A Logical Look at the Kavanaugh Case

It is almost impossible to be objective about the Kavanaugh situation because of the intense partisanship passions it evokes.  I will confess outright that I am against Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court because I worry that it will secure a conservative majority for much too long a period of time.  However, I have tried to view the current issue through a lens of objectivity to try to understand what is the most likely version of the truth.

I do believe there is a way to logically evaluate the validity of the claims against Kavanaugh for sexual assault and come to certain conclusions.  Whether those conclusions disqualify Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is a question that must then be evaluated

It is simply illogical to believe that Dr. Ford has somehow fabricated her story.  There are multiple reasons why this does not make sense. 

1. What woman would subject herself to the slander, denigration and possible danger that are absolute certain ramifications of her testimony unless she believed the story to be true
2. She related the story to multiple people long before Brett Kavanaugh was nominated (this is clearly the most powerful of the reasons and makes it essentially certain that some form of this event happened).
3. Her background does not indicate anything that would prompt her to lie or claim the spotlight under such potentially disastrous circumstances for herself and her family.
4. There is enough anecdotal evidence of drunken and nasty behavior in Kavanaugh’s background to imply that he was capable of doing something similar.

If it is reasonable to believe that she is being honest and telling the truth as she remembers it, then that means that one of two things is possible:

1. Brett Kavanaugh was so drunk that he doesn’t remember the event.
2.  Brett Kavanaugh remembers the event and is lying.

Had Brett Kavanaugh said that he remembered the event and either made heartfelt apologies or questioned the details, then he would certainly have been pilloried by many, but at least he would be able to potentially claim that a youthful, drunken mistake should not stand in the way of his nomination.

But he did not acknowledge the event as having occurred, so now we must believe that either Kavanaugh was so drunk that night that he cannot remember what he did or we must come to the conclusion that he is lying.

For someone of Kavanaugh’s distinguished reputation, it is very difficult to admit a tragic flaw or a horrible mistake in the past.  One sees this again and again – pride goeth before a fall.  The calculus for Kavanaugh is the following:

1. Admit the mistake, apologize profusely and question the details at the same time, hoping that the nomination will not be withdrawn.
2. Lie and double down on the denial, rallying the troops to make the issue more of a partisan battle than a question of character.

My guess is that Kavanaugh is lying, though we may never know.  It is a common thing for powerful men to lie when up against a wall and faced with the first whiff of humiliation in a long and storied career.  And furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Kavanaugh was so drunk that he could not remember what happened.  It would be interesting to hear scientific research on how likely that kind of memory loss would be.

So then, faced with two rather unsettling alternatives for Brett Kavanaugh’s actions, what should the Senate do?  In my opinion, he is now tainted, and another candidate should be found.  And I say this knowing that Trump will simply nominate another conservative candidate and that ultimately a conservative will be on the bench.

But if a conservative judge must be appointed, then I would rather have a conservative who never assaulted a woman, even when drunk, and who does not hold his reputation in such high esteem that he will brazenly lie to protect it.

Thoughts on the NFL Protests and Patriotism

The NFL season has begun, and with it, the culture war over protests around the Black Lives Matter movement by players during the playing of the national anthem.  The protests have sparked an ever-escalating outrage from some quarters, and encouragement from others. 

Donald Trump, the super-patriotic bone spur veteran, has tweeted his indignation at the disrespect that these protests indicate for the military sacrifices of our soldiers.  He has put increasing pressure on the NFL to mete out punishments.  There is also a grass roots effort to rally fans for a boycott on the 11^th of November to punish the league monetarily for this movement and encourage it to clamp down more vigorously.

On the other side of the issue, Nike has presented Colin Kaepernick, the super-bowl winning quarterback who launched the protests, as the centerpiece of their anniversary celebration of the ‘Just Do It’ ad campaign, and is standing behind the protests.  The issue has become one of the myriad polarizing issues between liberals and conservatives and generates great passion on both sides.

There can be reasonable differences in opinion about how society should address the problem of police shootings, racial profiling and police treatment of people of color.  But there is no justification in the USA, a nation that should be the world paragon for freedom of speech, for the point of view that seeks to prevent NFL players from expressing their concerns.

The primary argument against the protests is that the players are somehow showing a lack of respect for the military and the sacrifices of service members killed or wounded in our various conflicts.  This is simply specious reasoning.  The players are not targeting the military and if you ask any of the protesters they will say that they have full respect for all who have served in the military.  Indeed, military veterans who reason thoughtfully about this issue would be proud that they have served or fought for a nation that gives its citizens the right to express their views about how it could be made better, and would perceive the protests as a validation of their sacrifice.

There is a corollary anger about the protests that seems to target the wealth and lifestyle of the players as indicative of hypocrisy in their actions.  The fact is that these players are beneficiaries of unique economic and celebrity status due to their athletic abilities.  Like so many of the super wealthy or famous, this gives them a platform to make their beliefs and opinions known to a larger audience.  

There is a long history of famous people speaking out about issues close to their hearts and there is no reason these players cannot become socially active in a similar manner.  Their choice of taking a knee during the national anthem may be offensive to some who see the national anthem and other patriotic expressions as some sort of sacred duty that is inviolable, but isn’t it actually the highest form of patriotism to stimulate a discussion about a national problem and seek an improvement in our society?

Symbols like the flag and the national anthem may be used to express one’s affection for the country and its qualities.  But creating a quasi-religious mystique around these symbols creates an obstacle to honest appraisal of our country’s good and bad points.  It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and we must be careful not to use patriotism to delude ourselves into naïve fantasies about our country and ignore the many challenges that it faces.

Patriotism is not a blind commitment to one’s country or any of its symbols, but rather a continuing effort to support and nurture the principles that have contributed to making the country a good place to live and work.  Solving a country’s problems is messy, complicated work, but ignoring the problems is a big mistake and discouraging sincere dissent and protest will only lead to a hollow patriotism that does no good at all.