Bimbo Eruptions: selective rules
It’s deja vu all over again. More Bimbo Eruptions.
Oops. Beg pardon. Not supposed to say that. A nono.
Bimbo Eruptions applies only to the big-haired,
NASCAR-crowd gals who make a fuss over Big Dog Bill Clinton’s humping the ladies’ legs.
It’s a higher class of female that’s now recalling, many years later, how they were mauled and pawed by Donald Trump. And they are the very voices of veracity! Never mind the bothersome details that don’t quite fit their narratives.
The media wing of the Democratic Party asks a lot in the way of willing suspension of disbelief. The public is asked to believe that these selfless accusers passed up a sure ticket to lawsuit riches and fame by choosing, at the time, to ignore the cephalopodic pawing of a billionaire celebrity.
Overlook the little glitches in the election-eve revelations, you are now urged. You are now permitted to assume Trump guilty until proven innocent. That’s the new legal standard announced by Hillary Diana Clinton herself for sexual-harassment cases — excepting, of course, her husband’s.
Why a presumption of guilt. Well, you know males. Untrustworthy horn dogs! Their lecherous tendencies predispose them to guilt.
The once-quaintly labelled fairer sex is now said to be ready for frontline combat slots. Yet in other contexts — for example, sexual harassment — the ladies are to be regarded as frail little flowers. Clutching their pearls and fainting upon hearing locker-room talk.
To make the observation isn’t to suggest that males aren’t sometimes guilty as alleged. It’s only to suggest that maybe a few of them, every now and then, are innocent. Indeed, it’s not an unheard-of outcome.
You’ll recall the torch-and-pitchfork mob in the Duke U. lacrosse team “gang-rape” case. The lead torch-and-pitchfork carriers were from the ranks of the faculty. The professors even inked a petition in advance of a trial imputing guilt to the accused. Pitchforks and PhDs!
Then along came the counterfeit U. of Virginia fraternity “rape”case, spotlighted by stylishly leftish Rolling Stone, now struggling to survive multi-million-dollar libel and defamation suits.
Such incidents indicate that Aesop’s “Cry Wolf” fable has been suspended in regard to alarms of a sexual-harassment nature.
Trump’s election-eve female accusers suddenly emerged from the earth like the extraterrestrial “Tripods” in the 2005 “War of the Worlds” movie starring Tom Cruise.
Lightning strikes were what brought forth the Tripods. Could partisan politics have been what brought forth the antiTrump Tripodian females? Are we talking a mere coincidence of timing here?
One of the Tripods — writer Natasha Stoynoff — now suddenly recalls from years ago that Trump made unwanted lascivious advances when she interviewed him for a People’s magazine piece.
If it really had happened, wouldn’t including it in her printed story have been the honest — and even career-boosting thing — to do? Wouldn’t it have stimulated newsstand sales and created buzz?
Why diminish your own story? Why hold out on the readers at the time? It’s a verboten line of inquiry.
You’re supposed to gasp in belated shock and horror along with her and otherwise shut your yap.
If the designation Bimbo Eruptions is disallowed in the sudden proliferation of female anti-Trump allegations, what label then is permitted?
Hillary’s media shills suggest an Anita Hill label.
The recent allegations, say the shills, are reminiscent of Hill, the supposed Rosa Parks of sexual harassment.
Hill’s case is indeed instructive, if not quite in the way the shills suggest.
Hill today is presented as the dainty damsel put in distress by the typical male smuttiness of Clarence Thomas — now Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court.
Hill popped up out of the earth one day like a War of the Worlds extraterrestrial Tripod when Thomas was nominated to the high court. This was 1991.
She suddenly happened to recall that way back when she worked for Thomas — 10 years earlier, when he was a Department of Education undersecretary — that he made off-color comments.
Nevertheless, lawyer though she was, Hill never thought at the time to file a formal complain or even to voice an informal one.
Nor did it ever occur to her to turn down his later offer to move with him to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when he was appointed its chairman. She accepted Thomas’ offer for an EEOC post, despite his alleged previous X-rated bawdiness in her presence.
Nor did it ever occur to her at the time to mention his smutty talk when he was then nominated to the federal court of appeals in Washington. She held her silence even as the nation’s capital buzzed with speculation he was being groomed for the top court.
She mentioned his supposed affinity for pornographic chatter only years later, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. When a Democratic effort was launched to torpedo the nomination.
The evidence at a contentious Senate confirmation hearing brought forth that Hill at first had sought to keep her allegations anonymous, hoping her nameless charges would pressure Thomas to withdraw his name.
Thomas ultimately saved his nomination by playing the ever-handy race card. He charged that he, an African American, was the victim of “a hightech lynching.” The assertion flipped black polling in his favor and gave Senators second thoughts about opposing him.
Now forgotten or ignored, other evidence casts doubt on Hill’s truthfulness. Even long after leaving the EEOC for a law school post, she remained in amicable contact with Thomas.
This she initially denied in Thomas confirmation hearings. But phone logs put the lie to her denials.
The logs showed repeated calls she had placed to Thomas’ office number — long after the alleged smutty chatter incidents.
The hearing evidence further showed that long after leaving her EEOC post under Thomas, she linked up with him during his visit to the Oral Roberts U. law school, where she was then teaching. She even drove him to the airport for his flight back to Washington, as she grudgingly conceded when confronted with the revelation.
None of this disproves, absolutely, Hill’s allegations. But it hardly bolsters her credibility, either.
Thomas is a man with an inspiring, rags-to-riches story. And, agree with him or not, he has become a leading intellectual light of the constitutional textualist branch of jurisprudence.
Among large swaths of the intelligentsia, however, he remains a reviled figure, forever bearing the scarlet letter of Sexual Harassment.
Even in these politically correct times, you may be forgiven blurting out a racial epithet or two when his name is mentioned.
Hill, meanwhile, basks in a nimbus of feminist sainthood, despite the gaping holes in her canonization story.
Thomas’ success despite his background of dirt-poor southern poverty might normally have been counted as at least a mitigating factor in his favor.
The political tenor of the times is such, however, that his gender can count only as an aggravating factor, outweighing race and any other mitigating factors.
He’s conservative and, even worse yet, male.
So...sorry, Charlie.