As I continue to watch the news and TV, I can't help but think that we have strayed so far in this country. Sure, on paper, the criminal justice system says we're "Innocent until proven guilty" but as I keep listening to accusations, I begin to laugh at how ridiculous it is to think this is true. Maybe for some things, like insider trading or the like but you are certainly guilty until proven innocent if you A) are a male and are accused of sexually harrassing a female B) Are an athlete and get accused of performance Enhancing drugs and C) Are accused of molesting a child.
"A" has come up because I keep hearing about how someone else is accusing Herman Cain of sexual harrassment. The problem is, there is never any proof. The only proof I hear is, "Where there's this much smoke, there has to be fire" That's not true at all. Especially if you're talking about a conservative. You can get millions of people to tell you that the phrase "Separation of church and state" is found in the constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not. There are many liberal women, there's a reason for the expression, "Hell hath no fury over a woman scorn" so it stands to reason that you can find a handful of women who knew Herman Cain, got appalled by his conservative ideas, so made up a rumor about him. Multiple accusations does not a conviction make, you need proof. I need something like "Since Herman Cain repeatedly harrassed me, I taped it, here's the tape." That never happened. When this was brought up at the time it happened, it was concluded that it didn't happen. The only evidence is that he didn't do it because that was the conclusion of the only investigation into it. But alas, that's not what people will believe simply because so many women claim he did. And all have one thing in common....no proof whatsoever. And the same people who vehemently defended Bill Clinton for doing the same thing to Paula Jones and Linda Tripp are condemning Herman Cain.
To move out of politics, I'll go to Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine, two men accused of molesting little boys when they were assistant coaches for Penn State and Syracuse respectively. The only evidence for Jerry Sandusky is that in 1998, he was banned from the locker room when little boys were showering because of accusations and when interviewed he fumbled when asked point blank "Are you sexually attracted to little boys." I admit, the second one gets me a little suspicious....why not say no? But then again, if he did, nobody would beleive him....nobody believed the Duke Lacross players when they denied raping the stripper six years ago....luckily banks and taxi cabs keep detailed records showing their whereabouts in the time frame that the stripper gave....without that, they probably would have been convicted. Joe Paterno says that he took away Sandusky's keys to the locker room and banned him from being in the locker room when boys are showering because of what he heard from his assistant coach McQuery who alleged he saw it. But why did McQuery wait 12 years to report it to the cops? He's the one who saw it. So, based on the evidence, I don't think there's enough for me to definitively say Sandusky did it. I was very hard on Sandusky in my last post but now, I just want evidence.
Now Bernie Fine is a different story. This time, there is a tape recording of an alleged victim talking to Laurie Fine, Bernie's wife. He complains that Fine is touching him and the wife just rolls with it by saying "Yea he's got problems." Nowhere in the phone conversation does the guy say exactly where or how Bernie Fine touched him. It could have been a pat on the knee that made him uncomfortable. Or a slap on the ass, which is common in sports...Brett Favre did it to every one of his teammates. As I listened, I was skeptical, until the accuser said something along the lines that he thinks Bernie wanted him to give Bernie a blowjob. His wife responded, "Of course he did, why wouldn't he?"
That leads me to believe that there might be something to the Bernie Fine case. I don't know why his wife was so cool in the phone conversation, that's more distrubing. Makes me think she's one of these stay-loyal-to-my-husband-no-matter-how-fucked-up-he-is wives. I wish that in the phone conversation he said, "Hey Laurie, he touched my penis" or "Made me pull down my pants" or "Put his hands in my pants and grabbed me" something specific instead of "Touching." That phone conversation was enough for Jim Boeheim to back off on calling the accusers liars but I still think the evidence is kind of weak. This is the most damning of the three but still, it's just that his wife said, "Of course Bernie would want you to give him a blow job" and "Yea, Bernie has problems" The accuser goes on to say that he did have sex with Laurie Fine...which I think was a way to get back at Fine....get back at him for what? Well, I can think of one thing but again just the act of accusing Fine makes me believe that he doesn't like him. So, having sex with his wife just confirms, he really doesn't like him. Without the accusation, you wouldn't jump to "Because he molested me" so it's possible there's another reason. Why is it that when the accuser said at the time of the incident "Ask these four people, they'll confirm my story" and all four people said, "No, he's lying"? Why would that be the case?
Six years ago, the Duke Lacross story gave me hope that any woman can't accuse any man of rape with nothing more than tears as evidence. Now, I'm beginning to believe that it was merely an exception to the rule. It seems that women and children are given an "Accuse anyone of rape" card and that has dangerous implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment