My Buddy sent me a link to a post in one of his favorite blog’s, the neoconservative Powerline. John HinderAching regularly praises all things conservative and speaks in (to use one of Attorney Mary Rice’s preferred words) “derogation” of all things liberal.
In this post on what I presume will be anchorman, Brian Williams, eventual downfall for grossly exaggerating the dangers he faced in a war zone HinderAching posits that William’s boasting was a symptom of “liberal guilt.”
Its an interesting post I recommend to anyone but I’m inclined to shrug off the “liberal” end of the guilt. You could call it “survivor’s guilt” without using the newsman’s transgressions as a weapon to beat up liberals. I could just as easily praise liberals for at least having some humility or guilt about their wealth versus the blase’ satisfaction of all too many rich conservatives who feel that their wealth proves their superiority and insulates them from any sense that their privileges leave them owing anything to anyone else. BTW- my Buddy would call both of these arguments “tendentious” (biased argumentation.) Then again, he’s the one who nettled me by sending me the Powerline post.
One of my favorite historians of the early founders, Joseph Ellis, committed the all too common crime of claiming to be a war veteran when he was no such thing. He’s not alone. I think such actions have led to laws like the Stolen Valor Act although I’m not sure falsely claiming veteran status is strictly illegal.
There is one passage of the Powerline Post that I was particularly interested in related to the persecution of my school board colleague Art Johnston:
Jurors are sometimes called upon to determine the implications of a witness giving false testimony. In the state where I practice, the standard jury instruction says that if the jury decides a witness has testified falsely about one matter, they may reject his testimony on that issue but give it credibility on some or all other matters, or they may choose to reject his testimony altogether. In this case, Williams’s false testimony on the helicopter doesn’t mean we should reject everything he ever said on NBC Nightly news. But if I am right in diagnosing the source of Williams’s fatal lies, we should evaluate with great care everything that he and his colleagues tell us on subjects that are touched by liberal guilt, which in today’s world, are most of them.
Readers of my blog know I’ve hinted darkly about the past of one of Art’s accusers. That I have not gone into detail, as of yet, is more a matter of timing than a reluctance to spill the beans. I need time to go over Attorney Mary Rice’s slanted discovery work before I go public. I also plan to find legal representation in advance for any possible legal repercussions which might ensue.
I asked Mary Rice about relying on the testimony of a liar when she testified before us and did my foolish pantomime dance after our chairman repeatedly gagged me during my questioning of Ms. Rice. I believe Ms. Rice dissembled when I put the question to her. She suggested that I told her my memories of these past events were fuzzy. Not quite.
At this point Art Johnston’s defense will rely far more on the protection afforded him by our First Amendment than on the unsavory past of one of his accusers. In fact, that past may be completely irrelevant to Art’s defense. It is not, however, irrelevant to Art’s defense where the court of public opinion is concerned.
To steal heavily from a familiar old saying: There are lies, damned lies, and the things that the Duluth School District tells you.
Heavens! What an illiberal thing for me to say.
