The world appears to have gone crazy, and I've been trying not to get sucked into it. This whole Kavanaugh nomination is getting out of control, and I'm not really happy with much of what I see.
But I didn't feel I had anything new to add, so I mostly left it at that. I know my biases, you see. And I can see how this confirmation hearing is adding fuel to both sides, right now.
On the one hand, you have those who have seen privileged white men get away with crap, over and over and over again, and are sick of it. Who see Kavanaugh as yet another...and even worse, one that is rallying support from all the other privileged white boys (members of a Good Ol' Boys Club) who see nothing wrong with what happened and are whining and complaining because they can't get away with their crap any more.
On the other hand, you've got people who believe Kavanaugh is innocent, see this all as a political smear campaign, something that has tarnished him in the court of public opinion, and resent the notion that someone can make up a whole bunch of lies and destroy a good, solid man's life. Even worse, they are worried that if it succeeds this time it will open the door to even more accusations.
Before going too much further, I want to address that last sentence. See, I saw similar arguments on the left, regarding the many, many, MANY scandals/rumors etc about Hillary Clinton. Her supporters dismissed Republican accusations, and seemed to think she was a viable candidate (despite the baggage) in part because they believed anybody in her position would face the same sort of crap. That is, partisans are partisans, if they're out to get you they'll come up with something, and why would some unknown candidate (without baggage) be a better choice than someone they know and trust? (Which sort of makes sense, except that I believe Obama spent eight years in office without anywhere near the amount of scandals Bill Clinton had, so I don't think it's truly a case that 'any' candidate would face the same amount of crap. I have to admit I didn't want Hillary in office partly because I didn't want four to eight more years of that sort of political infighting. Not that I wanted Trump in office either, but that's a separate issue. Hillary's opponents really hated her, and would go after her to a degree that they wouldn't for someone else, and we'd have spent four to eight years of stupid political circuses distracting us from dealing with real issues - and instead we have a whole bunch of other political circuses going on, which is just plain depressing. Oh, and I am aware that Obama had his own share of problems (*cough* birth certificate conspiracy *cough* *cough*)...but most of his were, well...frankly so ridiculous that if you weren't already biased you wouldn't be buying into it. It was sort of like some of the picture/memes I saw about Michelle Obama. She always struck me as a rather classy first lady, so some of the ones complaining about her seemed more a reflection of the sharer's prejudices and biases than anything about Mrs. Obama.)
Anyways. Someone pointed out that Neil Gorsuch didn't face near the problems Kavanaugh has, and that makes me think this is an issue more particular to Kavanaugh than something that would face any nominee Trump puts forward. (And I'm not even getting into the whole political 'strategizing' on whether people are trying to delay nominations until after the mid-term elections, just as the Republicans delayed nominations until after the Presidential elections. The funny thing about political strategies is that whatever you use becomes fair game for your opponent to use, and if you're going to be playing those sorts of games you'd best be prepared to get it right back at you. Sort of like changing filibuster rules, and various other things one side or the other has proposed doing when it suits their purposes.)
So, let's ignore at least a little bit of the political fearmongering. Fearmongering that seems justified if you support Kavanaugh, and looks like yet another example of white male privilege being unable to handle life without their special status to those who don't.
I like the idea of an FBI investigation because it seems like the best way of getting a semi-unpolitical, unbiased look at the evidence. That is, our justice system (flawed as it is) gives us a systemic process for deciding who is guilty and who isn't. One that is better than mob justice, or 'they seem guilty to me' mindsets. So hey, at least that gives us an out that doesn't devolve into who you find more believable.
That's all just background thoughts/feelings...and I can throw a few more in there before getting to what truly triggered this post. I have my own biases and prejudices, you see. A friend on facebook was talking about some of the investigations she's dealt with regarding sexual harassment, and how many were not considered validated, and she took it as evidence that a lot of women make this stuff up and she supports Kavanaugh. I, on the other hand, remember my experiences with a friend of mine in Afghanistan. I remember her practically in tears, feeling stuck in a situation she didn't like, almost word for word everything they taught us about in prevention of sexual harassment training, and I encouraged her to use our processes to make a claim against our commander. I know the investigation said the allegations were unsubstantiated. That's all fine and dandy, the process went the way it did...
But I know how I read his body language, his interactions, and I sure as hell did not want to continue working for the guy. I know how strange his behavior towards my teammate was, and it was most definitely not what I'd have considered 'okay'. Those things, though, are friggin hard to explain to others. After all, who can say whether grabbing someone's wrist - an invasion of their personal space that, when you think about it, is actually pretty unusual. How often do you reach out and touch someone, if they're not family or a close friend, after all? And that's the first time, in real life, I've ever seen someone give what I'd honestly call a 'murderous look'.)
I don't really want to drag this into ancient history, suffice to say that there's a difference between being able to prove something in court and being convinced something happened. And I can acknowledge that there was no reason to fire him or otherwise penalize him, while still insisting that I did not want to work for him (and seriously, I'm in Afghanistan. Aren't I putting up with enough without adding a creepy, possible sexual harasser on top of that? Especially since the only reason I think he didn't try something with me is because I somehow come across as 'intimidating'...weird though it is to think so. Hooray for being an intimidating woman, I guess. Seems to have saved me from at least some of the grief women put up with on a regular basis.)
Anyways. I'm biased towards believing the accuser, and not really liking Kavanaugh, and he really does come off as a privileged white male who doesn't even see his privilege (like how he got into Yale by 'busting his tail' when his grandfather went there. Typical problems with male privilege - you can work your butt off, and earn something, but that doesn't mean you weren't still benefiting from privilege. Saying someone was privileged isn't saying that they didn't have to work for it, it's saying that they had advantages that allowed them access (especially when they work for it) even though someone else, someone who may be just as talented, just as smart, and just as much of a hard worker, doesn't.)
But I do like to read various opinions, and see if someone can persuade me to another side, and that's why I had to stop and think after reading this article. I do believe in the importance of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty. I don't really like the online mob mentality, and how someone can face an unbelievable amount of pressure just because the public thinks they know what justice is in a certain situation. So even though things like the Stanford rapist bother me, and I really didn't like the sentence, I am also quite uncomfortable with the widespread hatred the sentence invoked. It's so decentralized and defused that only the target has any idea how much vitriol they have to deal with, and who can weigh how much of it is enough to be considered justice, anyway? Courts have a process, they look for evidence, and they come up with a sentence that is supposed to be appropriate to the crime. There's a ton of issues with our system, but it's a system. And when someone sentenced by that system has finished their time (or paid their fines, or whatever the sentencing says) then that's supposed to be enough. They did their time, it's done and over with unless/until they show that they didn't learn anything and commit another crime. (That's also part of why our attitudes towards ex-felons are so problematic. The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to give you a path back, to reconcile with God after doing wrong. You honestly repent, do whatever penance is required, and God (and the public) forgives you. While the justice system is a civil institution, and not really the same, there's still supposed to be some way of showing you've finished your penance so you can move on. Prevent recidivism and all that.)
And there's another digression for you. So anyways, this article brought up some rather good points, I thought. Except I immediately found some counterpoints.
First - Kavanaugh is not on trial, and he's not going to go to jail. Unless someone is bringing charges to court, that is. So this is not exactly a legal battle... and although judiciary principles are important (that's how we're supposed to get past the political biases to find justice, see my previous comment about supporting an FBI investigation) the decision is really about whether or not he should be a Supreme Court justice.
So I think you can say 'no' to that without making any sort of presumption towards his guilt or innocence. It's a bit like how I can say "I don't know if that previous supervisor of mine was guilty or not, I am not asking that anyone say he's guilty or send him to jail. But I will not work for the man."
Innocent or guilty, can't we all agree that there are other potential candidates? Are we really so strapped for judicial nominees that he's the only one available? (If so, that's rather pathetic.)
Is not allowing him to be a Supreme Court justice truly 'punishment'? There are other potential candidates who've failed to get nominated, and everyone acknowledged it was just politics and not necessarily a 'punishment'.
The 'punishment' element seems more to do with that aforementioned internet mob mentality. I'm sure he and his family have already had some uncomfortable encounters with people who believe the worst of him, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. Especially so long as he's in the political limelight like this.
There is a part of me that does feel like...well...like it's a bit of self-centered whining when you compare the damage of dealing with the hatred of a few people, vs. the massive damage a woman undergoes when she's suffered a sexual assault. (Toughen up, privileged white boy! Grow a thicker skin. If you didn't really do what you were accused of then the ones who matter will know. And as for the rest of it, sticks and stones. Sticks and stones.) But we are social creatures, and the hatred of 'a few' people when you're talking about the internet and society at large can actually be quite...painful. It's not something I actually want to shrug off and say is acceptable.
Well, that and I guess it is a 'punishment' not to get a pretty awesome position. But whatever.
I have no idea what really happened. I'm inclined towards believing his accuser, and his overall behavior has struck me as all supporting the notion that he's a privileged prat who shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice...but I'm biased, and I admit that.
I'm disturbed by how everyone is taking it, and hope that an FBI investigation gives us a way out of this mess that (if not necessarily pleasing to anybody) will at least seem somewhat fair and impartial.
But I didn't feel I had anything new to add, so I mostly left it at that. I know my biases, you see. And I can see how this confirmation hearing is adding fuel to both sides, right now.
On the one hand, you have those who have seen privileged white men get away with crap, over and over and over again, and are sick of it. Who see Kavanaugh as yet another...and even worse, one that is rallying support from all the other privileged white boys (members of a Good Ol' Boys Club) who see nothing wrong with what happened and are whining and complaining because they can't get away with their crap any more.
On the other hand, you've got people who believe Kavanaugh is innocent, see this all as a political smear campaign, something that has tarnished him in the court of public opinion, and resent the notion that someone can make up a whole bunch of lies and destroy a good, solid man's life. Even worse, they are worried that if it succeeds this time it will open the door to even more accusations.
Before going too much further, I want to address that last sentence. See, I saw similar arguments on the left, regarding the many, many, MANY scandals/rumors etc about Hillary Clinton. Her supporters dismissed Republican accusations, and seemed to think she was a viable candidate (despite the baggage) in part because they believed anybody in her position would face the same sort of crap. That is, partisans are partisans, if they're out to get you they'll come up with something, and why would some unknown candidate (without baggage) be a better choice than someone they know and trust? (Which sort of makes sense, except that I believe Obama spent eight years in office without anywhere near the amount of scandals Bill Clinton had, so I don't think it's truly a case that 'any' candidate would face the same amount of crap. I have to admit I didn't want Hillary in office partly because I didn't want four to eight more years of that sort of political infighting. Not that I wanted Trump in office either, but that's a separate issue. Hillary's opponents really hated her, and would go after her to a degree that they wouldn't for someone else, and we'd have spent four to eight years of stupid political circuses distracting us from dealing with real issues - and instead we have a whole bunch of other political circuses going on, which is just plain depressing. Oh, and I am aware that Obama had his own share of problems (*cough* birth certificate conspiracy *cough* *cough*)...but most of his were, well...frankly so ridiculous that if you weren't already biased you wouldn't be buying into it. It was sort of like some of the picture/memes I saw about Michelle Obama. She always struck me as a rather classy first lady, so some of the ones complaining about her seemed more a reflection of the sharer's prejudices and biases than anything about Mrs. Obama.)
Anyways. Someone pointed out that Neil Gorsuch didn't face near the problems Kavanaugh has, and that makes me think this is an issue more particular to Kavanaugh than something that would face any nominee Trump puts forward. (And I'm not even getting into the whole political 'strategizing' on whether people are trying to delay nominations until after the mid-term elections, just as the Republicans delayed nominations until after the Presidential elections. The funny thing about political strategies is that whatever you use becomes fair game for your opponent to use, and if you're going to be playing those sorts of games you'd best be prepared to get it right back at you. Sort of like changing filibuster rules, and various other things one side or the other has proposed doing when it suits their purposes.)
So, let's ignore at least a little bit of the political fearmongering. Fearmongering that seems justified if you support Kavanaugh, and looks like yet another example of white male privilege being unable to handle life without their special status to those who don't.
I like the idea of an FBI investigation because it seems like the best way of getting a semi-unpolitical, unbiased look at the evidence. That is, our justice system (flawed as it is) gives us a systemic process for deciding who is guilty and who isn't. One that is better than mob justice, or 'they seem guilty to me' mindsets. So hey, at least that gives us an out that doesn't devolve into who you find more believable.
That's all just background thoughts/feelings...and I can throw a few more in there before getting to what truly triggered this post. I have my own biases and prejudices, you see. A friend on facebook was talking about some of the investigations she's dealt with regarding sexual harassment, and how many were not considered validated, and she took it as evidence that a lot of women make this stuff up and she supports Kavanaugh. I, on the other hand, remember my experiences with a friend of mine in Afghanistan. I remember her practically in tears, feeling stuck in a situation she didn't like, almost word for word everything they taught us about in prevention of sexual harassment training, and I encouraged her to use our processes to make a claim against our commander. I know the investigation said the allegations were unsubstantiated. That's all fine and dandy, the process went the way it did...
But I know how I read his body language, his interactions, and I sure as hell did not want to continue working for the guy. I know how strange his behavior towards my teammate was, and it was most definitely not what I'd have considered 'okay'. Those things, though, are friggin hard to explain to others. After all, who can say whether grabbing someone's wrist - an invasion of their personal space that, when you think about it, is actually pretty unusual. How often do you reach out and touch someone, if they're not family or a close friend, after all? And that's the first time, in real life, I've ever seen someone give what I'd honestly call a 'murderous look'.)
I don't really want to drag this into ancient history, suffice to say that there's a difference between being able to prove something in court and being convinced something happened. And I can acknowledge that there was no reason to fire him or otherwise penalize him, while still insisting that I did not want to work for him (and seriously, I'm in Afghanistan. Aren't I putting up with enough without adding a creepy, possible sexual harasser on top of that? Especially since the only reason I think he didn't try something with me is because I somehow come across as 'intimidating'...weird though it is to think so. Hooray for being an intimidating woman, I guess. Seems to have saved me from at least some of the grief women put up with on a regular basis.)
Anyways. I'm biased towards believing the accuser, and not really liking Kavanaugh, and he really does come off as a privileged white male who doesn't even see his privilege (like how he got into Yale by 'busting his tail' when his grandfather went there. Typical problems with male privilege - you can work your butt off, and earn something, but that doesn't mean you weren't still benefiting from privilege. Saying someone was privileged isn't saying that they didn't have to work for it, it's saying that they had advantages that allowed them access (especially when they work for it) even though someone else, someone who may be just as talented, just as smart, and just as much of a hard worker, doesn't.)
But I do like to read various opinions, and see if someone can persuade me to another side, and that's why I had to stop and think after reading this article. I do believe in the importance of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty. I don't really like the online mob mentality, and how someone can face an unbelievable amount of pressure just because the public thinks they know what justice is in a certain situation. So even though things like the Stanford rapist bother me, and I really didn't like the sentence, I am also quite uncomfortable with the widespread hatred the sentence invoked. It's so decentralized and defused that only the target has any idea how much vitriol they have to deal with, and who can weigh how much of it is enough to be considered justice, anyway? Courts have a process, they look for evidence, and they come up with a sentence that is supposed to be appropriate to the crime. There's a ton of issues with our system, but it's a system. And when someone sentenced by that system has finished their time (or paid their fines, or whatever the sentencing says) then that's supposed to be enough. They did their time, it's done and over with unless/until they show that they didn't learn anything and commit another crime. (That's also part of why our attitudes towards ex-felons are so problematic. The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to give you a path back, to reconcile with God after doing wrong. You honestly repent, do whatever penance is required, and God (and the public) forgives you. While the justice system is a civil institution, and not really the same, there's still supposed to be some way of showing you've finished your penance so you can move on. Prevent recidivism and all that.)
And there's another digression for you. So anyways, this article brought up some rather good points, I thought. Except I immediately found some counterpoints.
First - Kavanaugh is not on trial, and he's not going to go to jail. Unless someone is bringing charges to court, that is. So this is not exactly a legal battle... and although judiciary principles are important (that's how we're supposed to get past the political biases to find justice, see my previous comment about supporting an FBI investigation) the decision is really about whether or not he should be a Supreme Court justice.
So I think you can say 'no' to that without making any sort of presumption towards his guilt or innocence. It's a bit like how I can say "I don't know if that previous supervisor of mine was guilty or not, I am not asking that anyone say he's guilty or send him to jail. But I will not work for the man."
Innocent or guilty, can't we all agree that there are other potential candidates? Are we really so strapped for judicial nominees that he's the only one available? (If so, that's rather pathetic.)
Is not allowing him to be a Supreme Court justice truly 'punishment'? There are other potential candidates who've failed to get nominated, and everyone acknowledged it was just politics and not necessarily a 'punishment'.
The 'punishment' element seems more to do with that aforementioned internet mob mentality. I'm sure he and his family have already had some uncomfortable encounters with people who believe the worst of him, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. Especially so long as he's in the political limelight like this.
There is a part of me that does feel like...well...like it's a bit of self-centered whining when you compare the damage of dealing with the hatred of a few people, vs. the massive damage a woman undergoes when she's suffered a sexual assault. (Toughen up, privileged white boy! Grow a thicker skin. If you didn't really do what you were accused of then the ones who matter will know. And as for the rest of it, sticks and stones. Sticks and stones.) But we are social creatures, and the hatred of 'a few' people when you're talking about the internet and society at large can actually be quite...painful. It's not something I actually want to shrug off and say is acceptable.
Well, that and I guess it is a 'punishment' not to get a pretty awesome position. But whatever.
I have no idea what really happened. I'm inclined towards believing his accuser, and his overall behavior has struck me as all supporting the notion that he's a privileged prat who shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice...but I'm biased, and I admit that.
I'm disturbed by how everyone is taking it, and hope that an FBI investigation gives us a way out of this mess that (if not necessarily pleasing to anybody) will at least seem somewhat fair and impartial.
No comments:
Post a Comment