Reading the New Yorker in New Hampshire is a pleasantly surreal experience. Even out here, in the Provinces, we can live through the issues and conflicts of the day.
The June 23, 2025 is jam packed with amazing articles but the one which currently has me transfixed and thinking about it even having finished it is "Backlash" by Alexis Okeowo.
Tina Johnson |
It tells the tale of Tina Johnson, who told of visiting the office of a lawyer, Judge Roy Moore about a child custody case, with her mother. During the visit Johnson thought it strange that Moore asked her about the color of her daughter's eyes, asking if they were as pretty as hers. He then asked her for a drink after the meeting, which she declined and on the way out the door, with her mother ahead of her she felt Moore's fingers find her vagina, and she just ran out of the door. When Moore ran for the U.S. Senate, women started coming forward with similar stories of his behavior and Johnson joined the chorus, as the #MeToo movement was surging. Articles documenting that Moore had been banned from a shopping mall "for bothering young girls." Moore lost the election to Doug Jones, who had prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan men who set the 16th Street Baptist Church bomb in Montgomery, Alabama which killed four young Black girls in 1963. Jones wrote about this in a book called, "Bending Toward Justice," but he was ultimately defeated by football coach Tommy Tuberville, and normalcy was restored to the state of Alabama.
Okeowo's article documents the price paid by Tina Johnson and a spate of other women who came forward with complaints about the sexual depredations of men during the #MeToo movement.
The portrait which emerges of the Alabama towns where these women lived is scaborous: Leigh Corfman was run off the road in a scene right out of "Easy Rider" and wound up paralyzed. Johnson's house was burned down. Moore launched libel suits and neither woman had the financial means to defend themselves from lawsuits.
Okeowo notes that eventually people grew uncomfortable with accusation without due process and when Al Franken was forced to resign his U.S. Senate seat because his Democratic colleagues did not have the moral fortitude to defend his right to an impartial hearing, the backlash. really began.
Trump Endorses Roy Moore for Senate |
I read all this through my own personal lens, honed by my own experiences. I had seen the movie "The Assistant" depicting a sexual predator who used his position of power to demand sexual compliance on the casting couch of his office--women actresses who wanted parts he had the power to offer had to consent to sex with him and the assistant was left to sanitize the leather couch.
Looking at the photos of Harvey Weinstein, I thought, "Oh, yeah, he did it. He did all of that," as he looked like a sexual predator from central casting. There was no way a man as repulsive looking as Weinstein could ever claim "consensual sex." Well, maybe he could say he simply struck a bargain: You want the part; I want sex.
So there was that.
On the other hand, I have been wrongly accused--not of sexual abuse--but I was falsely accused as a child, and that searing experience has never left me and I still get angry to this day thinking about it.
I was about 10 years old and one day my mother got off the phone looking alarmed and disturbed. A woman who lived up the street said I had shouted profanities at her and acted defiant and she was emotionally traumatized.
I had only the vaguest idea who this woman was: the mother of children younger than me who I could not have picked out of a line up. We lived in a development with eighty homes strung out around two concentric circles and I knew the kids in families whose kids were my age and who got on the school bus with me. I knew maybe a dozen families, maybe a score, but I did not know this woman or her children and I certainly knew I had never had any sort of disputatious interaction with any adult in the neighborhood.
I denied the accusation categorically. I think my mother believed me, in part because this whole incident as the mother described it simply did not sound like her son, but she was inclined, as most adults would be, to at least consider the possibility the adult was correct.
Fortunately, in my case, I had some rudimentary legal training by age 10. Disputes in our family had always been resolved by convening "family court" and I demanded I be allowed to face my accuser and interrogate her. I was able to say that the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed any accused "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." That had come up before in our family court and I quoted it now. My mother was stuck. She had to demand a meeting.
We met outside her house in the street and looking at her I knew I had not seen her before, or if I had, in so fleeting a manner I did not recognize her. She looked at me with narrowed brows, and though it was apparent at a glance, she was not at all sure who I was, she still stuck to her story. She began to waffle a little about exactly what I said. "You can stuff it. You're not my mother. Go to Hell."
Well, maybe not those exact words.
"Have you ever seen me before now?" I asked.
She hesitated just enough to satisfy me, but she said, "Yes. You shouted at me."
When I tried to pin her down on the time and date and circumstances she looked at my mother and said, "I'm not going to continue this."
I spoke to my mother, being careful not to be seen as being rude to an adult. "She doesn't recognize me. She doesn't know who she was talking to."
That ended the confrontation and my mother's report to my father at dinner ended with his asking, "Who is this lady? Do we know her?"
That was a case of eye witness testimony being unreliable, not of sexual abuse when the eyewitness has such a close and extended experience there is not really a question of identify.
But it was a case of bearing false witness, of false accusation.
It wasn't the first time I'd been falsely accused: A patrol at school accused me of sassing him and I had never seen this kid before. He mistook me for someone else. Another false accusation.
So when it comes to false accusations, I have been conditioned in some ways to doubt the accuser.
During the height of the #MeToo movement at universities, boys accused of date rape were not put on trial by the state: they were tried by college tribunals, star chambers, with no rules of evidence, often without the accused boys present, without being allowed to face their accusers--that would have "re-traumatized and re-victimized--the women and some of these boys were expelled from college. In my own college, a junior in the engineering program was expelled after a drunken episode of sex with a naked coed who had climbed into his bed. She was too drunk to say no; but he said he was too drunk to know better. To say he was denied due process is to understate the case mightily. That's like saying "The Oxbow Incident" was about cattle rustling.
In the case of a man who has been banned from a shopping mall and whose accusers independently describe similar approaches, the evidence weighs toward beyond a reasonable doubt.
At one of our Democratic Committee meetings a candidate for Congress, running in the primary spoke at our meeting and I asked her about the problems with #MeToo, with equating an accusation with a conviction and without due process and what did she think about this? She reacted with outrage, "I cannot believe we are even talking about this!" she said, as if these objections did not even merit discussion.
Needless to say, she did not get my vote.
I had caught her by surprise and she was unprepared because she had never considered the other side of the issue.
I'm not sure Roy Moore has had his day in court to answer the charges against him.
I do know one thing: The women who accused him have been violently attacked by his fans in Alabama. What I really get out of "The Backlash" is that American carnage does not exist in American cities; that's not where the carnage is.
It's alive and thriving in the Old South, and in Trumpworld in general, wherever the MAGA flag waves.
Mad Dog arguing both sides of the coin here- believe the accused or the accuser? Could both Trump and Cuomo been wrongfully accused of sexual misconduct? You seem to skirt them in your observations but seem to understand from personal experience the problem. Herein though Mad Dog reveals his palpable bias and perhaps anti-Semitism: "Looking at the photos of Harvey Weinstein, I thought, 'Oh, yeah, he did it. He did all of that,' as he looked like a sexual predator from central casting." What about Leo Max Frank, do you think the southerners you condemn followed your Weinstein observation when lynching Mr. Frank? Are you different from them at all? I wonder did William Kennedy Smith look guilty or innocent to you? He, of course, was exonerated. Bill Clinton? The irony here is you condemn the good people of Alabama and then show your own crude bias which of course is beyond reproach, right? Typical for a leftist elitist.
ReplyDeleteBotAnontrool:
ReplyDeleteSo, maybe if I speak very slowly...in a blog about the importance of due process, which includes the rules of evidence, the importance of being able to examine the accuser, and in fact a blog post entitled "J'accuse" after Emile Zola's defense of a French Jew, Alfred Dreyfus, who did not get due process but was convicted on the basis of looking like a likely culprit (in that he was a member of a pilloried minority--he was Jewish) you now find my "palpable bias and perhaps antisemitism"?
Oh, BotAnon, you are losing your edge!
So disappointed in you Bot Anon! Where is the "rabidly antisemitic" trope? The best you can do is "perhaps antisemitism"?
And, of course, any attempt at irony, or any sort of humor is lost on you--to say Mr. Weinstein "looked the part, straight out of central casting" is to say, this is the way juries and many people will reach their conclusions--most notably Mr. Trump being the most prominent example of someone who judges a book by its cover and uses that term frequently--"right out of central casting." Which is how he chooses his cabinet.
So, that is called "irony."
What I'm saying, of course, is "people should not DO that." But they do. Unfortunate. Let's decry that.
So that line, "Oh, yeah, he did it...he looked like a sexual predator from central casting," is to deride that impulse not endorse it.
On the other hand, the yin to that yang is to admit that when it comes to Judge Roy Moore, I find him so odious, even trying to cleave to objectivity and the rules of evidence, I find it hard to not believe almost anything about him.
This sort of baked in prejudice is what "jury selection" is designed to sort out.
So, tough luck BotAnon, try as you might to find leftist elitist rabid antisemitism everywhere, you just can't convince anyone.
As for Leo Max Frank, the American version of Alfred Drefyfus, with an even more horrific outcome, we can agree that is another example of pre judgement--prejudice.
It is fascinating, however, to observe how a mind which is narrowly focused can always manage to return to the same spot. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
So, if I were to say, I'm a Dodgers fan, you would somehow see in that rabid antisemitism. I like chocolate ice cream, another clear sign of leftist elitism rabid antisemitism.
I cannot really say whether Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Clinton or Mr. Cuomo were guilty or innocent because I was not in court to hear the evidence.
As for William Kennedy Smith, I would not gainsay his exoneration, for the same reason.
I did read about the Duke lacrosse players, however and suspect (but cannot really know) they were falsely accused.
So, in a blog post about the harm false accusations do, you find further evidence for antisemitism and leftist elitism.
I suspect if I rooted for the Yankees when they played the Tigers with Hank Greenberg, you would find that adequate evidence of rabid antisemitism.
Because, you know, it's just everywhere! Especially in the mind of Mad Dog!
--Mad Dog