica Lewinsky snap her thongs and go down on him in the Oval Office? Not for a minute did I consider this tawdry, catch-as-catch-can diddling a case of sexual harassment, but I was flabbergasted that he tried to get away with another Big Lie. I am one of the few feminists I know who believed Paula Jones from the git-go. I believed Kathleen Willey and I believe Juanita Brodderick. Each of these women strikes me as a credible witness. Taken as a whole, we see a jack rabbit who grabs any nearby woman for a moment of relaxation.
I do see fine distinctions between the Jones, Willey, and Brodderick stories. I've always suspected that he got his signals crossed with Jones; the scenario that makes the most sense is that he stupidly mistook her for a professional prostitute. And evidently he mistook the distraught Willey for a willing and eager Monica type. But Brodderick's story cannot be explained away. Yet you should hear some of my feminist sisters saying lame things like "She shouldn't have let him into her hotel room."
She shouldn't have? Well, in retrospect I guess she shouldn't have, but remember, the venue was his suggestion. Brodderick thought the meeting was arranged to discuss nursing home regulations. Men take meetings in their hotel rooms all the time. Why should Brodderick have suspected that the earnest young pol was going to jump her the minute the door was closed? Okay, we have to concede that women still can't claim the privileges that men take for granted, like take a meeting in a hotel room without worrying whether it looks like an open invitation to rape or seduction, but feminists should not be blaming Brodderick for Bill Clinton's egregious misreading of her intentions. Rapists always say, "Gee, I thought that's what she wanted."
It's endlessly fascinating to speculate about the Clintons' loveless, sexless marriage, and to ponder the terms of the unholy bargain that brought them to the top of the heap, but the real mystery is how the charmer managed to convince vast numbers of people he's the living embodiment of all the serious concerns articulated by women and blacks without doing damn much of anything at all. So he plays golf with Vernon Jordan and chose Betty Currie as his personal secretary-- we're supposed to consider this a sign of progress? In truth, he blithely used these loyal intimates to carry out his procurements, and then, when things started to blow, he used them again in a pathetic attempt to cover his tracks.
Yes, Clinton has appointed more women to big jobs than any other president in history and that's nothing to snivel at, but rather than view a handful of high-profile women as some sort of blessed gift from on high, I see the appointments as one small result of thirty years of feminist agitation. Yes, he's held the line on abortion, but any Democratic president would have done the same thing. Now let's look at a few examples of how Clinton let us down so swiftly we could only gasp: signing the oppressive welfare bill, dropping Lani Guinier like a hot potato, firing the remarkable Jocelyn Elders for daring to mention masturbation (how's that for hypocrisy?), endorsing the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy for the military, letting Janet Reno get away with the inferno at Waco, vetoing the needle-exchange legislation, ordering air strikes on two small, troubled countries to show he's the Free World's great macho leader.
On balance, his record is atrocious.
|
-
- NYTimes
- January 15, 2000
-
- What Provokes a Rapist to Rape?
- Scientists Debate Notion of an Evolutionary Drive
By ERICA GOODE
Rape is primarily a crime of violence and power, not sex. Or so a generation of social scientists and feminist scholars have argued.
But in a forthcoming book, two evolutionary scientists say this view is born of ideology, not science, and is "based on empirically erroneous, even mythological, ideas about human development, behavior and psychology."
In fact, they assert in "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion," that rape "is in its very essence a sexual act" and that the practice may have evolved because it confers an evolutionary advantage <snip> |
- "Evolutionary Psychology" has recently been vigorously promoted in a controversial book called A Natural History of Rape. According to this view, the growing incidence of rape (both female and male) in our society--like all other sinful sexual practices (sinful, that is, in the Biblical sense)--is understandable in terms of the widespread acceptance of evolutionism. After all, if as noted above, it is a natural evolutionary drive for males to "produce as many offspring as possible" with "as many females as possible," then when this instinct is thwarted by a reluctant female, or a disapproving society, men must resort to rape. Even homosexual rape is supposed to have an evolutionary rationale in terms of struggle and dominance.
-
-
Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1999).
-
Thornhill and Palmer are professors at the University of New Mexico and the University of Colorado, respectively. See also an interview with Thornhill by David Concar in New Scientist 164 (February 19, 2000): 45-46.
-
Biologists suggest President Clinton has followed the genetic program handed down by human evolution: have as much sex with as many females as possible in the Darwinian quest for hereditary survival.
Michael Ruse (probably Canada's leading Darwinian philosopher) and Richard Dawkins (certainly England's most articulate evolutionist, as promotes this concept. "What Darwin says is that the most dominant male gets the first crack at the women," said Michael Ruse, . . . Darwinism has argued that survival is the main goal of organisms, and part of that quest is to produce as many offspring as possible.
This evolution-driven impulse is working against the current concern of liberalism about the supposed population explosion and also over the AIDS epidemic generated by such sexual promiscuity.
Nevertheless, these evolution-based lusts are quite natural, they say. The Times article then quotes from an article by Richard Dawkins in the London Observer, as follows:
We lust because our ancestors' lust just helped pass their lustful genes on to us--What else does a man become a great chieftain for?
Since such behavior is part of our evolutionary genetics, they argue that we must not legislate against it, even though it is producing too much population. The remedy, they say, is not to return to Biblical morality, but to promote "safe sex" and abortion (perhaps also infanticide and euthanasia), and even homosexuality. These practices are said to be common in the animal world, so are part of acceptable evolutionary philosophy.
Washington Times, March 1999, p. 5. |
|
the contingency principle
by Mia T
A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Evolution is not progress. Populations are simply adapting to their current surroundings. Populations do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time.
Take RAPE. It may have been an evolutionary imperative for Homo erectus in the Pleistocene Epoch, but one can hardly argue that it is adaptive behavior for Homo sapiens in the year 2000, Boy Rapist-President notwithstanding.
This contingency principle was demonstrated experimentally with a yeast culture that was maintained for many generations. Occasionally, a mutant strain would arise that increased reproductive success. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken across time. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. (Would that we could put clinton in the Jefferson petri dish.) Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing.
Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. (If you doubt this, just ask David Schippers.) For most traits or behaviors, there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. |
|
On April 25, 1978, in the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Ark., a nursing-home supervisor named Juanita Broaddrick was, she says, bitten and raped by the attorney general of Arkansas. As Joe Eszterhas describes it in ''American Rhapsody'':
''Finished, he got off the bed and put his pants back on. She was in shock, sobbing. He went to the door. He put his sunglasses on. He turned back and he looked at her. 'You better put some ice on that,' he said, and was gone.''
The alleged perp is now the president of these United States, and it's pretty clear that Joe Eszterhas thinks the story is true. (He says Broaddrick was ''as believable as anyone I'd ever seen on television,'' which is high praise in his idiom.) But, as he adds:
''It didn't matter. We were a tired people, tired of pornographic imagery on the evening news, tired of feeling we were mired in filth. This was the worst . . . and we didn't want to hear it.''
It all depends, here, on what the meaning of ''we'' is. For a start, who is Joe Eszterhas and how come he's our moral tutor in this fear-and-loathing tour of the Clinton sex scandals? If you've ever left a movie theater muttering to yourself, ''How'd that sucker ever get made?'' then you are probably familiar with Eszterhas's work. (I speak of ''Sliver,'' ''Showgirls,'' ''Jade'' and other insults.) Then again, if you've ever left a movie theater having had a slightly better time than you expected (''Music Box,'' ''F.I.S.T.''), then you have this hard-driving screenwriter to thank. Admit it, though, you probably know him from ''Basic Instinct.'' But since Hollywood's studio leadership has always been a reliable part of the pro-Clinton phalanx, you won't be seeing much of the Starr report on the silver screen. So when Eszterhas found himself consumed by the need to make sense of it all, his only recourse was a fact-based, ranting, rocking-and-rolling screed with none of the full-frontal scissored out.
The ''we,'' it turns out, is the Who -- at least in the sense of ''My Generation.'' Eszterhas feels betrayed by Clinton, precisely because he once believed in him. Believed in him, that is, as the dope-smoking, draft-dodging adulterer of Mary Matalin's encapsulation. The boy-prince of the Rolling Stone set. ''One of us,'' in Jann Wenner's own unashamed words. So this is a long yell of protest from a professional hedonist who, faced with the ugliness of professionalized hedonism in the White House, doesn't care for the refraction of the mirror ...
There are two or three chapters that rise above this, however, and that illustrate Eszterhas's hit-or-miss talent. He has acquired a real feel for the vulnerable, endearing, needy, hopeless character of Monica Lewinsky; the fat girl who was used and abused and who was only a fleck of evidence away from being denounced as a stalker and a mythomane. He fashions a near-brilliant evocation of the qualities of Vernon Jordan, the stoic and phlegmatic ally who knew exactly what he was doing, and who did it for a friend whose moral character was infinitely inferior to his own. And he is extremely funny about the shrink defenses that the first lady and other amateurs have proposed:
''A modern president, Bill Clinton was allegedly the victim of incest, pedophilia, child abuse, erotomania, sexual addiction, gambling addiction, alcohol addiction, rage addiction, wife beating, husband beating, grandfather beating, low self-esteem, jealousy and poverty. . . . There he was on television, this victim in chief, asking to be forgiven for something he wouldn't admit to having done.''
Finally -- and I curse myself for not noticing this at the time -- Eszterhas grabs the ironic coincidence of Richard Nixon's Monica. That's Monica Crowley, the trusting young intern and amanuensis who shared so much private time with the sage of Saddle River, N.J., and won his lonely, self-pitying and self-aggrandizing confidences only to make a book out of them. But at least Tricky Dick never told her that she might also share his life after Pat was gone...
The book begins with a puzzle: How did the flower children fall for such a self-evident thug and opportunist? And it offers a possible hypothetical answer, which is that ''the Night Creature'' -- Nixon -- and his heirs and assigns could not ever possibly be allowed to be right about anything. When Eszterhas writes about Nixon, and his admirers like Lucianne Goldberg, he hits an overdrive button and summons the bat cave of purest evil. He hasn't read as much recent history as he thinks he has, or he would know that his forebears were mesmerized in precisely the same way to believe that Alger Hiss was framed. Thus does Nixon inherit an undeserved and posthumous victory. If by chance we ever elect a bent and unscrupulous Republican president, he or she will have a whole new thesaurus of excuses, public and ''private,'' with which to fend off impeachment. These ''bipartisan'' excuses will have been partly furnished by the ''nonjudgmental'' love generation. If Eszterhas had had the guts to face this fact, he could have written a book more like ''F.I.S.T.'' instead of ''Sliver.'' Meanwhile, and almost but not quite unbelievably, we await the president's comment on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation.
Christopher Hitchens (on American Rhapsody), Basic Instinct
|
My son and his fellow 5th graders finally have received their new history books, last issue was 1989! I am pleased to report that Billy Blyth is but a brief mention. Our current President Bush gets a fairly good review as well as a great photo. Even I was impressed! No mention of Jesse Sharpton and ilk. Brief mention of Gore and recount. It was produced by National Geographic and all in all I give it a B!
good to hear...
-
- How cheerfully he seems to grin,
- How neatly spreads his claws,
- And welcomes little fishes in
- With gently smiling jaws!
--Alice's Adventures in Wonderland |
|
- LUCINDA FRANKS: I think you're wrong because, after about two years of -- of working on this, you know, on and off, I think the president -- that the teenage culture caused the president's behavior in the way he behaved in -- with the oral sex.
-
- BILL O'REILLY: I think you're crazy, Ms. Franks, with all due respect.
Fellating Kids and clinton Degeneracy: The Revisionism Begins -
-
"Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude" by Gail Wynand
liberals have always had problems figuring out causation. they believe for example that because people who smoke (sometimes) have higher rates of cancer than people who don't that smoking CAUSES cancer, worse, they believe that if people get cancer it is the fault of the "tobacco companies" (ie caused by the manufactures of tobacco products). They further believe that the remedy for this fault is that billions of dollars in "damages" should be transferred from the wealth of stockholders in tobacco companies to a handful of plaintiffs lawyers including the First lady's relatives and others closely associated with the Democratic party. And they believe, apparently, that if young people are now experimenting with sex at early ages and with more profoundly explicit practices than in past years, and that if the President of the United States decides to enroll a young intern in rendition of such services to his middle aged libido resultantly staining both her dress and Americas reputation, that a spontaneous wave of teenage sex experimentation, sucked (sorry) the poor middle aged chief executive into its vortex. deducing causation in most events takes deliberate, focused, thought, insight, and a disciplined intelligence that doesnt skip foundational indoctrination (aka actually studying in school). Causation of the diseases associated with cancer is highly complex and to a large degree still unknown. That smoking is probably not healty for you is well known. That a middle aged chief executive, Yale Law School graduate, former professor of Constitutional Law and State Attorney General should be responsible and accountable for his own actions including HIS perjury and obstruction of justice would seem axiomatic to all but a liberal who has the capacity to adopt causationally convenient theories based solely on tangential proximity to the event under examination rather than through any rational analysis of the importance or significance of the asserted cause to the event. Thus, "guns" are used in some murders therefore, to a liberal all "guns" should be either banned or kept in locked safes with trigger locks so as to disarm the law abiding public and eviscerate their legally recognized right to effective self defense. Quite simply, one has to be pretty stupid or very corrupt or both to be a liberal, at least and for sure to be a Clinton supporter. But it is worse than that, one also has to deny the importance of human conciousness and free will. That is, a Clinton defending liberal apparently believes that childhood psychic trauma, teenage sex trends (remarkably and largely only rampant among the social classes targeted by liberals for social intervention for the past 40 years) and the power of "addiction" which used to be considered merely "habituation" in more stalwart times, are more significant than free will in determining human conduct.
- Clearly someone should notify America's founders that they have erred... men are not deserving of self goverment, because clearly self government is nothing more than the aggregation of all our psychic traumas and libidinal confusions.. and look where that has gotten us...one Clinton leaving the white house and one aiming for the US Senate for the State of New York... perhaps the liberals ARE onto something? But no, study the last two Clinton elections carefully... this most shameless and shameful American President is the product of plurality (less than majority) votes obtained through the gile and intrigue of an elitist cabal of intellectually impaired and ethically corrupt media manipulators aligned in effect with the electoral tampering of one man, H. Ross Perot, who although he occasionally gave a good speech was still intelligent enough to know his only role was to twice deny the conservative majority of American voters a first choice for President. And now even as Evita determinedly grasps for the Security Power and Influence of the Senate seat, one sees in her early campaigning the overriding awareness that her only hope is the sowing of confusion and ignorance... the demonization of a long time public servant whose accomplishments are towering, the pandering to the lowest and most depraved and corrupt anti social organizations and figures (no not the mob, the teachers unions and Mr. Sharpton). Arm in arm this body of liberal enthusiasts march forth to assure that America continues to be contaminated and disabled by their control of government into the 21st century... arrogantly and in complete disregard of truth, rationality, or the notion of liberty... they pound at the very gates of freedom, threatening to burn (redefine to mean the opposite of what they say) the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and replace them with their own Orwellian Banners of "community" "children" "education" "fairness" and all the other focus group tested liberal-illogicisms. But the translation exists and when the alien identifying sunglasses are donned all of their slogans can be seen to read "Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"
|
Veeeerrrrry interesting. Thanks, Mia T.
I remember a story that involved Jesse Helms. During the impeachment, several senators were to meet with Monica Lewinsky (at congress, in a private room, to discuss testimony, I belive it was all taped). Jesse Helms was one of the senators who went. Before he had met her, he had referred to her in some unkindley terms, including "jezebel" and "Harlott". After he met her, he came out and cried. Seems his impression of her now, was of a awe struck girl who was very naive and gullibull, who had a good heart and just didn't realize that a predator had used her. She had been manipulated and taken advantage of, by in essence, a very sick disturbed poor excuse for a human being.
