OUR PREZ: THE SOURCE FOR ALL YOUR CONSPIRACY NEEDS
There is no shortage of bad things to say about President Clinton. Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations, at minimum, add to the stockpile. But if her allegations are true, Mrs. Broaddrick’s rape would open up the possibility that some of the darkest accusations made by Clinton-haters are false. In one of my very first dispatches in this space I asserted that I didn’t think the president ordered the murder of anybody — in Arkansas (I think the wag-the-dog bombings last year may not hold up to much moral scrutiny). I was deluged; mostly by men and women who had the afternoon off from looking out for black helicopters. Not everyone was simply taking dictation from their dental fillings, but most were. Of those who were thoughtful on the matter, they pointed to all sorts of fairly compelling “evidence.” Of course, there was Vince Foster and various tales of villainy from Little Rock. But there was also the matter of the White House intern who was murdered at Starbucks in Washington, D.C.
#ad#Throughout Washington and other e-mail enclaves of conspiro-gossip across the country, the tale of a former White House intern who was murdered with two others at a Georgetown Starbucks was theory number one. Without going into too many details, the idea was that the murdered girl was, alternatively, a) the second intern, b) mistaken by the assassin for Monica Lewinsky, or c) a confidant of Monica Lewinsky. She was killed, obviously, because dead interns tell no tales. What made me think of it today is that the Washington papers report this morning that they may have arrested a suspect in the heinous killings. My guess is that Carl Derrick Cooper will not divulge evidence which leads to the White House, not because he’s a G. Gordon Liddy loyalist to Bill Clinton, but because there’s no evidence to divulge.
It bothers some of us I know, but one cannot hold that all bad rumors about the president are true simultaneously. If Bill Clinton murders people who get in his way, why wouldn’t he have killed Juanita Broaddrick years ago? Seriously. If it’s true, he would have known he raped her. He certainly would have known in 1991 when he pulled her out of the conference to apologize, preparatory to his presidential bid, that the allegation was politically deadly. Surely, if he had all those Arkansas ninjas at his disposal, one of them could have padded into her remote home in Van Buren, Arkansas, and taken care of business. Someone call Vernon Jordan and find out how to say “Mission Accomplished” in the sacred Japanese dialect of the White-Trash Ninjitsu. I can almost hear it now: someone out there will read this and say, “Y’know he’s right. Why wasn’t she murdered? She must not have been raped.” (Of course, even more of you are probably saying, hmmmm doughnuts, and wandered off before finishing this column anyway).
Clinton-haters need to comfort themselves with the bizarro world corollary of avoiding making the good the enemy of the perfect. With Bill Clinton, they need to understand that sometimes the very bad is the enemy of the absolute evil.
PORTRAIT OF A PERVERT
The Washington Times has a bizarre story on its front page today. Rowan Scarborough reports that the Pentagon is sponsoring a health advice line for enlisted men that endorses the gay lifestyle. Perhaps Tinky Winky was an enlisted…er…man? My guess is that by this time tomorrow, the Pentagon will have eliminated the service, which tells callers that “studies show that homosexual partners raise children just as well as anyone.” It also says that gays number about 10% of the U.S. population. This is what really interests me. Because this ten percent number is one of the longest lasting bits of cultural propaganda around. It was injected into the cultural bloodstream four decades ago by perverted sexologist Alfred Kinsey, author of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
(I say he was perverted not because of anything having to do with homosexuals but because he was a seriously messed-up dude. He was an unrepentant voyeur. He liked to film his wife and colleagues having sex with each other. “Watching others have sex satisfied both the scientist and the voyeur in Kinsey,” James H. Jones writes in his definitive biography of Kinsey. Dr. Kinsey was seriously into sadomasochism too. He didn’t use a feather; he didn’t even just use the whole chicken, he used the chicken wire too. According to Jones, Kinsey swizzled things with swizzle sticks that were never meant to be swizzled. No, I’m not even talking about there. But there! Jones writes that the dispassionate researcher was fond of tying a knot around his, well, his — gosh; um…his scrotum. And then he took the other end of the rope and threw it over a pipe on the ceiling and grabbed it, and then he jumped off a chair and hung there until the pressures were unsustainable. All right enough. You get it. My mom reads this file and I’m too embarrassed to tell her I’ve read Playboy.)
Kinsey loved hearing crazy stories about sex almost as much as he liked watching it. In his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which later simply became known as the Kinsey report, he surveyed thousands of white men and women about their sexual practices. His report, which was accepted by the cultural elite as gospel, said that about 10% of American men are homosexuals. He hung this number on questions about whether men had ever had a “homosexual thought” or “experience.” The fact that up to 25% of Kinsey’s survey pool were prison inmates seemed irrelevant to Kinsey and unremarkable to his disciples. Methodologically the report was a travesty. But as a cultural firebomb it was incredibly effective. Indeed, I just looked up Kinsey in my CD ROM Encyclopedia and the entry talks about the guy like he’s a warrior for truth and justice:
“The researchers met with considerable harassment, such as police interference and attempts to stop the study or prevent publication of its findings. Once the reports were published, controversy did not abate. Today, however, the Kinsey reports are not only respected for breaking new ground in sex research, but are considered authoritative in most of their findings. “
This, quite frankly, is a travesty.
The 10% number persists. The real number, according to more modern researchers, is probably closer to between 2% and 4% for male gays. But the 10% number is so much more useful in the culture wars. If that number were true, it would mean that there are about as many gay men as there are Hispanic men. Moreover, since we don’t actually see that many gay men, the pernicious charge that all anti-gay feelings are based upon sexual self-doubts which then translate into “homophobia” is so much easier to maintain. In other words, if one out of ten men are gay, then some of us must be hiding our real identities from ourselves. According to the mantra, this self-deception leads to self-hatred which leads to hatred of others. And so on. It shows how deeply the Cultural Revolution has sunk in, that even after Kinsey’s half-century-old report has been thoroughly debunked, the Pentagon, the headquarters for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” is peddling this tripe.
Monica, Monica, ugh, Monica