1. Hotel ethics. My hotel in Boston happily offered a bargain rate, but didn’t explain why they had a bargain rate: it is under remodeling and construction. No restaurant. “Hinky” cell phone service (translation; cell phone calls cut off mid call. Also, the remodeled rooms have some bugs to work out. I thought I was going crazy because I couldn’t find an outlet for my computer by the desk. Oops! It’s across the room, in a dark corner. The desk clerk had to hunt for it. “I guess we have to fix that,” he said, abashed. I guess.
Hotels under construction never tell you they are under construction, but they have nice “pardon our dust!’ signs, and others that say, “We are making a better hotel experience!” Maybe for the guests next month, but I’m here now.
2. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!” [ Is this the most famous and useful quote from a really bad movie?] I really thought, stupid me, that the conduct of Democrats and “the resistance” in the Brett Kavanaugh Ethics Train Wreck couldn’t get any more unethical or revolting after my long update post this morning. After all, it’s a Sunday! Don’t the Unethical rest? Obviously not:
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Ha) wrapped up an Incompetent Elected Official of the Month award on Sunday by telling a stunned Jake Tapper that she didn’t believe conservatives deserved a presumption of innocence, or, apparently, due process. But these are the un-American totalitarian values that progressives are promoting today. Does the public understand what this will mean for the country?
Asked by Tapper if she would concede that Kavanaugh deserves to be proven guilty before he is presumed guilty, Hirono said that a conservative judicial philosophy reduces his credibility. “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases,” Hirono said.”His credibility is already very questionable in my mind. … When I say that he’s very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair.”
Would that Jake, who is one of the fairer broadcast journalists, had the guts and integrity to ask, “Wait—your party ran Hillary Clinton, who helped get her husband elected by intimidating his sexual assault victims, your party lionized Senator Kennedy, who left a young woman to drown rather than deal with questions regarding why he was with her late at night on a remote road, your party’s deputy chairman has been credibly accused of domestic abuse, Harvey Weinstein was one of Hillary’s major contributors in 2016, and you’re saying that Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility is questionable? And you’re arguing that a judge with no blemishes on his record should be presumed guilty because he’s not fair? Do you not see the irony in that?” [Pointer: Zoltar Speaks!]
- Then I made the mistake of reading the Sunday Times Review section, and saw that Ross Douhat had continued his unconscionable argument from earlier in the week that even if Blasey Ford’s accusation is unsubstantiated and unproven, Kavanaugh should resign or be rejected. “This argument was not well-received among many of my conservative friends,” he writes. Wait—just many? And there aren’t any liberals or progressives who have an ethical, fair or just bone in their bodies? Douhat is arguing that mere accusations are sufficient to substantively disqualify someone for high office. No facts—Ford has no facts, just disputed memories—just accusations. From anyone. Even if it involves alleged misconduct as a drunken teen.
Douhat’s concept undermines basic constructs of justice—he’s a fool—and progressives are apparently willing to reject the basic values of fairness and process to keep one conservative off the Supreme Court.
3. “Have you no decency?” When I arrived in Boston, I learned that #MeToo King Ronan Farrow had a new scoop in The New Yorker:
The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh…. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh…. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections….
“We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby…
A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.”… She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”…
[A]fter several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”
I think the appearance of this contrived and obviously nurtured story—at least we’re up to college now—makes it clear what’s going on: Calculated, retroactive #MeToo narratives by politically committed partisans willing to resolve real doubts and foggy memories in order to active a political agenda. I”n her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections….”—could that he any more damning to her credibility and motives? “How about, “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”
For 30 years, she thought it was a joke, but now the episode is politically useful if she decides it wasn’t a joke, so it’s not.
A couple of comments in the threat after Althouse’s post about this gives me hope…not about elections, but about how some of the public might be seeing through this. Like…
Unfortunately this BS accusation may doom Kavanaugh. That’s the sad reality. And I won’t trust The New Yorker or Ronan Farrow ever again. I also won’t ever vote for the Democrats.
This shit is so rotten. The way it’s been handled is so transparently political and intended to delay in hopes a Democratic majority in 2019 can save abortion. I’m actually pro-choice and this has me heated.
I sat out 2016 because I hated both Hillary and Trump. Now I want to vote.
My girlfriend, who is a lifelong liberal, adamant pro-choicer and two-time Obama voter, is thoroughly disgusted by the Dems over this. I hope she’s one of millions.