A Foolish Consistency ...
By Michael The Libertarian
… is the hobgoblin of little minds”
Those words were written by Ralph Waldo Emerson and they are
frequently misquoted and misunderstood.
Often, the first two words are omitted. Obviously, that changes the
rest of the phrase. What Emerson was saying is – to put it into
today's parlance – partisan hackery is a way to separate the wheat
from the chaff.
Honestly, I try to be consistent in my views, not only here, but in
my every day life. To not do so would be intellectual dishonesty, but
there are those who are dug in deep for all the wrong reasons.
I said, earlier I try to be consistent and I do, but I am not
consistent to an ideology of some group. Instead I am consistent to
my own set of values, morals or ethics. It doesn't matter which of
those words you use and two of them, to my mind, are completely
inter-changeable.
My morals originate from many places, but mostly from my own
sensibilities. I read voraciously. I'm an autodidact. Even though the
people who raised me instructed me in the value system they hold
dear, I took some of that and expanded upon it.
All that is ground work to tell you this …
Yesterday, a story broke about Sen. Al Franken alleging that he had a
groped a radio talk show host who used to be a model and cheerleader.
Notice I speak about the groping. NONE of the headlines I saw said
anything about an alleged sexual assault (but I've spoken about media
bias ad nauseum).
Anyway, I read a few of the articles. My thought was: this sounds
pretty bad, but in the current avalanche, I'm quite sure it will be
minimized.
About thirty minutes after I read those pieces, a photo began to
circulate.
Let me be very clear. My memory goes back to when Franken was a
mildly amusing cast member of SNL. He was good enough. He was smart
enough and gosh darn it, (some) people liked him. I never did.
When he started dipping his toes into political waters, I despised
his politics. So … never really liked his comedy/public persona …
hated his politics … not exactly the kind of person your humble
author would rush to defend, but here's where consistency enters our
equation.
I applaud Sen. Franken (or his P.R. People) for an apology that,
despite being in the written form, I found to be sincere, contrite,
and all-encompassing (it hit all the correct P.C. Spots). Seriously.
The response was swift and it was effective.
The cynic in me is reminded there's a photo in existence. A few words
on that are: I do believe the existence of the photo played some part
in Franken's response. Also, I studied that photo as best I could and
I couldn't swear that he is actually touching the young lady's
breasts.
In actuality, that doesn't much matter. Scientists will tell you
about something called “critical distance” which is generally
considered to be about eighteen inches. Invading someone's critical
distance will cause a flight-or-fight reaction. So, while he may not
have actually touched her breasts, I believe he did “cross a line”.
Enough with the groping.
Last night, I saw video of Franken's accuser recounting the other
accusation.
According to the young lady, she and Franken were part of a U.S.O.
troop which was touring to various bases. She had done at least one
other tour and was an M.C. She anticipated doing the same thing on
this tour.
Franken, however, had written some lines into a skit for her. She
wasn't thrilled, but … it's for the troops, right? She agreed to do
the skit which included a kiss between her character and Franken's.
She claimed that Franken was (semi) hounding her about practicing the
kiss and she kept putting him off. Her claim was, at some point after
numerous rebuffs, Franken grabbed her and forced a kiss on her which
included him, forcing his tongue between her lips.
As I read the reports and got to Franken's response (“I don't
recall the incident the same way she does”),
I thought: Gee! There's a surprise!
Last night, I was able to see the
video of the young lady's accusation in her own words. Lover of words
(and languages) that I am, I'm also a student of human behavior and
body language and interrogation techniques and interpretations of
responses.
I watched the video and something
was readily apparent to me. I rewound it, several times and
re-watched it. Each time I watched I became more convinced my initial
reaction was correct.
During the description of the
incident, the young lady made no eye contact with the cameras. I'm
not talking about turning her head away. I'm talking about keeping
her eyes closed for seconds at a time. Had she been turning her head,
avoiding eye contact, I would have chalked it up to
shame/embarrassment. That wasn't the case. She was closing her eyes
which indicates a defense mechanism against being caught in a lie.
Remember when you were just a wee
scad and you would tell some little lie to your mom and she would
say: “Look at me. Tell me, again.”? There's science behind that.
Here's the weenie: as much as I
would like Franken to represent the hypocrisy which I believe his
side of the political chasm engenders, based upon watching his
accuser, I don't believe she is recounting the true events of what
happened.
I'm not giving Franken a complete
pass. He may have done something quite wrong, but I don't think it
was what his accuser is claiming.
Quite frankly, I believe she's
lying.
- Michael
Comments
Post a Comment