Friday, November 17, 2017

Moore's Law

I need to clarify that this is about Judge Roy Moore, and not Gordon Moore.  Not that I know much about the situation, other than he offended the Sodomites and is now running for Senate in Alabama.  From what I can tell, he is alleged to be unfit to be a senator because he chased younger women prior to being married, which was 40 some years ago.  My interest here is trying to figure out how the dots are connected between his behavior towards the opposite sex long ago and his fitness for the senate. 

So far, my theory is that the deduction of his unfitness is based on the long time that has passed and that he didn't show any interest outside of marriage.  This is clearly a sign of insufficient initiative, such as was shown by Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, and Bill Clinton, along with many others.  The other reason for this deduction is that the Democrats, who have led the criticism, regard sexual immorality as a religious imperative, so it is inconceivable that they would have criticized Judge Moore for being too promiscuous.  We have standards for our senators here in the US and expect them to comply as well as be role models for the rest of the citizenry.  Clearly Roy Moore isn't up to the task.


Rummuser said...

I doubt very much that your theory is the correct one. I suspect that the anti sexual predators movement that is so strong now is aimed indirectly at your very visible President who too was accused. These guys led by the Weinstein clones are all collateral damage.

Looney said...

Certainly my "theory" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I agree with you that the overall target is the President, but there will be lots of collateral damage along the way. The amusement here is a grand attack being directed at extraordinarily poor character traits by those who have not considered their own situation. As the Bible says, "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?". Or the more popular version, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I suppose there are similar sayings in different cultures.

Max Coutinho said...

Hi Looney,

I am being very cautious about these sex scandals because where is the evidence of all this? In Bill Clinton's case, Ms Monica kept the evidence; but did all these women keep evidence after 15-40 years? Hmmm...
And then there's another problem that is better explained via an interesting quote of a female lawyer:

"When women wake up one morning and decide to say something against someone who hurt them 30-40, or maybe 15, years ago - I am worried about the fact that they are lynching people in the town square and shaming them, causing them to lose their respect, their jobs, and their friends."

"This kind of openness and willingness to to go the media, Facebook, and all sorts of other sites, spreading slander about things which may or may not have been done - it's a crime against those who did nothing wrong,(...) If we read the map correctly, the women's organizations are causing us to twist legal thinking." - Tamar Ullmann

Happy Thanksgiving, my friend!


Looney said...

Max, I am certainly with you on this, but must note that the women in Roy Moore's case were almost certainly sought out by the Democrat National Committee who then passed it on to the Washington Post. Otherwise, this should have come out long ago. (The cynical side is to suggest that the Democrats found out about the women from the Russian intelligence agencies!) The flip side is that when the women came out to accuse Bill, it was Hillary and the DNC that unleashed the character assassination on Bill's accusers, which created an environment where no one would speak out until recently.

Max Coutinho said...


Either way, it is a nasty affair. I don't have details about Roy Moore, so I will not get deeply into it except to say that the President's daughter should avoid jumping into conclusions without evidence.