I haven't written much about politics on this blog in a while. It's been a conscious decision. With our current president dominating the ether (though, maybe, hopefully less so than before -- is his act finally getting stale?), I need a reprieve from all that when I'm writing this blog. I am still paying attention though. And I am donating to Democratic candidates to retake the House and possibly, though likely not, the Senate. I recommend you do the same. Dems are by no means perfect, but they really are the only choice for people who care about America's democracy. Right now, they really are the only choice for anti-Trumpers. And there are more anti-Trumpers than Trumpers, even if you add in the soft supporters -- the people who say, for social reasons, they don't really support him, but actually do, because they voted for him and they vote for all the other Republican candidates who cover up his misdeeds -- the people who think saying they "disagree" with one of his crazy lies is a courageous act of independence -- but the Trumpers hold outsize political sway because they vote more reliably, and because they have a huge demographic advantage, both through anti-democratic gerrymandering and unfortunate natural sorting (Dems are mostly packed into big cities). But Democrats can overcome this disadvantage with just a bit of extra turnout at the polls. We've seen this in special elections already. And money can help with turnout by raising awareness (running ads, knocking on doors, etc.). So, if you can spare time or money (and most people can) donate or volunteer with ActBlue or the DNC or your local candidate or something, and if you live somewhere where it matters, or even where it doesn't matter, vote!
In other political news, Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation went from being a done deal to being, well, still pretty much a done deal, in my opinion, but perhaps one that's more politically risky for a handful of Republics (e.g., Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) than before. The only chance Dems have of blocking that seat is to somehow delay a confirmation vote until after the midterms and then win the Senate, a prospect I give roughly 0.1% chance of happening. For one thing, Republicans know this, so they are almost certainly going to vote before the midterm, and they are almost certainly going to vote yes unanimously (again, in my opinion). There will be some hearings and a lot of talk about "standards of evidence," and then they will toe the line. And even if they don't, even if they somehow don't have the votes to confirm, there is only a slim chance (maybe 1-in-3) of Dems winning the Senate in November, anyway. They have to net two seats out 35 of which 25 are currently held by Republicans (or something like that). So, even if the "blue wave" comes to pass (a big if) it still might not be enough, in which case, it might not be Kavanaugh, but it will be somebody just as bad.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Today's big question: Do you consider the accusations of sexual misconduct by against Kavanaugh, by a childhood acquaintance, Christine Blasey Ford, as disqualifying from Supreme Court confirmation? I say yes, but I already would vote against him, if I could, for many other reasons, so I'm not impartial. If I really liked his jurisprudence would I consider the accusations disqualifying? That's trickier. So far, there is just one allegation against him from one person at one time. Is that enough? It depends on, among other things, how credible it is, and this one does seem to be credible to me. Ford is a well-respect professor, and there is evidence she's not just making this up now -- she told her husband about it years ago, as well her therapist, although she didn't name Kavanaugh explicitly to the latter. Also, the man who was allegedly with Kavanaugh at the time, Mark Judge (not to be confused with the creator of Beavis and Butt-head), has written extensively about his escapades of blackout drunkenness, so it's certainly possible that the event happened and neither man remembers it. It's also possible Kavanaugh remembers it and is lying when he says doesn't. And of course it's possible Ford is lying or completely mistaken, but that seems much less plausible to me than the first two.
My opinion: I think something happened. Whether it was an attempted rape or just kids doing stupid shit because kids do stupid shit, I think we will never know. That's the other thing: Kavanaugh was not an adult when this was said to have happened. That muddies the water a lot for me. Kids often treat other kids inappropriately and cruelly, because their brains aren't developed enough to completely understand how their actions affect others and because they lack impulse control. I've seen kids, ever older kids, 16-, 17-years old, do fucked up sexual things to other teenagers and didn't think it was wrong. I even thought it was funny at the time. Once a wrestling teammate of mine put his dick on another teammate's forehead while he was doing a bench press, as a "joke," (the funny part being that the guy couldn't do anything about it because he was holding 200-pounds in his hands). I thought it was hysterical, everybody did, except the guy who the got the dick on his head. He was mad and embarrassed, understandably so, in retrospect, because that's sexual harassment. Obviously, something like attempted rape is a whole different ball of wax, but maybe that's not what was intended. Maybe Kavanaugh and his friend thought it was all a joke or thought that that's what you do when you want to hook up with girl, because they were privileged, shelter, dumb-ass kids, who went to all-boys school and didn't learn how to interact appropriately with opposite sex. Should this be held against them into adulthood, if there is no evidence they behaved this way as adults? How much leeway should we give to kids to grow up?
My answers to these questions are that we should give people a lot of leeway and not judge them for what they do when they are kids. Childhood, after all, is when we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, even our big mistakes. However, with respect to Kavanaugh, there is a reverse Catch-22 for his detractors. It goes like this: He is now an adult, and by categorically denying the charges against him, he is in effect calling his accuser a liar, impugning her character, and giving carte blanche to his supports to go after her. If you believe Ford to be credible at all (which I do) then this is a disqualifying act. It's not the original act he did as a child; it's the false denial he did as an adult. However -- this is where the Catch-22 part comes in -- if he admits he did it, then instantly the public outcry would be so great, he would likely not to be confirmed anyway. So, he now can't win. (Unless enough people agree with him that his accuser is lying or wrong, in which case, he can win, and that's probably what's going to happen.) What Kavanaugh could have said is that he takes allegations of sexual harassment seriously, but he doesn't remember this event happening, but he did drink as a teen and do stupid things he doesn't always remember now (like most people), so although he would never have tried to rape somebody, if he did touch somebody in an inappropriate, scary way, he's very sorry, and it's only because he was a drunk dumb kid, and that's not who he is today, and not how he ever behaved as an adult. Furthermore, he's deeply troubled by the distress this has caused Ford over the years, and he's reaching out to her directly to try to make amends and reconcile the situation as best as possible. That is the more human response, and one that would, I suspect, more accurately reflect the truth. It's also the tougher row to hoe. Would this be good enough for people? Would he still get confirmed if he said this? We will never know, because he didn't say this. He took the easy way out, which, I think is also the dishonest way out, and this is the problem. In general, forthrightness is not Kavanaugh's strong point, and this is another major demerit. We should demand a higher level of rectitude from Supreme Court justices. I mean, isn't Clarence Thomas enough? We need another one?
Anyway...
I think that's enough for now. Until next time...
In other political news, Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation went from being a done deal to being, well, still pretty much a done deal, in my opinion, but perhaps one that's more politically risky for a handful of Republics (e.g., Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) than before. The only chance Dems have of blocking that seat is to somehow delay a confirmation vote until after the midterms and then win the Senate, a prospect I give roughly 0.1% chance of happening. For one thing, Republicans know this, so they are almost certainly going to vote before the midterm, and they are almost certainly going to vote yes unanimously (again, in my opinion). There will be some hearings and a lot of talk about "standards of evidence," and then they will toe the line. And even if they don't, even if they somehow don't have the votes to confirm, there is only a slim chance (maybe 1-in-3) of Dems winning the Senate in November, anyway. They have to net two seats out 35 of which 25 are currently held by Republicans (or something like that). So, even if the "blue wave" comes to pass (a big if) it still might not be enough, in which case, it might not be Kavanaugh, but it will be somebody just as bad.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Today's big question: Do you consider the accusations of sexual misconduct by against Kavanaugh, by a childhood acquaintance, Christine Blasey Ford, as disqualifying from Supreme Court confirmation? I say yes, but I already would vote against him, if I could, for many other reasons, so I'm not impartial. If I really liked his jurisprudence would I consider the accusations disqualifying? That's trickier. So far, there is just one allegation against him from one person at one time. Is that enough? It depends on, among other things, how credible it is, and this one does seem to be credible to me. Ford is a well-respect professor, and there is evidence she's not just making this up now -- she told her husband about it years ago, as well her therapist, although she didn't name Kavanaugh explicitly to the latter. Also, the man who was allegedly with Kavanaugh at the time, Mark Judge (not to be confused with the creator of Beavis and Butt-head), has written extensively about his escapades of blackout drunkenness, so it's certainly possible that the event happened and neither man remembers it. It's also possible Kavanaugh remembers it and is lying when he says doesn't. And of course it's possible Ford is lying or completely mistaken, but that seems much less plausible to me than the first two.
My opinion: I think something happened. Whether it was an attempted rape or just kids doing stupid shit because kids do stupid shit, I think we will never know. That's the other thing: Kavanaugh was not an adult when this was said to have happened. That muddies the water a lot for me. Kids often treat other kids inappropriately and cruelly, because their brains aren't developed enough to completely understand how their actions affect others and because they lack impulse control. I've seen kids, ever older kids, 16-, 17-years old, do fucked up sexual things to other teenagers and didn't think it was wrong. I even thought it was funny at the time. Once a wrestling teammate of mine put his dick on another teammate's forehead while he was doing a bench press, as a "joke," (the funny part being that the guy couldn't do anything about it because he was holding 200-pounds in his hands). I thought it was hysterical, everybody did, except the guy who the got the dick on his head. He was mad and embarrassed, understandably so, in retrospect, because that's sexual harassment. Obviously, something like attempted rape is a whole different ball of wax, but maybe that's not what was intended. Maybe Kavanaugh and his friend thought it was all a joke or thought that that's what you do when you want to hook up with girl, because they were privileged, shelter, dumb-ass kids, who went to all-boys school and didn't learn how to interact appropriately with opposite sex. Should this be held against them into adulthood, if there is no evidence they behaved this way as adults? How much leeway should we give to kids to grow up?
My answers to these questions are that we should give people a lot of leeway and not judge them for what they do when they are kids. Childhood, after all, is when we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, even our big mistakes. However, with respect to Kavanaugh, there is a reverse Catch-22 for his detractors. It goes like this: He is now an adult, and by categorically denying the charges against him, he is in effect calling his accuser a liar, impugning her character, and giving carte blanche to his supports to go after her. If you believe Ford to be credible at all (which I do) then this is a disqualifying act. It's not the original act he did as a child; it's the false denial he did as an adult. However -- this is where the Catch-22 part comes in -- if he admits he did it, then instantly the public outcry would be so great, he would likely not to be confirmed anyway. So, he now can't win. (Unless enough people agree with him that his accuser is lying or wrong, in which case, he can win, and that's probably what's going to happen.) What Kavanaugh could have said is that he takes allegations of sexual harassment seriously, but he doesn't remember this event happening, but he did drink as a teen and do stupid things he doesn't always remember now (like most people), so although he would never have tried to rape somebody, if he did touch somebody in an inappropriate, scary way, he's very sorry, and it's only because he was a drunk dumb kid, and that's not who he is today, and not how he ever behaved as an adult. Furthermore, he's deeply troubled by the distress this has caused Ford over the years, and he's reaching out to her directly to try to make amends and reconcile the situation as best as possible. That is the more human response, and one that would, I suspect, more accurately reflect the truth. It's also the tougher row to hoe. Would this be good enough for people? Would he still get confirmed if he said this? We will never know, because he didn't say this. He took the easy way out, which, I think is also the dishonest way out, and this is the problem. In general, forthrightness is not Kavanaugh's strong point, and this is another major demerit. We should demand a higher level of rectitude from Supreme Court justices. I mean, isn't Clarence Thomas enough? We need another one?
Anyway...
I think that's enough for now. Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment