Kavanaugh's Guilt

As an empiricist, I disapprove of jumping to conclusions, or judging someone without sufficient evidence.

At the judicial nomination hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, we got it. I will lay out my reasons for you, and then I think you'll agree that we have enough to prove without a reasonable doubt that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault, and attempted rape, against Christine Blasey Ford. Yes, everybody else is talking about this too, but I don't put something up on this blog unless it's something that I know nobody else is saying, and yet needs desperately to be said.

Christine Ford gave compelling testimony yesterday. She was terrified, and told a harrowing story of a sexual attack in her teenage years which left her convinced at the time that her life was in jeopardy. It's clear to me that she was assaulted, and the trauma it left on her life is well documented over the course of many years. She is a legitimate victim.

Now let's deal with the objections:

Could she be paid off to give damaging testimony? If so, that would have to be one whopper of a payout! For her to go through the kind of fish-bowl and death-threat nightmare that has been her life over the last two weeks? I don't know about you, but it would take at least several million to persuade me to go through something like that. But that much money leaves a green paper-trail, and Republicans have failed to produce one. With no evidence of a payout, the argument that she's being paid is worthless. And the testimony she gave is hardly concocted. No amount of payoff can go back in time years ago and make appointments with trauma therapists and tearful confessions to husbands. She WAS attacked!

The question is, by whom?

Brett Kavanaugh is the man Christine Ford directly names as the failed rapist. So the only defense Kavanaugh has to establish his innocence is, logically, to show that her attacker is actually someone else. Could this be a case of mistaken identity?

From the outset, I find this to be a stretch. Even with a classmate who looks similar, time spent in school familiarizes all classmates with those subtle differences in appearance, sound of voice, tallness, stoutness, hairstyle, freckles... We can all think of two of our own high school classmates who looked remarkably alike, and none of us would be fooled if we'd seen one of the two did something wild at a party. Add to this the memory-deepening aspect of trauma, where fear for one's life sears the event deeply into one's psyche so that it's impossible to forget the face that got right up in yours, the feel of the hand that covered your mouth, the subtleties like shape of nose, deepness of pores, smell of breath, etc. So no, mistaken identity does not seem like a credible hypothesis. And after the event, Brett and Christine would have occasionally seen each other in the hallways, in front of their lockers, between classes or even in class, and the occasional look, glance, or even simply not speaking to each other would confirm completely who the person was on that given night, drunk or not. No, Christine knows damned well it was Kavanaugh.

But let's shake this tree for all it's worth, shall we? Let's take the wildest conspiracy theory the ultra-Right-wingnuts can throw at us. The best of them is one put forth by Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center - a conservative think tank. Whelan claimed in a series of Tweets (now withdrawn) that Brett Kavanaugh and another classmate named Chris Garrett look remarkably alike, and that it was Garrett who likely hosted the party in question and probably attacked Christine Blasey Ford. Hey, I'm not afraid to show the images. Here are the high school photos of Kavanaugh and Garrett:

They look alike at first, until you look at them for a while and realize that they aren't so similar once you get to really know the faces. Add to that the 4 years or more spent around these two in high school and/or even junior high school to boot, and you know that there can be no mistaking one for the other, even with alcohol involved, especially given ultra-close face-to-face proximity.

Ed Whelan's wild hypothesis may have cost him his career, according to Politico. He has taken a "leave of absence" for posting this wild conspiracy theory which may have implicated an innocent man, namely Chris Garrett. Although he pulled up short of outright claiming that Garrett was the culprit, it was still an inexcusable publicity stunt, unworthy of any lawyer, and even if the EPPC doesn't fire him, he's likely to be disbarred.

That hasn't kept the ultra-Right from seizing this story and running with it. This particular conspiracy theory is currently being kept alive on a blog called the Gateway Pundit, whose tagline is: "We report the truth - and leave the Russian-collusion fairy tale to the Conspiracy media."

Um - yeah.

What really buries this is Kavanaugh himself. When asked if he would want the FBI to investigate this matter, he repeatedly dodged, and it was clear that the answer was no. He doesn't want the FBI to investigate. Were he innocent, and Garrett the actual culprit, the FBI would quickly establish this and exonerate Kavanaugh! Why in hell would he not want this? The answer should be obvious.

Lastly, there's Kavanaugh's testimony itself. His reaction was hot-headed, irrational, and belligerent. He said this was a revenge-play against President Trump, as if it weren't obvious that Samuel Alito never went through this particular ringer. At BEST, he is a man who can't keep his cool under fire and loses his temper in the spotlight. At worst (and I find this far more likely), he's trying to over-compensate with a Trump-like fire-and-brimstone response that plays to the base of the ultra-Right. Someone probably coached Kavanaugh to come out swinging like Clarence Thomas did after the testimony of Anita Hill. The difference this time is that Kavanaugh does not have (yes, I'll say it) the benefit of being black. Thus, his belligerence comes off as the desperation of a cornered bully instead of the protests of an innocent man.

Methinks the man doth protest too much.

During a tearful moment in which he described saying prayers with his 10 year-old daughter, he talked of his daughter saying, "We should pray for the woman," meaning Ford. Kavanaugh choked up when he said, "That's a lot of wisdom from a ten-year-old."

Yes it is! Because the look on his face when he told that story is what poker players would call a "tell!" It's a look I've seen on sexual predators before. (Don't ask me how I know, it's painful.) Kavanaugh was not solely choked up with paternal pride in a compassionate daughter. He was also emotionally overcome with the knowledge that, at some level, his daughter knows. Or will.

He did it, the fucking bastard!

No, that's not scientific. Yes, it's a subtlety that I'm basing a final judgment on. But it's the last reason I have after all the other evidence I've cited above has been weighed. The last nail in the coffin may be rusty, but so what?

The real issue is, therefore, not that he did it, but that he perjured the living hell out of himself afterward! He shat where he eats, and then dared to blame the Democrats for the stink at his meal! This disqualifies the son-of-a-bitch from sitting in judgment over a game show panel, much less the Supreme Court! I remember when perjuring was enough to get an impeachment vote on President Bill Clinton. Now, apparently, it's not enough to block one judge.

After this, if we can't even get two Republicans to abandon this asshole and vote him down, we deserve to lose our nation.

Eric

*

Goodbye NFL

This is my announcement to the world, and to the NFL in particular:

I’m done with you.

Apparently, there’s a new rule that takes away a defensive player’s ability to do a clean hit on a quarterback. This robs the game of an essential element necessary to the suspense and combative nature of the game, and threatens to make the NFL into nothing more than a game of pitch-and-catch, where the game is no longer determined by the players’ abilities, but by the whims of the referees. No longer does a quarterback have to be naturally good at feeling pressure and escaping the pocket. Now, any accurate passer gets to be Aaron Rodgers, because the defensive line doesn’t get to play.

For me, that’s the last straw.

No, it’s not just seeing Clay Matthews make an outstanding play for which he gets flagged, although that’s a big part of it. The referees and owners have been ruining the game for quite some time, now. We tried to take it back somewhat, with things like instant replay and play-challenges taking the bad-call element away from the game, just a bit. But in the end, too many cooks spoiled the damned broth. Again.

And it’s the fans, too. It’s hard enough watching them dump their American flags, handed out to them on Veterans’ Day, on the dirty floors of the stands. It’s even harder to watch those two-faced fans bitch about Colin Kaepernick, as if he’d committed a worse sin than dehumanizing the athletes who literally sacrifice their bodies for their amusement. Fuck you redneck assholes.

It wasn’t enough that we have to be bombarded with ads regularly throughout, and even during, the game. It wasn’t enough that we had to endure constant pass interference calls on the innocent, and non-calls on the guilty. Now we have to watch the talented be handcuffed by new rules so that the less-talented can pretend to be a better quarterback.

Brett Favre, for all his problems, paid for his glory in hard-hits. So did Aaron Rodgers. All that sacrifice is worth shit now.

These hired mercenaries, paid millions to represent us in a pseudo-warfare of arbitrary municipal tribes, are paid to battle for our entertainment. We get to pretend that “we won!” if they win, as if we somehow did any of the work. Now, they’re required to practically play with NERF. What next? Boxing without punches?

I’m done. Fuck your hyper-commercialized shit-show. Fuck your Bud-vs.-Miller crap. Fuck your gas-guzzling trucks. Fuck your silly segues that try to insert your product into anything football-related. And fuck that damned Fox Sports robot that perpetuates the racist idea that these mostly black and all-too-human athletes are little more than performing androids!

I’m taking back three hours of my life every Sunday.

And poor Clay Matthews! He built a career on making exactly the sort of hits that they’ve now outlawed in the NFL. He can’t do what he’s been doing his whole life. He isn’t allowed to be good at his job anymore. Hell, he can’t even DO his job anymore. And he’s not alone in the League. Now he has to re-train his entire body, late in his career, to do something other than what he’s best at? Fuuuuuck that!

I can quit for free. Clay Matthews can’t. But even so, if I were him, I’d seriously consider retiring in protest. Hell, if Barry Sanders can do it at the top of his game, why not Clay?

Oh, I’ll still hope for the Packers to win. I’ll probably even attend more games at Lambeau. (One of the benefits of marrying the granddaughter of a former State Senator is getting the occasional Lambeau ticket.) But will I watch any more games on television? No. Will I be emotionally invested? Hell, no! I’m done.

Go Pack. May you win without me.

Meanwhile, I’m taking up watching more soccer. Madison has a new team. Minnesota United gives me a Midwest team to root for in MLS. The Milwaukee Wave is still the best deal in town. And there are plenty of teams to root for in Germany and the U.K. that don’t waste any of my time with nonsense ads which insult my intelligence.

No, my becoming a non-fan will not, by itself, bring down the NFL Empire. But at least I have the satisfaction of not taking it lying down.

And I’ll bet I won’t be alone.


Eric

*

The Rule Of Three

You don’t know what the “Rule of Three” is. I know, because I invented it, and I’m only just now about to tell you. Economists around the world may have another name for it, for all I know, but this is my name for it, and whatever its official name is, it’s a concept you need to know.

 
The Rule of Three pertains to the number of years it takes for any president’s economic policy to take effect. Got that?

Repeat after me: Three years. Roughly three years before any president’s economic policy is felt on the economy.

It’s a general rule, but one I’ve seen over and over again. Sometimes economic policy can have an immediate effect, such as Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package of 2009. That had a positive, if short-lived, effect. Or Donald Trump’s increased tariffs, which have had a negative impact on everyone except the steel industry. But even steel workers have not yet seen those increased profits become higher wages yet, so they’re about to go on strike – with Republican union-busters stacked in the House, Senate and White House. So that’s a negative impact on everybody.

But in general, three years is usually how long it takes. Jimmy Carter responded to, and fixed, the inflation crisis during the last two years of his presidency. The effect was felt in Reagan’s first year. Reagan took credit. The public, who didn’t know about the Rule of Three, lionized Reagan.

Clinton got credit for his economic policies, mostly because eight years made absolutely certain that nobody else could get credit.

What about Bush Jr.? His tax cuts and deregulation of the banks led to the housing bubble forming around 2005, roughly three years after implemented. But banks are crafty. They kept the bubble inflated long after it should have burst. Loans upon loans floated the bubble from 2005 well into 2006. Then Alan Greenspan orchestrated a number of privately-funded bailouts of banks in peril in ’06 and ’07, all the while preaching that the private industry needed no regulation. The fact that he implemented the regulation he said he didn’t need is one of the true ironies of history.

Obama’s policies halted the downward spiral in 2009, but a second planned economic stimulus was thwarted by Republicans after 2010. They knew about the Rule of Three, and reasoned, correctly, that if the economy took a downward turn by 2012, they could retake the White House. Throwing the entire public under the bus didn’t matter to them. But because the public wasn’t paying attention (like always), Republicans didn’t take any blame for deliberately slowing down the economy. The economy recovered, albeit slowly, mostly because the stalemate between Obama and Congress kept anything at all from happening, good or bad. By 2012, the sputtering economy had improved enough for Obama to win re-election, despite Republican efforts to ruin it.

Back to Trump: He is now implementing the worst economic policy in living memory, and this comes from economists on both sides of the political aisle. But the economy is still strong. Why? Again, the Rule of Three.

If you’re a farmer, or a Harley Davidson worker, or a GM employee, you’re feeling the pinch already. But if not, the rest of you will feel it later.

There’s an economic storm coming.

Will it hit by 2020? The Tariffs are causing problems already, but economists have differing opinions as to whether Trumponomics will hit most pocketbooks by then. I don’t wish hardship upon anyone. But Trump is bringing the hardship. It will hit anyway, so he might as well be the one to take the legitimate blame. But if the good economy he inherited from Obama remains resilient, in spite of his pulling the wires out of the controls and throwing sand into the gears, he might not get the blame until 2021, when it’s too late.

On the other hand, maybe if more people know about the Rule of Three, they will realize that Trump’s bad economic policies need to get voted out long before 2021.

 

 

Eric

 

*