Let me be the first to admit that, unlike so many people in the media and on the internet, I actually don't know if Bill Cosby is a rapist. I know several women have accused him of it, and I know that he isn't doing any favors for himself by refusing to comment and asking news outlets to scrub footage of him refusing to comment. You'd think if the man is guilty but has no intention of fessing up, he'd at least deny the allegations. And if he's innocent, he'd be even more likely to deny them. Either way, I can't understand answering with 'no comment' when someone asks a rather direct and unambiguous question like 'are you a rapist?'
So maybe this means he's panicking because he's guilty. Or maybe he's panicking because he's innocent. Or maybe he's an 80-year-old man who doesn't quite understand what's going on.
Maybe it's a combination of some of those explanations. I don't know. I just don't. But I do know that the whole thing is quite... strange. Strange because these allegations have been known for some time, but nobody cared until a comedian named Hannibal Buress, who frequently jokes about raping women, called out Bill Cosby for allegedly raping women. Suddenly, because of a guy I've never heard of, accusations everyone heard of ten years ago become national news.
Also strange because some of the women accusing Cosby of rape, like Joan Tarshis, say they were drugged and assaulted multiple times. To be clear, that means some of these women were sexually abused on one occasion, and then went back and were sexually abused again. If true, it brings up an entirely different conversation about what would drive a human being to knowingly put themselves in that position. Save your 'victim blaming' speeches. This is a very important and very obvious point. If a man rapes you and then invites you out on another date, say no. Just say no. Even if he's famous. OK?
And the situation gets even stranger when we consider that the networks and other outlets are canceling Cosby's shows and attempting to erase any remnant or memory of him. But, strangely, I can still sign on Netflix and order The Pianist, a film directed by Roman Polanski. And I'm betting NBC will run previews for the next X-Men movie, directed by Bryan Singer. Indeed, strangely, Hollywood and the liberal media make no secret about their affection for either men, despite their respective dubious pasts.
Specifically, Polanski was charged and convicted of drugging and raping a child. He is a convicted child rapist. There need be no 'alleged' attached to this statement. Fact: Roman Polanksi, acclaimed Hollywood filmmaker, raped a child. Yet Netflix drops Cosby, the supposed rapist, and keeps Polanksi, the convicted rapist.
Meanwhile, Bryan Singer has been accused, more than once, of sexually assaulting young boys. But again, this has had no discernable impact on his career. I suspect Singer's alleged crimes are more acceptable among the liberal elites because he is, reportedly, a homosexual fond of young boys. A liberal homosexual Hollywood elite can't also be a sexual predator. Such a thing would be inconvenient, for a number of reasons, so we'll all just pretend it didn't happen. It's long been known that Hollywood is (allegedly) rife with homosexual predators, but the matter gets no attention at all.
Want to know what's even stranger than any of that? Keep following me down this hideous rabbit hole because the situation is about to take the most bizarre turn of all.
While we obsess over the decades-old supposed sexual misconduct of an elderly sitcom star, another Bill, one who never had the titular role in an iconic 80's TV show but who did have an arguably more important job for an even longer period of time, continues to escape scrutiny for his own alleged misdeeds. I'm talking of course about Bill Nye the Science Guy. Wait, wrong Bill. No, it was Bill Clinton.
Yes, that's the one. Remember him? Bill Clinton. Former President of the United States, possibly future First Husband of the United States? Ring a bell? You know the guy -- the one who remains a beloved figure in American liberalism? An elder statesman of the Democrat Party? The dude who shows up to fundraise for Democratic congressional candidates? The man who continues to enjoy enormous popularity even after his presidency? Yeah, that guy. He was President. The actual President of the United States.
The President of the United States who was credibly accused of rape, assault, and sexual harassment by numerous women over a period of many years. Forget Monica Lewinsky. I'm talking about Juanita Broaddrick, who recounted the incident to Dateline in 1999, saying '[Clinton] turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.' . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.' . . . He wouldn't listen to me.'
And Paula Jones, who most Americans remembers as 'That Woman Who Had Something To Do With The Monica Lewinsky Thing Or Something,' won an out of court settlement from Clinton after accusing him of summoning her to his hotel room one night and, right there with his security detail standing by, dropping his pants and exposing himself.
As horrifying as it sounds, from the 70's all the way through the 90's and possibly beyond, college students, secretaries, interns, and others, all tell stories of sexual violence at the hands (or other body parts) of Bill Clinton. The Clinton machine went to work in each case, with the active help of Hillary 'The Champion For Women's Rights' Clinton, smearing, intimidating, blackmailing and bribing the accusers into silence. And you're telling me Bill Cosby is the bigger story?
Bill Clinton, according to many accounts, is a serial abuser, rapist, and exhibitionist pervert. A man who allegedly used his power and influence to demean, degrade, and manipulate innocent, powerless women into various forms of sexual contact.
Even Monica Lewinsky might have been involved 'consensually' but only because the Most Powerful Man in the World coerced her. When everything exploded out into the open, they slandered her and turned her into a national punch line. Her life was ruined while Bill and Hillary rode off into the sunset and made 500 grand a pop giving speeches to college students (no word on whether Clinton ever gave a private follow up speech to any of those college students).
So if we are dredging up rape accusations against formerly famous old man, why not talk about the ones surrounding a former president who still wields considerable influence and who might, God help us, end up in the White House again in two years?
Why are we so particular and choosy about the rape stories we care about and the ones we scoff at and dismiss?
Why, in the name of all that is holy, do we grab the pitchforks over Bill Cosby's alleged sins, but hoist Bill Clinton on our shoulders and celebrate him as a great president who shouldn't be judged for what he does in his 'personal life'?
It just seems so... strange, doesn't it?
Or maybe not so strange.
One might offer one explanation for these glaring discrepancies:
Bill Clinton is a liberal.
Bryan Singer and Roman Polanski are Hollywood darlings, which means they're liberal.
Bill Cosby, on the other hand, became famous in his later years for making a bunch of conservative statements about race. And when I say 'conservative statements about race' I just mean 'honest, rational, and important statements about race.'
That's what this is about. It's got nothing to do with rape, really. Liberals don't care that Cosby raped someone (allegedly) because if they did they'd care that Clinton raped someone (allegedly). What they care about is the opportunity to finally avenge their politically correct sensibilities, after Cosby spent several years audaciously telling black people to be accountable for their actions and stop blaming the white man for everything. If he'd never exposed himself as an apostate of the Church of Liberalism, and instead stuck to Clinton's strategy of exposing himself to White House volunteers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Liberals have seized on the opportunity not to discuss rape itself, but to prove that Cosby's thoughts on race are illegitimate because some women accused him of it. I'm not quite sure what one has to do with the other, but this is logic only accessible to those inside the Church of Liberalism.
Liberalism doesn't care about rape. Rape is a convenient way to prove a point sometimes, that's all. Rape is an insidious, morally outrageous act of violence, but Liberalism doesn't necessarily condemn things just because they're insidious, morally outrageous acts of violence (see: abortion). It condemns those acts when they're committed by heretics and traitors to their cause, but rarely otherwise.
Some will say that dragging Bill Clinton into this conversation is distracting and pointless. But I say that the former President of the United States is just as likely to be a rapist as Bill Cosby, probably even more so, and that fact will always be relevant, every single day, until Clinton is finally called to task for the evil he's reportedly done.
And I say the bigger story isn't even that Democrats twice voted an alleged rapist into the White House, but that the national conversation about rape, just like every other national conversation, is built on a false foundation and destined to go nowhere, accomplish nothing, and come to no coherent conclusion. It's all just politics in the end. It's a chance to score a few more points in whatever godforsaken game we're playing.
It's appropriate, then, that this Cosby outrage can be traced to a comedian who only used it as a punch line in a routine that frequently milks sexual assaults for laughs. He doesn't care about rape. The people who seized on his words don't care about it. The media that jumped on the bandwagon doesn't care about it, either.
If they did, Bill Clinton wouldn't be a hero to them.