My Thoughts On The Brett Kavanaugh Situation

Hey guys, I know I haven't written in a while. Life, you know.

Anyway, I want to talk about what's on my mind right now and what's probably on your minds too: Brett Kavanaugh. Specifically, the sexual assault allegations. Of course, I could also talk about my strong disagreements with Kavanaugh, and my fears that he could vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and marriage equality, vote against gun control, against unions, and we could pretty much kiss goodbye any chances of overturning Citizens United. But you know all that. I want now to specifically address the rape allegations. Specifically, two questions:

1) Did the rape happen?

Well, we can't know for sure, at least not yet. But my gut says yes. First of all, Christine Basely Ford talked about the rape in documented notes to her therapist, (though she did explicitly say Kavanaugh's name), as far back as 2012. Also, word just broke that a couple of Yale law professors advised their female students to jazz up their looks when they applied to work for Kavanaugh, saying that Kavanaugh "likes a certain look." This doesn't look good. 

Secondly, and this is what leaders of the #MeToo movement have been screaming for ages, victims have nothing to gain by making allegations up. When people like Ford come forward, they are scrutinized heavily by lawmakers, the media, and the public. Often times, they are threatened and harassed. Ford has already received death threats. People sometimes say that women like her just come forward for attention and fame, but how many accusers do you know that got long term fame and careers from coming forward? I can't think of any. Yet how many accused predators in politics, Hollywood, journalism, and business still work today? I'm sure you've already thought of one.

Also, to anyone who tries to discredit Ford by pointing out her foggy memory or supposed gaps in her story, know that trauma effects memory, and memory only gets more hazy over time.

2) Is it fair to condemn a man in his 50s for what he did at age 17?

This is a fair question. And I admit, it was the first thing that came to my mind when I first heard the allegations. But these two articles touch on this point well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/me-too/570520/

http://www.notsorryfeminism.com/2018/09/now-heres-trump-jr-being-absolute-cockwaffle.html

Both of these authors rightly point out that if Kavanaugh is indeed guilty, he has never dealt with what he did. Kavanaugh has never even admitted that he did it, let alone apologized for it, let alone done anything to make amends, let alone been held accountable for his actions in any way. While I firmly believe in redemption, especially from wrongs you committed in your youth, you must own up to what you did before you can be forgiven. If Kavanaugh did indeed rape Ford, he has never fessed up, therefore he remains unredeemed. I, and many others, have strong reservations about confirming an unredeemed rapist to the supreme court.

In addition, as we've seen time and time again with these men, it's rarely just once. Don't be surprised if more stories about Kavanaugh come out later on.

So, what should we do? Well, the obvious next step is for Christine Basely Ford to testify on Capitol Hill under oath. Then we take it from there. Which way will the evidence point? Will Kavanaugh be confirmed? Only time will tell. But we must take this seriously. In this era of countless predators exposed, shoving allegations under the rug is not an option.

-Jack

I Don't Care If Trump Was A Draft Dodger

You saw the headline, and it's true.

I first thought of this when hearing tributes to John McCain, saying that McCain was a real hero while Trump was a draft dodger. Is that true? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't care. Why?

I would have been a draft dodger too had I been around when the draft was around. And I wouldn't feel bad about it. The draft was unjust. Period. Forcing people to kill and die against their will, sometimes for completely pointless causes that they don't agree with, (Vietnam), is evil. I admire anyone who avoided a war they opposed and were forced to fight. The amount of American kids sent off to die in foreign lands without any say in the matter is a stain on America's conscience; I even consider it on the same level as America's most recognized sins, (slavery, trail of tears, Jim Crow, etc). And condemning someone for not blindly supporting the flag and the military is jingoism, which us libs are supposed to be against. You cannot support #takeaknee in the NFL and condemn draft dodgers at the same time.

So please, let us not get so caught up insulting Trump that we lose sight of our own traditional values. There are many reasonable insults to Trump better than "draft dodger." Let's use them.

-Jack

Okay, Trump's Looking Pretty Suspicious Now

Michael Cohen pleads guilty? Hush payments? Paul Manafort? Yeah, this doesn't look good. I still don't know what all will come of the Mueller investigation, but conservatives who cry "fake news" at the corruption accusations are really fooling themselves at this point.

Another Immigration Post - Why Prosecute?

Hey all, another tidbit on the immigration issue. Why do we have to prosecute illegal entires? If we have to send them home, then send them home. Deport them if we must. But why prosecute? If the point is that they are in the country illegally, then we can easily solve the problem by deporting them. Then we wouldn't have to deal with the issues of detention and family separations.

If anyone can tell me why prosecution is necessary, please do so.

Abolishing ICE Is Radical?

Hey guys, so lately I've heard a few folks on the news refer some Democrats' call to abolish ICE as a radical position? Really? You do realize that ICE has only been around since 2003, right? We've dealt with various immigration issues for a lot longer than that. So how is abolishing a recently created agency, "radical?"

If you want to keep ICE, fine. I could see either reforming or abolishing it. I've said before that I don't think abolishing ICE is a winning position for elections, and I think we can make it more humane. That being said, I would never say that we need an organization that's only been around since 2003. So why is abolishing ICE radical? Please explain.

An Idea For Welfare

Hello Hello,

So in my last post I mentioned the issue of welfare, and conservatives' distrust for it. According to them, welfare is a waste of taxpayer money that keeps the poor dependent, giving them fish rather than teaching them to fish, as the saying goes. I've never been convinced of this. The right seems to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence when painting its picture of people coasting on welfare for years, "leeching off the system." However, let's say that they're right.

Well, I have an idea to combat this problem, that would also help the poor get back on their feet. If you're on any means-tested program, and then you make enough money that you're no longer eligible for it, you get to keep your benefits for a while. Maybe for the first three months you get the full amount, and then you get weaned off for the rest of the year. Maybe less. I can't give an exact number, leave that to the real policy wonks! All I can say is that allowing the poor to keep their benefits while they move up the economic ladder is a great way to help them up. Cutting off their benefits cold turkey is harder for them to adjust to. And it also gives them an incentive to improve their situation: new income to supplement their already existing benefits. Conservatives say that the welfare state disincentivizes work? Well, no more. Of course, conservatives still may complain that allowing recipients to keep their benefits for longer is expensive. However, could this proposal drop the amount of poor and needy people by so much as to make it more cost effective for the taxpayer? I won't say for sure, but I somehow have a hunch.

Hell, I'm not even the first person to come up with this idea. I don't remember where, but I've heard it around. It may have even been proposed in Congress. If not, then it damn well should be. You agree? Then write to your representatives and make it so!

-Jack

All The Worst U.S. Cities Are Run By Democrats

Yeah, and? What does that prove? I could easily turn this around and say that all of the poorest states have Republican governors. Furthermore, all of the best, most booming, prosperous cities seem to have Democratic mayors as well. Look around the country and you'll see that nearly every city, good and bad, has a Democratic mayor. States, on the other hand, increasingly have GOP governors, with Red-leaning state legislatures as well. Just the way it is.

So instead, let's talk about policy. Tell me exactly what Democratic policies are keeping some cities, (keyword here is some, as almost all cities have Democratic mayors), in ruins. And don't just rush to your favorite inner city talking point that welfare traps people in dependency. Regardless of if that's true, (subject for another blog post, maybe), I'd like to remind you that welfare and entitlement programs are run at the federal and state level. Cities play little to no role in such policy. So that really isn't relevant here.

So please, come at me with policies that the Democrats do to certain, (again, only certain) cities that harm those cities. Because I rarely hear people who make this charge offer specifics.