In “Falling Down.” a movie I like better every time I see it (or think about it), Michael Douglas plays a man who snaps, Sweeney Todd-like, and begins shooting people after the collective injustice, meanness, cruelty, stress and stupidity of daily life becomes unbearable. Finally cornered, he hears a law enforcement officer demand his surrender. “I’m the bad guy?” he says, in a stunning moment of self-awareness. “How did that happen?”
We’re still waiting for that moment of self-awareness from the Left. How it happened in their case is a matter of historical record: accumulated arrogance, cynicism and the rejection of their own ideology’s core principles–you know, liberalism?—did the trick. What was left was pure power-seeking, anger, hate, and “the ends justifies the means,” the “ethic” of fascism and totalitarianism.
When the metaphorical ethics Rubicon was finally crossed could be debated. For me, it was when Hillary Clinton, confident of her historic landslide victory, lectured designated loser Donald Trump about how despicable and un-American it was for him to hint that he might not accept the legitimacy of her election as President. Then, as soon as he was the victor, Clinton, her party and all of its followers proceed to challenge the legitimacy of his election—and have continued to do so in various ways ever since.
The fact that this exacerbated dangerous national divisions, endangered the Constitution and undermined the ability of an elected President to govern didn’t, and apparently doesn’t, faze them at all. Patriotic Americans, fair human beings, ethical people and the “good guys” don’t behave like this. It is signature significance for bad guys.
Now, I certainly knew that electing a walking ethics vacuum like Donald Trump would rot the culture’s values, as I warned here repeatedly. I did not anticipate that the primary agents of turning the U.S. into a nation of assholes would be the Left. I assumed that they would hold the values line as best they could, and not challenge the President in a race to the bottom of the barrel, much less win it. All they needed to do was to uphold traditional standards of justice, honesty, civility, respect for institutions and integrity to ensure that Trump, at worst, would be a short-term aberration. Or, as Glenn Reynold likes to say, all they needed to do was not act crazy. They couldn’t do it.
The Left has rejected freedom of speech, accepting the often violent efforts of college students to threaten and silence speakers whose views they regard as “hate speech.” It has opposed the rule of law in immigration policy, labeling the essential sovereign function of controlling borders as “racism.” It has advocated dividing society into favored and disfavored groups Women must be “believed”; men must be presumed guilty; police must be presumed racist.
There are too many examples to cover in less than a book; I think Ethics Alarms has dealt with most of them. The current low point, however, is the issue at hand: the Kavanaugh nomination. Only the fact that the Left and its biased allies in their misguided quest, the news media, have so thoroughly corrupted their sympathetic followers among the public can explain why there isn’t a mass declaration of outrage. I’m still surprised and disappointed. I thought my liberal friends had more integrity. This is the lowest of the low, and the terrifying question is what the next low point will be.
Sticking only to what Ethics Alarms designates the Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck, one has to wonder what more documentation the Left needs to spark its collective conscience and to arrive at the same conclusion as “Falling Down’s” tragic hero. This debacle began with the Left, all components, announcing its monolithic opposition to a qualified judge who would have been overwhelming approved under any other administration, in any other era. The very left-leaning ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave its highest rating to Kavanaugh. Never mind: the Democratic Party commenced a campaign of fear-mongering, insisting that in some case not yet in existence, the judge, who has been vocal in his support of stare decisus (following well-established SCOTUS precedent), would join with the so-called “conservative” wing of the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
This convenient prognostication was enough to lead to angry demonstrations by feminists and pro-abortion activists who had never read a Kavanaugh judicial opinion in their lives, and probably no SCOTUS decisions either. The tactics of the Left here were intimidation and misrepresentation, as well as revenge, tit-for-tat, or what Ethics Alarms sometimes calls “Mob Ethics.” Call attention to the treatment of Kavanaugh—it was Barack Obama who pointed out that elections have consequences, after all—and, failing to locate a legitimate defense, the social media Left’s reflex argument was “Yeah, well what about Merrick Garland?”
Of course, Ethics 101 teaches that past unethical conduct does not make unethical conduct in response less wrong, but the two strategies are not equivalent, legally or ethically. No one set out to slander and smear the character of Garland to justify doing what they had already made up their mind to do. The approach of the Democrats—decide that you want an opponent removed, so seek to find an allegation, an incident or an accuser to make that removal possible, is the opposite of what our legal process requires. Starting out with the presumption of guilt and then using the power of the prosecutor to search for a crime to pin on a target is a fascist strategy (and exactly the Democratic/”resistance” plan to undo the 2016 election by removing President Trump), and an unequivocal violation of prosecution ethics, as well as fairness and justice.
It does embody “The ends justify the means,” however: the motto of all Bad Guys in fiction and history.
Despite its own history of having the excesses of the #MeToo witch hunt mentality bite hard—Senator Al Franken was forced to resign primarily because of his pre-Senatorial conduct as a comedian before any due process or investigations—an old, old allegation of sexual misconduct was the chosen weapon for Kananaugh’s destruction. First, the discovered 30 year plus memory of another liberal professor, Christine Blasey Ford, doing her Anita Hill impression was deliberately held for two months by Senator Feinstein, thus preventing Kavanaugh from responding to them in a non-ambush scenario. Bad guys.
The tactic was unfair and cynical, based solely on the Democratic desire to run out the clock on Kavanaugh’s confirmation so maybe a “blue wave” could give the Democrats a Senate majority. As the Ford scenario has developed, the intent of stalling has become increasingly obvious. At the same time, Democrats and their propaganda machine in the media began making the case that any attempt to defend himself would by itself make Kavanaugh unfit to serve. After all, even women making three decades old accusations at the last minute to derail the confirmation of a qualified jurist deserve respect. Anyone, even the target of her attack, doubting her words or motives would obviously be a sexist pig, and an apologist for rapists. This is what the Democrats now regard as justice. It’s also the kind of double bind, heads you lose, tails I win process favored by James Bond villans.
Bad guys.
Meanwhile, not a thought has been given, apparently, to the disastrous long-term consequences to the political process, society and the culture if the Blasey Ford scheme is successful.:
- High school conduct will now be considered legitimate cause to punish adults and impugn their character long after they have established and earned public trust. No longer will any quarter be given for bad judgement and poor choices before majority.
- No man, anywhere, will be safe from old grudges, newly “woke” indignation, and accusations by women times perfectly to undermine trust and support.
- The standard will now be that anyone—well, any man— accused of sexual assault must be presumed guilty, and has the burden of proof of proving a negative. Two columnists for the New York Times have endorsed this standard, as well as various Democrats and activists. The accusation is enough even if it is unsubstantiated. This doesn’t even have the Salem safeguard of throwing the accused witch into the lake (Sink, and you’re innocent, though dead. Float, and you’re a witch…and soon to be dead.)
- Women, and only women, will have been granted the power to destroy lives, careers and reputations. They will use it.
- American society, already dangerously divided along racial, generational, regional and partisan fissures, will be more divided along gender lines as well.
The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass writes,
It threatens Republicans now, and Democrats tomorrow. It will threaten even those who don’t give two figs for politics and see all such talk as lies told by knaves to fools.
What we are seeing are founding American principles being swept — among them the presumption of innocence and the rights of the accused — to feed the appetites of power politics
That’s what Kavanaugh is dealing with, having to testify and defend himself against uncorroborated allegations of sexual predation 36 years ago, when he was in high school and in his freshman year of college.
The short-term politics of all this is quite clear, a movement led by cynics and assisted by their handmaidens in the Democratic Media Complex.
It is designed to convince suburban women voters that Republicans are hateful creatures, help Democrats pick up congressional seats in the November midterm elections and do away with President Donald Trump.
But look deeper and you’ll see something else.
The sweeping away of traditions that have been carefully nurtured from the founding of this nation, to protect individual liberty and shield us from the passions of the mob.
Without these principles, we are no longer a republic.
Kass’s analysis isn’t some novel theory. It’s essentially the same thing I have been writing since Democrats and “the resistance” plotted to defy the Electoral College. But all of this is tolerable, apparently, if a theoretical future SCOTUS opinion in a non-existent case that might restrict the possibly too wide-ranging rights of a woman to kill her unborn child for any reason or whim can be prevented by destroying the reputation of the presumed decisive vote in that future case.
Sounds like SkyNet’s plan in “The Terminator,” doesn’t it?
The latest news from the Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck would have Michael Douglas’s character begging, “Enough! Enough! I get it! I’m the bad guy!” halfway through the list….but then, he had some integrity. For example:
- Ford’s attorneys presented to the Judiciary Committee four sworn declarations from Ford’s husband, Russell, and three friends supporting the California college professor’s accusation that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. None of them witnessed the incident. None of them involved statements from Ford before 2012. All were sworn statements regarding what Ford told them, presented for the purpose of proving the truth of her accusation.
All four are classic hearsay evidence, as in bad, unreliable evidence. Allowing them as evidence in a trial would guarantee reversal on appeal.
- During the twelve days since Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly announced Blasey Ford’s allegations, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows have spent nearly six hours (344 minutes) repeating and analyzing the allegations. 8% of that time has been devoted to Kavanaugh’s denials, the problems with the accusations, and the lack of corroboration for the accounts.
The Bad Guys are being assisted by partisan and biased journalists to the detriment of the public.
- Apparently everyone now needs to scrutinize their high school yearbooks, and be ready to make full disclosure of any potentially disqualifying jokes, in-jokes, secret jokes, “dog whistles” or anything else an opposition research firm might find provocative.
[My position is that high school conduct is completely irrelevant to assessing adult character and must be held so, unless the conduct involves provable crimes that indicate serious emotional or mental problems that typically continue into adulthood.]
- Mississippi State professors canceled class or excused students so that they could attend a “moment of silence” for Brett Kavanaugh accusers. Yale Law School cancelled classes so students could protest against Kavanaugh. It is unethical for educational institutions to signal the “right” political position by such administrative actions, just as it was unethical for public schools to excuse student from class to protest gun ownership.
That’s indoctrination, not education. Totalitarian governments use schools that way, not those that support individual liberty and Constitutional principles.
- No degree of hypocrisy is too great to inhibit the effort to destroy Kavanaugh. This is the “have you no decency?” problem: Joe McCarthy had no decency, and neither do today’s “Bad Guys.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley evealed that the prosecutor hired by the GOP to question Blasey Ford was Rachel Mitchell, a career prosecutor from Maricopa County, Arizona. This move is fair to both Ford and Kavanaugh, and is also politically smart, since the Democrats were salivating at the opportunity to use the spectacle of “old white men” being “disrespectful” and “sexist” by challenging a “survivor” of theoretical sexual assault. So the lawyer representing Christine Blasey Ford sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley objecting to Republicans hiring an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” for tomorrow’s hearing.
Now guess what that objection would be? She’s female. She’s not a partisan. So what…oh, riiiiight! She’s female and she’s not a partisan, so the Democrats can’t claim foul when Ford’s story is exposed to be as questionable as it is. Give the lawyer credit for making an absurd objection sound as plausible as possible.
“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Michael Bromwich wrote. “Neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh is on trial. The goal should be to develop the relevant facts, not try a case.”
Gee, it sure seems like Judge Kavanaugh’s on trial. He’s being accused of sexual assault and perjury. This is a cynical argument to skirt due process and spare Ford the tough and probing questions her last minute accusation deserves.
“The central point is that there is no precedent for this Committee to bring in outside counsel for the sole purpose of shielding the members of the Committee from performing their responsibility to question witnesses,” Bromwich continued.
That’s amusing. Before Anita Hill, using a last minute, uncorroborated attack on a SCOTUS nominee was unprecedented. Before The Borking, a party refusing to confirm an undeniably qualified nominee was unprecedented. Who is this guy to tell the Senators what their duties are, and what traditions are to be upheld? Well, he’s working for the Bad Guys. He doesn’t have to make sense.
It shuld be obvious that the objective he claims to be concerned about is advanced by an experienced non-partisan questioner, but this lawyer’s job is to advance the agenda of the Left, by any means necessary. In this case, the means is misleading the public, if possible.
- Now to enter the realm of true thuggery, we have the experience of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was dining with his wife at the D.C. restaurant Fiola, and who was forced to leave by a mob that entered the restaurant chanting “We believe survivors.” This is also the realm of the fascist play-book. Democrats, progressives and “the resistance” have cheered and enabled this undemocratic conduct both directly (as with Maxine Waters) and indirectly, through increasingly violent and irresponsible rhetoric. Only bad guys do stuff like was done to Cruz; this isn’t one of the cases where the response can be “Well, both sides…” No, only bad people do this, because it is unequivocally wrong. It is intimidation; it is uncivil; it is dangerous.
I find myself wondering if an organization that has abandoned its core values so obviously, cynically and publicly can ever recover them, and be trustworthy again.
__________________
* I am not playing the game I have had commenters play, protesting that there is no monolithic “Left” and that progressives are not necessarily Democrats, who are not socialists, and that “the resistance” and antifa are distinct, while the news media isn’t political. Baloney. When these groups and their leadership show any independence and stop supporting the monolithic unethical conduct all of these components of the left have engaged in since November, 2016, I’ll begin taking that complaint more seriously.
Ethics Alarms 
Great post. And while all this baloney is transpiring, Trump delivered a great speech at the U.N. I’m surprised the entire U.N. campus didn’t fall into the East River from being exposed to so much common sense.
Those “leaders” at the UN who laughed at TRUMP when he appeared and spoke there will never realize the truth that they made themselves even easier to be laughed at EVEN HARDER. Fucking tyrannical idiots.
I prefer “kleptocrats,” Lucky. Or “tin pot dictators.”
I’ll stick to the movie, because thinking about the rest of the post is depressing.
This is my favorite role by Michael Douglas, and the scene above is great, only surpassed, barely, by the one at the burger joint – which is in my view where he crosses the line and becomes a bad guy.
I definitely need to see it again.
The improbable use of a rocket launcher at a highway construction site is indelibly imprinted on my mind. Funny stuff!
I always take movie recommendations here seriously. I just ordered that one (Falling Down) and recently watched The Hunger Games.
On Jack’s recommendation I got Three Billboards (and then saw the director’s other films: 7 Psychopaths and In Bruges). So please, for one somewhat illiterate in films and such please keep the recommendations coming!
There are four Hunger Games books, out of three novels. (Hollywood milking the money tree again)
The entire cycle is worth watching (maybe not owning, but watching) as it (inadvertently) comments a lot on the situation in the USA today.
Kass’ conclusion is striking in its simplicity:
The question I have is, then what are we? The judicial system will not allow such allegations as we’ve seen with Kavanaugh to survive motions to dismiss (although if they suddenly do, that will truly be the canary croaking in the coal mine), but the political process has no similar governor. To the extent such traditions do exist in politics, they depend upon the goodwill of both parties. That goodwill no longer exists — at all, and at any level.
So where does that leave us? I vote for “banana republic,” because when politics throws all restraint and goodwill out the window, that’s all that’s left.
A form of tyranny has taken hold in this country. It is the tyranny of moral rectitude, a kind of throwback to the days of puritanism when any dissent from dogma is forbidden by public shaming and excoriation. We are becoming a dystopian modern Salem.
Legally, we establish statutes of limitations for good reasons — to prevent just the kind of character assassination we are seeing with Kavanaugh in the legal context. Without the rules of the legal profession, and with the advent of social media, we have mobs of people running about this country spreading disinformation and harsh judgments, and any who dissent are instantly shouted down and shamed, even their lives destroyed. Freedom of expression is seriously imperiled by puritanical devotion to the latest social justice fad, in this case (but not limited to) #MeToo.
Unethical, but unstoppable. Academic freedom and freedom of speech, you know. Never mind that those concepts have been bastardized by the Left into an insane clown caricature of itself. It’s as if you can say anything, as long as the Mob agrees with you, but nothing else. What kind of freedom is that?
Truth. My suspicion is that the Democrats’ insistence that Kavanaugh is hostile to Roe v. Wade has motivated all these women to risk perjury to stop him. I am particularly convinced that this is true of the most recent accuser, but it’s also likely true of the others by my reckoning. I don’t believe any of them, and I believe their accusations are 100% driven by partisan politics and 0% by truth.
Even if Kavanaugh did get stumbling drunk several times, that doesn’t imply that he won’t remember committing rape, or that others in attendance wouldn’t remember it.
This is straight out of Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, as is almost every single thing in the instant Ethics Train Wreck. Any means justify these ends, even the destruction of an innocent man and every one of his defenders that can be brought under sufficient suspicion or be tied closely enough to him. Something about eggs and omelets come to mind.
Even at this point, I want to believe so. I’ve seen a few signs of hope — Beto O’Rourke’s rejection of Cruz’s abuse comes to mind. There are a few others, but alas, far, far to few.
What concerns me more is the media. Politicians can turn on a dime, but the media are clearly in love with the idea that they get to decide which stories get told, which don’t, and who gets the benefit of the doubt. They have not shown any inclination to the self-awareness that a few Democrat politicians and commentators have. I suspect they fashion themselves the new Priest-Kings of Truth, and as such, are immune from criticism. The longer this continues, the worse it will get.
There is only one ultimate destination to this runaway train wreck — civil strife and violence.
Forgot to add: “…as befits a banana republic.”
“Unethical, but unstoppable. Academic freedom and freedom of speech, you know. Never mind that those concepts have been bastardized by the Left into an insane clown caricature of itself. It’s as if you can say anything, as long as the Mob agrees with you, but nothing else. What kind of freedom is that?”
I don’t know if I would say that. They are on the job. They are paid to be there. Not only are they hurting the university, but they are also hurting the students who do not want to protest. Protest on your own time.
That is so, but apparently their Board of Regents or whatever governing body they have either agrees with them, or agrees with me.
When governors get blasted for “politicizing” college governing bodies – which always happens during Republican administrations but never when the Democrats are in power – you can see that correcting this problem is very difficult. I know, because here in Louisville, we have been through just this, and the accrediting body threatened to remove accreditation from the University of Louisville when Governor Bevin appointed a more conservative board.
That’s how liberals roll. They are so firmly entrenched on the levers of power in academia that there is no way to hold them accountable at all.
I concur. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think the collapse of that mutual goodwill is rooted in the cultural rejection of the Biblical standard as the agreed-upon moral consensus.
Having different races, cultures, and political philosophies mixed together CAN work, but there must be SOME sort of glue holding us together. A system of government, even a great one, is not sufficient to unite a nation.
If this Kavanaugh debacle were happening in 1790, both sides would be citing scriptures in their defense in angrily polite and wordy speeches, and taking accusations of dishonorable politicking so seriously that someone might have challenged someone else to a duel by this point. And as primitive as that sounds, consider that in France at about that time, a similar (but secular) people’s revolution was resulting in severed heads knocking around in the streets.
It’s as if we progressed all the way up to Civil Rights and then said, “That’s enough, let’s try it without God now.” And we’re filling the void with partisan rage. People used to accuse Christians of self-righteousness, but that, according to Jesus, is a sin. Progressives have all of the righteous indignation of a Pharisee, but there’s no power higher than themselves, which makes it ALL self-righteousness, all the way down.
Perceptive, Isaac. Unfortunately, there is nothing to fill the void left by the absence of Biblical standards except extreme self-interest, hubris, and partisan gain.
Well said, Isaac.
Something has to be agreed to as held common value in a society. What does not matter so much as that the agreement amounts to the force of law, even if not the law.
Otherwise, you get disagreements over definitions, and discussion depends on definitions.
We have lost discussion. We have lost our common values. We have lost our ‘United, under God.’ We have lost our moral compass.
Glen asks: “The question I have is, then what are we?”
That is a question that requires an interpreter and an interpretation. Meaning it is hermeneutical:
Hermeneutics as the methodology of interpretation is concerned with problems that arise when dealing with meaningful human actions and the products of such actions, most importantly texts. As a methodological discipline, it offers a toolbox for efficiently treating problems of the interpretation of human actions, texts and other meaningful material. Hermeneutics looks back at a long tradition as the set of problems it addresses have been prevalent in human life, and have repeatedly and consistently called for consideration: interpretation is a ubiquitous activity, unfolding whenever humans aspire to grasp whatever *interpretanda* they deem significant. Due to its long history, it is only natural that both its problems, and the tools designed to help solve them, have shifted considerably over time, along with the discipline of hermeneutics itself. The article focuses on the main problem areas and presents some proposals that have been put forward for tackling them effectively.
What I notice is the fierceness of the existing and the insisted-upon interpretations. For example, the NY Intellectual Class, through the NYTs, has made interpretations of the recent events and is, shall we say, arming itself with them. An interpretation requires a praxis and — oh my! — they are formatting that praxis by putting a whole interpretive structure into a militant, activist program.
Women seem to be *going crazy* and bringing deep-seated resentment of man’s naughty behaviors out, but this is almost militarized, and as someone here said it ‘follows Alinsky’s play-book’. That is, though it is right and proper for women to resent sexual abuse when it occurs, the social sentiment becomes hysterical and rages through the psychological and inner dimensions of people’s feelings … and is militarized to operate against a prospective supreme court judge. How shall this be interpreted?
The *interpretation* that is most often referred to in these blog pages by those who write here is one that can be noted and described. It is a sort of lamentation that seems to believe that once, not long ago, everything was *normal* and sort of good and proper and functioning. Then along came Obama and he polarized everything. And the present problems arise, more or less directly, from this. “Ah if we could only turn back the clock!” they seem to lament.
But this is (I think anyway) a shallow interpretation (though it has elements of truth). I favor an interpretation that sees the present as the natural and predictable end-result of a long causal chain. But who has the power, or the cultural awareness, or the insight, to be able to describe it? In the idea-realm it is as if a giant boot kicked the ant’s hive and they scurry around in reaction, but cannot *see* what happened or why.
The Present is a *text* that must be read. But those who *read* are old-school readers. They indeed offer interpretation but their interpretation is a sort of recycling of Old Tropes. It s often romantic (in the classic sense of the word) and anti-realist.
Effectively, there is no substantial interpretation that is offered in these pages. I say this and I attempt to be fair and just. It seems to me that to make proper or substantial interpretation of The Present and of America that a more philosophical orientation will be necessary. There has to be some stance or position that offers a platform from which an interpretative fulcrum can be brought to bear on the chaos of events.
At this point, nobody in their right mind would trust the left. At his press conference today, Trump was asked about the other three women who have made claims against Kavanaugh. The gist of the question was “Do you really think all of these women are liars?” It took him a while to get to it, but his short answer was “Yes”. Along with mine. My guess, Ford doesn’t show tomorrow. I hope her lawyer, a slime ball, has explained to her the difference between slander and perjury.
Dragin
For once I would like him to turn the question around and ask the 3 female questioners do they think a well respected judge whose history is on full display is a sexual predator based on unsubstantiated accusations by several unknown women who have not been crossexamined under oath.
And I agree with that, but we are talking about ‘The Donald’ here. That is WAY outside his behavioral ‘schema’, and bluntly, isn’t going to happen.
Dragin, it is not just Trump that does not do this. The same question was asked of Grassley and others today.
Was there a response?
I accidentally got to hear some of yesterday’s press conference. I thought Trump was civil, somewhat coherent (still speaks in ‘word clouds’ and ‘streams of consciousness’) and even funny. I understand better how he has large crowd at his rallies. He is an engaging speaker, even facing a room full of partisan hacks bent on his destruction.
Color me pleasantly surprised.
I was pissed that I missed Jepordy for the press conference.
I gotta get a keyboard that spells better…Jeopardy, darn it.
Did the Donald rot our ethical values or merely force those who espouse high values to expose themselves as the epitome of ethics rot.
Yes.
dragin_dragon wrote, “Yes.”
Outstanding Comment Of The Day and it only required one word!
Bravo dragin_dragon, bravo!
One reason it was believed that President Trump would rot the ethical values of people is because the rank-and-file Republicans would abandon morals and ethics to defend Donald Trump.
It turns out they did not have to set aside ethics and morality to defend Trump from criticism, since the leftist leadership abandoned all pretense of morality- and corrupted most of their rank-and-file as well.
Exactly, ME.
Thank you, sir.
yes. Dang it, DD beat me to it
Saw this, just now, on Facebook:
https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/woman-who-made-false-rape-claim-sentenced-to-prison/
None of this makes any sense. So, Democrats sole purpose is to slander and smear Kavanaugh and run out the clock? What was our sole purpose with Franken then? And why didn’t we run a smear campaign with Gorsuch.
None is so blind as those who will not see.
Why not Gorsuch you ask. Because he was qualified and was not as much an originalist as Scalia. On the other hand Kavanaugh has been promoted by progressives as an existential threat to an advancement of progressive judicial activism. I can only imagine what will happen if RBG suddenly keels over and dies like Scalia over the next year.
Still Spartan wrote, “None of this makes any sense.”
After reading the rest of your bias makes you stupid comments in the last week or so this statement from you makes perfect sense.
As my old Army buddy says, try rereading it and this time read for comprehension.
I keep forgetting that I am the one who is biased. Thanks Zoltar — you just cleared things up in my estrogen-addled brain of mine.
Still Spartan wrote, “I keep forgetting that I am the one who is biased. Thanks Zoltar — you just cleared things up in my estrogen-addled brain of mine.”
It’s got nothing to do with estrogen, but glad I could help you realize the truth; really glad. 😉
When facts and arguments fail, resort to snark and sarcasm.
Did you really just hide behind your gender in place of an argument?
“I keep forgetting that I am the one who is biased”
We will be glad to keep reminding you, every time you post unethical partisan crap on an ethics blog.
You used to do the same, when the bias ran the other direction. And you were right. I learned from you and redefined my viewpoint based on what you and other progressives had to say.
I learned from charles. I learned from vgrrl (well, mostly about books I needed to check out, but still…)
I even learned from Chris (Yes, that Chris): He made me learn who Alinsky was, and how to identify his tactics in the wild. Very useful.
I pray for you and your family, Spartan.
You pray for me and my family? I want everyone to step back from the ledge and recall my ONLY point throughout this whole mess. Any witnesses who allege that Kavanaugh assaulted them should be allowed to testify. That’s it people. That’s my CRAZY position deserving of prayer. Now, I’m going to resort to all caps because you have clearly lost your minds. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE WITNESSES HAVE TO BE BELIEVED. THAT IS FOR THE SENATE TO DETERMINE.
Anyway, I leave you to your prayers.
Still Spartan wrote, ” I want everyone to step back from the ledge and recall my ONLY point throughout this whole mess. Any witnesses who allege that Kavanaugh assaulted them should be allowed to testify.”
Your “ONLY point”? How can you seriously make that claim Spartan?
Please go back through all your comments in multiple threads regarding the Kavanaugh sexual assault accusations. I can say without a doubt that that is one of the points you have made and you’ve made it a few times but it is not the ONLY point, not by a long shot.
Come on, Sparty. Be honest. Your whataboutism was extremely annoying, as usual. Remember what you wrote?
“None of this makes any sense. So, Democrats sole purpose is to slander and smear Kavanaugh and run out the clock? What was our sole purpose with Franken then? And why didn’t we run a smear campaign with Gorsuch.”
My original premise, which stands, is that this testimony should be heard. Have we discussed other issues, such as why women fail to report? Yes. But I have maintained — from the beginning — that this testimony should be heard. I’m planning on listening myself and continue to keep an open mind regarding her credibility.
Just saw you snarky answer to prayer. Point of clarification: I have been praying for you and your family for months, well before this little snit. This statement was not condescending at all.
I once said you espouse a dark world you live in, and I feel that is not necessary. No one deserves to have the experiences you have talked about, and the world I grew up in and inhabit (flyover country) is not that way. There is bad here, of course, but not the pervasive blanket you describe. Your pain touches me, as expressed here at EA.
I pray for my family, church, community, our nation, and the world. Praying for someone is not condemning them; on the contrary it is to lift them up in their circumstances.
So I go to the living God on your behalf. No big deal.
RE: Gorsuch. It’s simple: he wasn’t replacing the swing vote on the Court. Kavanaugh would tip the balance to the conservative wing and they can’t let that happen, especially since the Court has become the Supreme Legislative body of the land. Congress goes through the motions, passing laws, holding press conferences, etc.; but we all know where the real power lies. They will fight by any means necessary for control of the Court, scorched earth be damned.
I think the key here is the electoral timing. The Dems are trying to put together a majority to stop Trump’s choice until after the election. While the Republicans with Garland had a real majority, the Dems have to assemble one out of whatever material they can contrive.
1) The unsubstantiated fear that a “conservative” court would overturn Roe v Wade was a never-too-occur situation as the court would never be “conservative”. Because no one expected Kennedy to retire.
2) MeToo hadn’t realized its full weaponized potential.
3) The general pattern of Leftwing freak out has been in a steady crescendo since Nov 9, 2016. Though in unprecedented freak out mode during Gorsuch (Mar 2017), there was still a year and half more of exponential freak out growth before the present context.
Either of those conditions different during Gorsuch, and I would imagine a much different running of that hearing.
The purpose with Franken was to demonize all men, and sacrifice him in the name of “objectivity.” Or, Kirsten Gillibrand wanted to clear the field of potential rivals. Or something. Franken was a weenie, and I know no progressive women who think he should have resigned now.. But the Left couldn’t maintain it’s guilty until proven innocent #MeToo standard if he didn’t.
Answers:
1. Al Franken had photographic evidence of his sexual impropriety, as well as multiple accusers to multiple acts. Not all of them have been proven, but the one photograph was arguably singular significance, making every one of the accuser’s accusations much more plausible. Note that such evidence is absent in the instant case against Kavanaugh, as are corroborating witnesses to the alleged events.
2. Gorsuch was nominated immediately after Trump was elected. This was well before the #MeToo thing began in earnest, so there was no social justice issue to leverage by attempting to smear Gorsuch this way. It would’ve been seen as exactly what Kavanaugh’s situation is – an abuse of process to try to smear a candidate, and even if successful would’ve simply drawn a replacement nomination.
3. There is a potential hard deadline for Kavanaugh that did not exist for Gorsuch – the 2018 elections. If they had been able to smear Gorsuch, it would’ve simply resulted in another candidate and angrier Republicans. But the payoff for Kavanaugh getting delayed or withdrawn is spectacularly higher. If the Dems manage an upset in the Senate, they can ensure that no conservatives get appointed to the Supreme Court unless the Republicans take back the senate in 2020, or even beyond, regardless of who is elected president.
Hope that answers your questions!
Spartan writes: None of this makes any sense. So, Democrats sole purpose is to slander and smear Kavanaugh and run out the clock? What was our sole purpose with Franken then? And why didn’t we run a smear campaign with Gorsuch.
Right. It makes no sense. That follows if the viewer has no substantial location within ideas in order to be able of interpreting the present. Having read I think almost every post you have written over the course of 3-4 years I notice: no interpretive structure at all. None! Because you do not work at any level in ideas. You hardly even have clear concepts but I do admit that some conceptual premises insert themselves though. Must be an accident 😉
I think that you might be a good emblem of the mind-dead American. You are not required to think, in fact you are discouraged from much thinking at all. You just see and react to what is seen, but in a programmed way. Pavlovian more or less. You just (sort of) respond to events about which you have no understanding at all. Nor desire to understand. It is this that is at least some part of the larger social problem. There are millions and millions just like you clamoring to be heard.
But what is interesting is when *you* (the large plural) become activist in your non-idea and non-interpretive position that you, in fact, become dangerous. That is how I came to see our friend Chris (the departed one). His militancy would have been built upon your lack of any substantial intellectualism. You and he are *cut from the same cloth*. He would be an extension of you if ever you chose to become activist and more inclined to social justice warrior-ship. You have a vague concept of ‘social justice’ but very little platform in ideas, and thus you are the victim of demagogues of one sort or the other. You symbolize therefor an America that must interpret but cannot interpret! And you are a member of the American intellectual class! Technically, the class of person that is an influencer!
All that one can do in the face of the crisis of the present is attempt to *see* it. Until such time as it becomes possible to act on some (substantial and sound) interpretation.
Jack, regarding your last bullet, about the harassment of Senator Cruz and his wife at the restaurant: Cruz’s opponent, “Beto,” is on record in the press as saying that what those “protesters” did was “not right.” Can’t you just hear Beto’s eyelid clinking, in a wink of approval for what was done to Cruz? How much more understated could a criticism of one’s own side be?
Jack,
I can’t thank you enough for putting all this down in black & white, it’s exactly where by brain was when I wrote this comment but I simply could not grasp all of the overwhelming information in the midsts of my anger and coalate it as you have here.
Thank you.
Z
I heard on TV some guy asking why President Trump sides with Brett Kavanuaugh over his accusers.
you have explained why you side with Kavanaugh over the accusers.
I do not know if any Republcian senators or staffers suggested doing such a thing, but it is obvious that Senators McConnell and Grassley rejected such an idea.
Compare this with how they treated President Clinton in 1998.
What they really want is a justice that would vote to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller.
A Democratic Senate majority next year is unlikely.
“if I were the manager, I would have thrown them out.”
According to the restaurant’s owner, that’s exactly what happened:
Apparently, the restaurant’s staff escorted the Cruz family to another room and asked the mob of assholes to leave (and called the cops). Once the dining room was cleared of shitheads, the Cruzes returned to their meal.
It seems that the narrative that they were driven out of the restaurant by the “protesters” is a fiction crafted by the leaders of this uncivil mob, and swallowed whole by the press who reported the story.
Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I don’t think its too much of an exaggeration, though. If this happened to my family, I’d regard the experience as being “driven out.”
“Mississippi State professors canceled class or excused students At least two professors at Mississippi State University canceled class or excused students for a planned “moment of silence” for the women accusing Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault more than 30 years ago.”
To be fair to the school as a whole, and to the credit of the general administration and student body, this seems to have been a very limited action. Per the article:
“At least two professors at Mississippi State University canceled class or excused students for a planned ‘moment of silence’… Multiple MSU faculty and staff members attended the silent protest, which was focused on expressing solidarity with the women who have accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. But only a few students attended, even with the offer of being excused from class.”
The pictures seem to show maybe a couple of dozen people “protesting” out of a student population of about 22,000. MSU has a “Green Light” rating with FIRE, so not likely a hotbed of SJWs.
Still, overall point taken.
Thanks for the details. Profs should not be allowed to cancel classes to support any political agenda.
Here’s a word, sadly fallen into disuse, that succinctly states what’s happening with Kavanaugh:
calumny
n. A false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.
n. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.
“When the metaphorical ethics Rubicon was finally crossed could be debated. For me, it was when Hillary Clinton, confident of her historic landslide victory, lectured designated loser Donald Trump about how despicable and un-American it was for him to hint that he might not accept the legitimacy of her election as President. Then, as soon as he was the victor, Clinton, her party and all of its followers proceed to challenge the legitimacy of his election—and have continued to do so in various ways ever since.
I think the Rubicon was crossed when Obama successfully employed divisive rhetoric aimed against entire sections of the American population. No president before had ever spoken of Americans in anything other than 1st Person Plural language. But with Obama it became an Us and Them set of terms. And when denigrating the “Thems”, it was often in a scolding condescending tone when he wasn’t outright ridiculing them for essentially being the rubbish in the way of ‘progress’.
But the seeds of Obama crossing that Rubicon were sown during the latter years of Bush part Deux when the media and the Left were in hyperbolically vocal insurgency mode against the Bush (for a few good reasons and for many bad). Only they took the rhetoric many steps further than it had ever been.
What’s sad about the complete lack of self-awareness is up until the point he was removed from the discussion, Chris, was ever ready to repeat the refrain “Trump’s rhetoric will get people hurt” essentially making the claim that right wingers would be mobilized to harm left wingers. And yet to date, the overwhelming majority, possibly 99%, of bad acts (of all degrees) have been Leftwingers targeting Right wingers.
Michael
I believe it to be wrong to invoke “Chris'” name here to make your point. He is not here to defend against your assertion.
Nonsense. This is being cited as a data point in support of an over arching theme I’ve noticed of the Left. Not some “piling on” jab to denigrate someone who can’t defend themselves. And it’s a useful example, because he often trotted out the line and therefore nothing to “defend” against.
Interesting question. Chris isn’t able to defend himself because he chose not to obey the rules. He still can come back, because I never withdrew the terms. MW accurately reflected Chris’s assertions regarding Trump’s rhetoric. I have records of the exchanges. Is the reference unfair just because the source of a quote left the blog in a snit?
I was following GW’s rules. Michael’s assertion may be true and I for one believe it to be true. But, I would have stated that many progressives espouse the belief that those on tbe right are preaching fear, division and violence while such activities occur on a much more frequent basis by those on the left.
I did not understand George Washington’s rules on this matter to create a distinction as to why the person discussed was not present.
It pains me to defend Chris but I am trying to live up to the examples of ethical conduct you have instillef in me.
“89. Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust.”
That’s a bit generous definition of “evil”, if my observation qualifies in your mind.
If that’s your standard, you better chide Jack for every individual named in the post whose misconduct has been described.
I may be interpreting 89 far too broadly.
I was not challenging the validity of your statement.
This will give me a question to ponder and do further research into the meaning of 89.
Please understand I am struggling to remain objective. That is why I weighed in his defense.
I enjoy your perspectives.
I get where you’re coming from. I too enjoy your analysis.
“This will give me a question to ponder and do further research… I keep forgetting that I am the one who is biased”
You are doing fine, CM. Using the discussions here to learn is a wonderful hobby, and the greatest gains are born of errors we make.
Being open to correction is the beginning of wisdom, I have heard it said. I know I learn far more from being wrong and admitting it than being wrong and stubborn, or from being right.
You will find the skills gained from this journey to be of great value in life.
Wait… somehow quotes got mixed together.
The quote should have read “his will give me a question to ponder and do further research… Please understand I am struggling to remain objective. “
Sometimes Quora has great answers.
http://www.quora.com/Even-if-Kavanaugh-is-innocent-at-this-point-will-it-be-impossible-for-him-to-be-a-credible-Supreme-Court-justice-because-his-innocence-cant-possibly-be-proven/answer/Madison-H-Reyes
Let’s take any one of us and any attempted crime.
So, you sit in your cubicle, excited your promotion up the corporate ladder is finally happening. You have had your background checked, your credit, you passed all your exams, your credentials are tight! The announcement is made and some people openly object to you due to your color, your faith and your political choice. You ignore it. This is America, right? The press spreads rumors that you “will” do things that will hurt and offend people should that promotion take place. Hysteria begins.
Suddenly, from out of no where one of the activists says you tried to rob her. It was a few decades ago and she doesn’t know exactly when or where, nor did you actually succeed, but she knows it was you. You tugged on her purse passing her in a coffee shop. She knows you meant to steal it and though no one else it the coffee shop saw it there should be an investigation. She puts down her activist card, deletes her social media stuff relating to it and pick up a victim card.
Stories come out about it, sure she initially recalled this a few years ago and it was several guys trying to rob her, but that was an error, she is now sure it was you! She names a few others who saw you do it! They state they saw nothing like that. So concerned people ask:
When? Dunno
Where? Dunno
Was there an actual robbery? No, but he was trying to
So, now it’s all political. People who also don’t want you promoted are sure you did this. They conveniently toss innocent until proven guilty right out the window. They conveniently demand a Federal investigation without even so much as a formal statement or testimony by the alleged victim. People who do want you promoted are sure you didn’t do it, but say she can testify.
One thing is for sure though, even if she is proved a liar, the damage is done. You could still get the promotion, but your reputation has been damaged.
More hysteria ensues. A woman posts that she heard it happened, but quickly backpeddled saying she felt empowered and thought it probably did! Another woman claims in a drunken stupor she saw something similar and doesn’t know for sure but thinks it could have been you. She vaguely remembers seeing you looking towards a purse and your arm was moving so you must have been trying to steal it.
Now a known dirtbag lawyer with political and financial motives claims to be lining up more victims who suddenly recall similar incidents. How convenient.
WHAT A FUCKING DISGRACE. I want no part of a pack of liars that will lie and cheat like this. And, no, I do NOT believe these people. They will set us back decades, not the judge. These false accusers will make it so much worse for every one of us that has really had something happen to them!
Its time, just #walkaway
Yes, I used robbery and attempted robbery instead of attempted rape and unwanted touching.
I really wish there were some prominent female moderates and conservatives with some kind of rep and balance to speak out. This is embarrassing.
Here is a principled, left-leaning voice.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny-se-cupp-staff.html
Cupp is supposedly a conservative. She was teamed with Newt Gingrich “on the Right” in CNN’s failed attempted re-boot of “cross-fire.”
Great post. Too much to comment on now, and much covered by others, but here’s two:
1. The Chicago Trib’s John Kass has it down pat. Timely and a reminder of salient reasons the US was founded: individual liberty and protection from “the passions of the mob.”
2. Interesting to see that U of Miss and Yale Law School have shown their true colors: not as institutions of higher learning but of expensive and established leftist agitprop centers. Reminds me once again of a famous Stalin quote: “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” All institutions of higher learning would be aghast if compared to Stalin, but they are practicing his theories now.
A friend just reminded me of something I wrote elsewhere back in June.
Anything that falls outside the ideological views of a Progressive must be heavily piled on with demonizations until their opposition crumbles under the massive weight. What they fail to see is that their own demonization tactics are also a boat anchor dragging Progressives into the abyss of complete moral bankruptcy.
Progressives are souls lost within the absurdity of their own illogical bubble that’s being sucked into a black hole of evil, and the evil they face is themself.
Their views are not reality, and as such only work when they are insulated from places where such beliefs can cause one harm. Mother Nature doesn’t give a shit, and beliefs that defy fact can bite you.
Case in point is people feeding bears. The bears get used to people, and expect food from them. Like any welfare recipient, if the freebies are not forthcoming, they can get nasty. Problem is that progressives are made of meat, and bears contest the ‘humans are the apex predators’ assumption when angry.