Robert Tulip wrote:Sorry to dwell on this Kavanaugh case, but I find it fascinating as an example of culture war. There should be no question that the recent recognition of the human rights of victims of sexual assault is an overdue corrective to a previous culture of impunity.
I have been guilty of that myself, for accepting the discounting of Bill Clinton's victims. I think all of us have learned something about the prevalence of this sort of behavior. In a sense that's the main message of #MeToo - the culture of discounting and victim-shaming led to a pattern of women suffering in silence. I kind of think the Republicans would yank the nomination and go with somebody cleaner if not for the concern about running out of time.
Robert Tulip wrote:I have myself made numerous comments about the pathology of abuse in churches, and what a depraved culture this pattern of conduct indicates.
Not only the church coverups, but the widespread shaming into silence of victims, too. There is something deeply disturbed in a culture where the victims do not simply come forward, in confidence that their allegations will be taken seriously.
There is not much indication of swinging too far yet. There were attempts to smear a "perpetrator" like the well-known Aziz Ansari case, where the man was insensitive and aggressive, but had signs of genuine consent and only "lacked affirmative consent." But this was not a lie, it was only an effort to claim victimhood from an ambiguous case.
From the Wiki piece, we are apparently talking about fewer than 5 percent of cases in which allegations did not hold up to investigation. I am willing to believe that 1 in 20 rape allegations comes from an effort to cause trouble for a man the woman is mad at (probably with good reason in most cases.) Some of those are probably mental illness of a mild sort. On the other hand, inability to track a perp down, plus the intimidating reception by the system and the fear of repeat violence by the offender, means that more than 2/3 of rapes go unreported in the U.S. We are a long way from overcorrecting.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/crimin ... ice-system
Robert Tulip wrote:The assumption that a victim will be automatically believed brings a severe moral hazard. This obviously traumatises victims when their honest accounts are disbelieved, and yet avoiding punishment of the innocent and preventing vexatious accusations are important public goods.
Yes, we generally avoid conviction of the innocent, unless they are ethnic minorities and the prosecutor needs to get the conviction rate up. But we are not talking about convicting Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, just the opposite, we are talking about rushing his nomination through without a proper hearing, precisely because the politics are not favorable to actually looking into the facts. The Republican Senators who go along with this should be deeply ashamed. But the chances of that are about like the chances that Georgetown Prep frat-boys will make a clean breast of their behavior under the influence of alcohol.
Robert Tulip wrote:Harry Marks wrote:"guilt-proofing" the powerful.
That is absolutely not the case. Weinstein has hardly been ‘guilt-proofed’ and nor should anyone with a clear history of assault. But the Kavanaugh case is far from clear, as an isolated incident where false perceptions are possible, backed by a Democrat horde baying for blood against Trump.
Weinstein will probably be doing time in prison. Probably so should Bill Clinton, and so should Teddy Kennedy have. If Kavanaugh were merely running for office, I would say the fact that it was an isolated incident should allow it to be left up to the voters. But a Supreme Court seat is a lifetime appointment, and it is the final arbiter of application of the law in our country.
Robert Tulip wrote:The context here is that a short delay could remove Trump’s nomination power, with massive effect on American public policy.
Yes, we Democrats are painfully conscious of the effect of a "short" delay on a Supreme Court nomination. You do realize that if the Senate changes parties and Professor Ford says, "Tee hee, I lied just to get y'all to delay," she could go to jail. That's the concern you are alluding to, that the door would be opened to false and malicious charges just to have a political influence. That was the accusation against Anita Hill, and Joe Biden shamefully joined in the railroading to avoid a proper hearing, suppressing evidence that would likely have changed the outcome of the vote. Who exactly was deceitful and malicious? Who has a track record now of suppressing careful inquiry when such events have occurred? This pious concern for "encouraging false accusations" is entirely too convenient.
Robert Tulip wrote:I don’t get the impression people think Ford should not be taken seriously, just that she should not be made an excuse for Democrats to game the system. This incident is very minor on the scale of crime even if proven, which it can’t be while Mark Judge sides with Kavanaugh. I see she will testify this week, although her camp is trying to stall the process.
And the perjury about it? The affair Bill Clinton was impeached for was fairly minor - his sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky was unacceptable, but still not violent - but he lied about it. And it turns out the allegations of more serious conduct were probably true, so the pattern of his behavior should have been listened to much earlier. Why should we waltz down the same path to perdition because it is inconvenient for the Republican hopes of overturning Roe v Wade?
Robert Tulip wrote:Harry Marks wrote: The supposedly horrible prospect of a brazen liar manufacturing a lifetime of pretend trauma so that she could take down a possible public servant is not really all that credible. But it plays well to political partisans.
No doubt Ford was traumatised, but the possibility of misperception on her part is a legitimate question.
Then it should get a legitimate hearing, and Mark Judge, who has confessed to addiction and rampant drunkenness, should be forced to look Dr. Ford in the eye, as well as the Senate Committee, and talk about what the culture was like and why we should believe that she is making it up.
Robert Tulip wrote:What looks most probable in this case, assuming the incident occurred as described which is still unproven, is that Kavanaugh fully believed that Ford was consenting and let her go as soon as she made clear she did not consent. It is perfectly understandable that her perception was different.
Because we know that drunken high school boys are oh, so careful about consent, and would never put their hand over a girl's mouth because they would never think of taking her clothes off without her consent. And of course since it was all just a misunderstanding, that's why he went to her the next week and apologized, and swore up and down that he would never do something so disrespectful again, and, now fully sober, asked for her forgiveness.
Give me a break.
Robert Tulip wrote:Perpetrators with a pattern of such conduct are very different from someone who experiments once as a youth and immediately learns about appropriate boundaries.
Oh, he knows all about appropriate boundaries. If you can get away with it, it is in bounds. The Clarence Thomas hearings showed it, the political call on Clinton's lying showed it, the 2016 election showed it. My question is what will it take for the country to stop confirming the corruption.
Robert Tulip wrote:It is about weighing the evidence and forming an opinion.
No, it's really not. It's about a rush to politically expedient judgment.
Robert Tulip wrote: It is wrong to say that if you don’t like the decision you have been ignored.
Well, that depends very much on how the decision is reached. Party line vote? Looks very much like nobody cares diddly squat for the evidence.
Robert Tulip wrote: Harry Marks wrote:this incident still puts him squarely on the side of privilege
and that is why Democrats hate him, as he is a primary target for the war on inequality, with this Ford case just the most convenient delaying tactic.
I don't deny either that it is convenient or that I detest his "jurisprudence." The Supreme Court already has at least four zombies, as evidenced by the AFSCME decision, and the country does not need another. It's disgusting that the whole issue of timing and the fairness of the investigation is being reduced to their feeling that without another zombie, the Court might engage in thought. But to the contrary I would argue that Feinstein's sometimes clumsy handling of the case has been all about respecting Ford's truth and her right to bring it forward or not as she saw fit. At least Dianne Feinstein showed some actual human consideration in the case.
Robert Tulip wrote:Realism in politics is not a sin, when it means a capacity to weigh the moral worth of rival factors and likely reactions. To be ‘judged publicly’ in such a case is the equivalent of being lynched.
The "realism" of preferring the politically convenient to the truth is indeed a sin. Public hearing really isn't the equivalent of being lynched, no matter what Clarence Thomas alleged. He complained that he would never get his good name back, but had spent 15 years behind the scenes besmirching it. What he was really complaining about was his behavior being made public - the same thing the Catholic Church suppressed. Let's give the facts a fair hearing, as we did not in Thomas' case, as the RCC would not allow in decades of their mishandling of child abuse.