The Moral-Panic Phase

Why is the Kavanaugh nomination causing people to lose their minds?

Dear Reader (Including everybody who’d just like a time-out),

Maybe it’s because I’ve been getting so much grief from left and right for the alleged sin of “both sides-ism” over the last few years, but Thursday (yesterday for me) was both clarifying and cathartic. Oh, don’t get me wrong: It was horrible and possibly tragic for the Court and the country, but it was also oddly — and probably momentarily — liberating, at least for me.

Because, finally, there was a left–right fight about which I am largely un-conflicted. This wasn’t a brouhaha about Trump or any of the usual stuff. The issue here was that the Democrats and their abettors in the media simply behaved atrociously.

For example, on Thursday, nearly every conservative and Republican was respectful towards Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, finding her testimony moving and credible. But when Brett Kavanaugh spoke, also movingly and credibly, the instantaneous response from much of the liberal and Democratic chorus was “Ermahgod! Raaaaaapist!” or “How dare he be angry!” or “You can’t have a partisan madman like this on the Court!”

Look, I actually agree that Kavanaugh’s anger towards Democrats in the hearing — though morally and emotionally justified — isn’t a good thing over the long run if he were to make it on the Court. But this idea that he can’t be a Supreme Court justice because he wasn’t dispassionate in the face of multiple bogus allegations that he’s a rapist is both grotesque and grotesquely dumb.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that they were harmed... the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty... 

The whole reason the Democrats kept pushing that this was not a court of law is so they could claim presumption of guilt... When I heard Sen. Coons say that it was up to Kavanaugh to provide EVIDENCE that he did not do it - I about fell out of my chair... How the Hell does one provide evidence that you did not do something - you can not prove a negative....  The only person who can provide evidence that something happened to them, is the accuser.. Theoretical case in point:  A bank is robbed.. There are cameras to prove it was robbed.. You can't just go up to any 'ole Tom, Dick, or Harry on the street and demand that they provide evidence that they did not rob the bank... We have laws that are suppose to protect people from being randomly accused of crimes... 

Oh, and just in case you hadn't heard, hypnosis to uncover "memories" is not allowed in a Court of Law anymore than a polygraph test  as both are unreliable... It's too easy to implant a false memory under hypnosis and too easy to fake  polygraph results... 

We were not allowed to see the psychologist's notes from 2012 when Ford suddenly and mysteriously "remembered" her attacker was Kavanaugh... Somehow, this "memory" was uncovered... Since Ford's lawyer's jumped in and wouldn't let her testify how this memory was uncovered and wouldn't let the psychologist's notes be revealed... hmmmmm.... they kept this knowledge hidden for a reason... 

I saw his testimony very differently.

I saw a belligerent, spoiled child blaming everybody and crying "poor me".

Most women just don't come forward - whether it's sexual assault or just a regular assault.

This is something men just cannot wrap their heads around. And not in a sexist way.  I just think men tackle a situation where they have been wronged differently to women.

But perhaps you could relate if the accuser was a straight man.

Did you know that if a man is anally raped he will get an erection for the simple reason that the prostate will be stimulated?  That would seriously mess with the victim's head, and they would likely not come forward.

It is easier to just push the pain down and move on with your life.

But then to see that man being given serious power?  I think that would make your blood boil.

What would make my blood boil is to see a man whose entire life has been exemplary be denied his rightful position on our highest court due to a railroad job of unsubstantiated, nay REFUTED charges, but then, I'm rooted in objective reality not driven by my emotions.

House Arrest

As you may or may not know, considering you're too scared of us mean conservatives making sense at DiverseCity to visit anymore, our son (aka Thing2) recently received his masters degree from the San Francisco Conservatory of Music.

Apparently, they're celebrating their 100th year in San Francisco or something, but in any case, the boy was gobsmacked to see his face plastered all over town the other day . . .

Emotion v. Evidence

#MeToo resonated because many, many women survive sexual assaults. For obvious reasons, many, many women do not care to talk about them—to the police or anyone else for that matter. People generally do not wish to put their sex lives, minus any instances of assault, on blast. Assaults of a sexual nature, then, for added reasons, often remain buried. But for anyone who grows close to a number of women, as friends or paramours, stories of abuse, legitimate abuse, arise. So, the fact that women detailed instances of abuse by Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, and many other powerful men should not strike anyone with life experience as something shocking even if the credible stories outrage. Power corrupts, and even (especially?) many relatively powerless men engage in illegal activity.

Those who live long enough also encounter instances of men falsely accused of sexual assault. In my early twenties, an acquaintance faced rape charges. His mother quit her job to aid his defense. His family, which seemed wealthier than my own, expended much money to defend him. Because this young man actively pursued many young women, and because of his touchy-feely behavior, many of his friends wondered about the truth of the charge. Perhaps some looked at it all through a lens of jealousy because the guy did better among women than they did. He went through a hellish experience for something close to a year. The prosecutors offered him a deal shortly before trial. He steadfastly refused. They then abruptly dropped the charges. It turned out that two days or so after making the initial allegation to law enforcement, the young woman—a complete stranger to me—admitted to making up the story. It turned out that she had pursued him for sex. He, uncharacteristically, in my estimation, refused. She responded to the rejection with revenge. The greater evil came from the lawyers, who, for reasons many suspected related to receiving federal matching funds for successfully prosecuting crimes against women, pursued a case when they knew no case existed.

#MeToo as a means to attain justice deserves support. #MeToo as a weapon to bludgeon political opponents or to seek revenge for some real or imagined evil deserves contempt.

Ultimately, gender solidarity or an ideology that reflexively believes accusers no matter the evidence should not guide the public, or politicians, or prosecutors. The political activism of the two women whose accusations the FBI looks into regarding Brett Kavanaugh appears to provide a motive for their claims. But this alone neither proves nor disproves their allegations. The same could be said for their first issuing the charges decades after the alleged assaults. The burden of proof rests on the accusers. Currently, not a single eyewitness supports their stories. They are completely uncorroborated.

Evidence matters, in court at least. In the court of public opinion, emotion often trumps evidence. The emotion stirred up by #MeToo, the prospect of a judge casting the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Republican gamesmanship that thwarted Merrick Garland’s nomination, and the warm, friendly, and vulnerable woman who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday all seem to trump the evidence for many. The Senate, a political body, necessarily bows to the body politic. Should the FBI fail to corroborate the charges of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, this will not refute these strong emotions, which, as emotions, remain irrefutable by evidence.

It will also make my blood boil if Kavanaugh is not confirmed!  The confirmation hearings were an embarrassment that would never have turned into such a sham if Feinstein had done was is commonly done on almost a daily basis.  Allegations are investigated in secret, behind closed doors and only becomes public if EVIDENCE of wrongdoing by any one in the government is discovered.  Though, these days, anonymous leaks to the media, would appear to be on the rise as a popular blood sport.  I am not amused!