Posts Tagged ‘Brett Kavanaugh’

Blowing in the wind

September 30th, 2018

Oh my god, they are ugly, these aging, wealthy, powerful, white men: contorting their little faces, stomping their little feet, and flailing their little arms in synchronized tantrum because their hollow sham of a pretense of a proceeding, after all their efforts to put a good face on it, was not going their way; exploding with rage from their lack of the elementary self discipline to sit quietly and to allow the woman they had hired to continue to do the good job she was doing of what they had hired her for, because what they really wanted (destruction of another woman) was not the job they had hired her to do (elicit the truth); frothing at the mouth about vast nebulous conspiracies to hijack their sham and turn it to other ends, conspiracies to destroy them personally, conspiracies to use them as a proxy for avenging ancient grievances unrelated to the matter at hand; sniveling and beating their little chests and demanding our pity and demanding that we believe them and no one else because they had worked so hard and they had done some good and they have a right to our belief; denying denying denying; spinning spinning spinning; abandoning any pretense of respectful listening except to proclaim repeatedly, loudly and angrily that they had listened respectfully (in the face of their refusal to listen even to their own lawyer); yelling at and talking over and rudely mocking and refusing to answer those who dared to question them, at the same time complaining of being mistreated; lying openly and contemptuously about matters large and small.  These, the flower of our nation, the representatives of our people, the honorable members of our great deliberative body; these excrescences of a too-long dominant, too-slowly fading demographic.  Another generation will take them to the rubbish heap of history, but until then, they stink.

For the record

September 26th, 2018

Under the heading of “boys will be boys”, of which we are hearing so much lately from the ostrich wing of the Republican party, I would like to offer my testimony. In my teenage years, I did my share of stupid, impulsive things.  I drank and took drugs, often at the same time.  I behaved towards a few young women in ways of which I now feel ashamed.  But I never:

a) turned up the music, pinned a girl to the bed, put my hand over her mouth, and attempted to remove her clothing despite her resistance;

b) stuck my penis in a drunk girl’s face when she wasn’t expecting it, or, for that matter, even when she might have expected it;

c) or did anything remotely like either of the above;

d) or knew anyone who did.

Frankly, the idea that such actions may be considered in the light of normal boyhood indiscretions is offensive, and says more about the morally and spiritually impoverished milieu of the people who believe it, than about the nature of masculine youth in America.  We absorb a lot of toxic ideas and behavioral models when we are kids, no doubt about it.  But the notion that acts of sexual assault and rape are a normal part of the personal behavioral experience of young American males is false and obnoxious.  The perpetrators exist, but they are a small minority.  Their behavior is a distorted reflection of the mainstream, not normative for it.  Part of the tragically disjunctive experience of men and women growing up in this society is that the worst aspects of oppression impact a disproportionately large number of women – most of them – while being committed by a disproportionately small number of men.  I do not mean to excuse complicity with the evil, which is a thing most men do, in fact, have to answer for.  But there is a morally significant difference between passive complicity and overt action.

That said, if Kavanaugh did what he is alleged to have done, I am not sure that automatically disqualifies him.  The allegations concern things that happened decades ago, and there does not seem to be a pattern continuing into the present.  Maybe he no longer is that person.  No: if he did what he is alleged to have done, he is disqualified not by the acts he committed, but by his denial of them.  Do we want to hire a judge who lies to get the job?  Of course not!

This is a job interview, not a court proceeding.  We are not dealing with burdens and standards of proof, we are dealing with the decision whether to hire a person for a lifetime appointment as the nation’s highest authority on what the law says.  So perform a thought experiment.  Say you’re hiring a babysitter.  You’ve got a nice middle aged person who wants the job, a little strict perhaps, maybe with some ideas that don’t jibe entirely with yours about child-rearing, but overall seemingly someone who likes kids and could do the job.  (I’m purposely slanting this in favor of the candidate.)  You check this person’s references, most of which are glowing; but then you hear from someone not listed on the candidate’s resume, a person by all appearances disinterested and credible, who hired them as a babysitter many years ago and came home from the movies to discover bruises on the kid.  You confront the candidate with this.  The candidate denies it.  I don’t know about you, but I’d thank them for their time and look to hire somebody else.  Why take a chance, if you don’t have to?

 

Gag me with a Grassley

September 19th, 2018

A few thoughts on the farce now playing out around the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh:

It’s a job interview, not a prosecution.  Regardless whether there’s enough evidence to convict, would you hire the guy against whom there is a credible allegation that he assaulted somebody sexually a long time ago, or would you thank him for applying and then broaden the search?

Is it possible that there exists a professionally qualified Republican conservative (those being the minimum requirements for an applicant, at present) who is not subject to credible accusations of serious wrong-doing?

What is the point of setting up a he-said/she-said confrontation between Kavanaugh and his accuser, as quickly as possible, without any effort to investigate independently or to hear from other witnesses?

All of the above questions are entirely beside the point, since the sole objective is to appoint someone hostile to Roe v. Wade before the midterms.

At last Clarence Thomas will have a kindred spirit sitting beside him on the bench.