4 thoughts on “Bereans VLOG (12/8/2017)”

  1. A few questions, based on what has been said:

    Dr. Haymond, you said that what bothers you about the recent spate of sex scandals is that the mere accusation is enough to convict someone, as if they could not be lying. Does an example in particular spring to your mind? Because most of the people who are being publicly humiliated right now have multiple reliable sources backing them. I know it’s not DNA evidence or anything but surely that has to count for something. Who are you thinking of when you allude to an accusation that has was purely political?

    Dr. Clauson: You are hopefully aware by now that Fox News wrongly declared what happened a ‘forgery.’ As far as I’ve heard, what she did was add the notes of the date and location, but Moore definitely left the note. I just feel that we should acknowledge that so that no one gets confused.

    On restraint and sexuality: Interesting perspective. I think we have a tendency to whitewash the past, and especially with issues like this. I have a hard time believing that this was not happening before the sexual revolution: Even if we didn’t head much about it, these things were rarely brought to light back then. This kind of nostalgic optimism shows up in other areas too: There was more violent crime, more crime against children, more domestic abuse etc. back in ‘the good old days,’ we just rarely heard about it.

    On regulation and suspicion of business: When is it acceptable to be suspicious of powerful groups in our society? I understand not wanting to hamstring our economy on conspiratorial whims, but I feel like you’re swinging pretty far in the other direction. What kinds of regulations do you think are warranted, and how suspicious would you be of business?

    I’m not convinced that economic growth is really a voting issue right now. I’m not hearing anyone talking about the economy, it’s all social issues when I talk to people. Granted my circles might not be the most representative of the nation more broadly, but if I were a Republican I would be nervous about 2018 and 2020, the economy notwithstanding.

    Also, to bring up the elephant in the room: A Democratic senator from Alabama? What? How do you factor this into the outlook going forward for the GOP?

    1. “Also, to bring up the elephant in the room: A Democratic senator from Alabama? What? How do you factor this into the outlook going forward for the GOP?”

      Actually, Doug Jones would be a donkey in the room. 😉

      Just me, but I think if the GOP candidate had been anyone other than Moore that person would have won by a respectable margin. Exit polls showed the allegations were the primary factor in Moore’s (very narrow) defeat. If allegations had not existed, different outcome. Different GOP candidate, different outcome.

      My personal concern over the spate of sex scandals, especially Moore’s, is the timing. If 40 year old allegations that nobody knew about during all of Moore’s previous elections had come out before, say, the primary, then maybe Moore is not the nominee. Instead, they come out after it is too late for GOP Alabama voters to adjust accordingly and it forces voters into a choice between a man accused of sexual misconduct and a man who, I believe, does not represent the political leanings of a majority of Alabama voters.

      To sum it up, I do not think that this election, because of its numerous unique factors, necessarily informs us about the possible status of the GOP overall. In fact, many are saying that Moore’s loss actually might help the GOP in the long run as they do not have to worry about dealing with him being in the Senate and all the problems that would have gone with that. And if I were to guess, when this seat comes up again in 2020, I think it reverts back to GOP control.

      1. I’m confused. People knew something was very wrong with Moore well before the primary. From a governance point of view, he disqualified himself regardless of these accusations, and the people of Alabama chose to nominate him anyway. The GOP literally could not convince them to do otherwise despite throwing their whole weight behind Strange in the primary.

        And of course, as you point out, despite these allegations a large portion of Alabamans think he represents them pretty well. That’s pretty disturbing in my view, but that point aside: What exactly do you think is wrong with the timing? Do you think the people are lying? Do you think they waited for decades on the off-chance they could sabotage the political ambitions of Roy Moore? That they presciently knew he would be a senator? Did they do this alone, or were they coached by a sinister leftist conspiracy that collects legitimate criminal wrongdoings of potential GOP politicians and hides them in order to destroy their candidacies down the line? Does that sound a bit far-fetched to you? It does to me.

        Or do you think they’re all lying? I’m not sure that’s really an option here. I’m pretty sure Roy Moore has put himself in this situation. And if they’re not lying I’m afraid I don’t understand the timing being a problem, because you’d need to believe that they were all in on it, rather than the more obvious conclusion that, Roy Moore became a bigger name, so people started looking into his past and discovered things that hadn’t been aired before. It’s not great for Moore, certainly, but I have a hard time believing it’s sabotage.

        I agree, though, that he would have been yet another blight on the GOP that they can ill-afford. I don’t think his seat was worth the amount of scandal he would have brought to the Senate with him. I think we may be seeing energy in the opposition that clearly was lacking before, though, and I think a defeat here in Alabama might motivate them to push hard for other, normally ‘unwinnable’ seats.

        I am a bit worried that Al’Abamans seemed to not be that bothered by someone who openly defies the rule of law, though. I hope the GOP can get a better grip on the primary process. They don’t seem to have much control over who gets nominated, and it’s hurting them.

    2. Jeff is right.

      People DO lie. Women (and men) DO make up claims of harassment. It is not conjecture, but fact.

      I was accused of sexual harassment by a female faculty member from another department, and I know that I did not touch her (she claimed that I touched her shoulder).

      For the record, she writes for Christian websites and claims to be a Christian, yet she made something up completely. I was the chair of the university-wide personnel committee, and the faculty on that committee voted down her application for tenure. I assume that her lie was revenge on her part.

      A few weeks after the committee voted her down, I received a call from one of the university’s attorneys, informing me that she said that eight months earlier (yes, eight months), while in her office picking up a syllabus, I reached over to her and touched her shoulder. I denied the incident vehemently from the very start and encouraged the attorney to investigate thoroughly, since I had nothing to hide.

      Of course, I was cleared. For two weeks I could not be in the same area as her, which made it hard, since we both worked out in the same gym.

      I did NOT do what Roy Moore did. His immediate reactions suggested to me that he actually did what he was accused of doing. As someone who was unfairly accused, I could not imagine saying what he said in response.

      For the record, this so-called Christian woman left her husband and their two toddlers in order to pursue a relationship with her married department chair. Her boyfriend–her department chair–later wrote me a vindictive email over the summer, implying legal action. I turned that email over to HR, and her boyfriend was removed as chair shortly thereafter. I assume that he had violated the university’s policy on use and abuse of email.

      Since then other male faculty have told me that she did the same to them. Btw, guess who replaced her boyfriend as department chair?

      Sometimes liars get to be in positions of power.

Comments are closed.