A Simple Parable

Here's a simple parable:

A man is running for the city council in a small town. He has led a good and productive life. Until he decided to run for the council, he was praised by many people for his work, his temperament, and his competence.

But over the years, he sometimes took positions that angered his political opposition, a group of citizens who have become increasingly vocal in demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. In recent months, the group of citizens have become agitated because the man will very likely be elected to the council. One night, the man is walking down a street and a group of the opposing citizens see him.

One of the woman in the group tells the others that long ago the man once tried to rape her friend.

"Is that true?" asks one of the more measured people in the group. "Is there any evidence?"

"We don't need evidence!" the woman responds angrily. I believe my friend."

The hotheads in the group fly into a frenzy. They decide that enough is enough.

They approach the man and angrily accuse him of rape. Taken aback, the man responds that he did nothing of the kind. But the hotheads persist and slowly the situation escalates—first into heated accusations and then threats. The man tries to be calm, until a punch is thrown, then a kick, then a mob attack. The man fights back, punching and kicking the cowards in the mob. It's a standoff, and the mob retreats.

The next morning one of the mob appears on the local TV station.

"You know," she says, "last night we had a conversation with the man and he responded with violence."

"Violence!" exclaims the TV reporter. "Doesn't that disqualify him from public service?"

"Yes," says the member of the mob, as she nods sagely.

The bullies that use the protection of a mob to attack others don't like it one bit when the person who is attached fights back. They like it even less when their 'victim' lands punches and make them look like the bullies they are. So ... they accuse the victim of their attack of acting poorly, of not having "the temperament" to do whatever it is that they don't want the victim to do in the first place. Hypocrisy on steroids.

UPDATE-1:
---------------
After he decided to press for yet another "FBI investigation" of Kavanaugh before the Senate vote, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was praised by some Dems and their trained hamsters in the media as the exemplification of bipartisan action.

After the cesspool we all experienced last week, former GOP speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, asks where the bipartisan Democrats are:

The real question is: Are there any Democrats who are disgusted by this process of dishonest character assassination and manipulation? Are any upset that this is becoming their party’s operating pattern?

Are there any Democrats whose sense of decency forces them to vote “yes” for a decent man and brilliant jurist, whose entire public career has exemplified honesty, sincerity and patriotism?

Are there any Democrats who understand that a 36-year-old, unsupported allegation can’t possibly be the standard for blocking a U.S. Supreme Court nominee?

If no Democrat has the courage to vote for decency, honesty and a sense of fairness, then we are truly in deep trouble as a country.

The focus for the next few days ought to be on the Democrats.

Indeed, it should.

UPDATE-2:
---------------

Just when you think the cesspool couldn't get any deeper, the Democrats decide it isn't deep enough. Their current meme—that Judge Kavanaugh "doesn't have the judicial sentiment"—after defending himself from their vicious and repugnant politics of personal destruction increased a stink that will last for years. The Wall Street Journal comments on the Democrats' latest meme:

“His declaration was the product of his personal anger, to be sure, and the move of a nominee whose professional and personal fate was on the line. But the result—of his rhetoric and the overall tenor of the nomination—means he could forever be marked as a politician on the bench rather than a neutral jurist,” Ms. Biskupic [a CNN talking head and Democrat apologist] added.

The “overall tenor of the nomination?” Seriously? Who does the high-minded Ms. Biskupic think lowered the tone?

Mr. Kavanaugh didn’t ignore his 307 judicial opinions and hunt for dirt to destroy his reputation. Mr. Kavanaugh didn’t float charges about gang rape and ask questions about adolescent entries in a high-school yearbook. That was the “tenor” supplied by Ms. Feinstein and Democratic yearbook scholar Sheldon Whitehouse.

Mr. Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, has been accused of being a violent drunk and gang rapist, and he is supposed to respond like he’s at a Supreme Court oral argument on the separation of powers? Under this Feinstein-Biskupic standard, Democrats are allowed to say anything to ruin a nominee and then disqualify that nominee because he fights back rather than withdraws.

As for Judge Kavanaugh being a partisan Republican, what else is new? The four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court are partisan Democrats. The relevant standard for a judge is whether he can separate his legal analysis from his partisan affiliation. Judge Kavanaugh has a decade-long record of doing exactly that on the federal bench.

Speaking of judicial temperament, recall Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s rhetorical assault on Donald Trump in July 2016. “I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our President,” the Justice averred, adding that the possibility brought to mind her late husband’s advice: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” How does that rate on partiality?

Ther Dems think that they're immune from broad condemnation by independent voters and the electoral consequences associated with their disgusting behavior and breathtaking hypocrisy during the cesspool events. Maybe they're right. I hope they're not.

FMS

Now that the cesspool has receded just slightly, let's take a dispassionate look at the end result:

A significant number of progressive democrats are adamant in their belief that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth and that she was a "credible witness." Yet, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is equally adamant in his denial that Ford's accusations are true. Is there a way that both people could be telling a truth? After considering about all of this, I think there is.

On the one hand, although there is no corroborating evidence to support Ford and people Ford placed at the party have no recollection of it, her testimony appeared to be genuine. (I suspect that the on-going FBI investigation will be inconclusive, after all, 36 years have passed since the alleged event) Yet we're told the "victim" must be believed. Okay ... let's believe that Christine Blasey Ford is accurately recalling her memory.

On the other hand, despite what #MeToo advocates suggest, Kavanaugh's denials should have equal weight and are backed by a detailed, contemporaneous diary that lists many parties and attendees, but not the one alleged. Hundreds of people have vouched for his moral character; there is absolutely no evidence of sexual wrongdoing is later years. Okay ... let's believe that Brett Kavanaugh is telling the truth—that a sexual attack in high school, 36 years ago did not happen.

How can we reconcile the she said-he said aspects of this case? There is a way.

I believe that there is a high probability that Christine Blasey Ford is experiencing a psychological condition that is called "false memory syndrome (FMS)." Although I could provide more detailed scientific description, Wikipedia offers the following definition:

False memory syndrome (FMS) describes a condition in which a person's identity and relationships are affected by memories that are factually incorrect but that they strongly believe.[1] Peter J. Freyd originated the term,[2] which the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) subsequently popularized. The term is not recognized as a psychiatric illness[3] in any of the medical manuals, such as the ICD-10[4] or the DSM-5;[5] however, the principle that memories can be altered by outside influences is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists.[6][7][8][9]

False memories may be the result of recovered memory therapy, a term also defined by the FMSF in the early 1990s,[10] which describes a range of therapy methods that are prone to creating confabulations. Some of the influential figures in the genesis of the theory are forensic psychologist Ralph Underwager, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, and sociologist Richard Ofshe.

Note that the references in brackets may be found at the original Wikipedia article.

It's important to understand this is not a pop-psychology 'syndrome' but an area of active study and research in the psychology field (ironically, Dr. Ford is a psychology researcher). In fact, a quick search of Google Scholar indicates that there have been 22,000 scholarly papers and articles (many refereed) on "false memory syndrome" in the past four years.

It's interesting to note that Christine Blasey Ford herself admitted to PTSD which she attributed to the attack of 36 years ago. In a paper by Khosropour F., et al entitled "Comparison of False Memory among Patients with Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD) based on the Received Psychological Treatment", the authors state in their abstract, "False memory is more prevalent among PTSD patients."

In a paper, "Evaluating characteristics of false memories" published in Memory and Cognition, three Princeton University researchers write:

Memory is rarely exact, but it is usually not completely wrong. When remembering a friend’s comment or a passage from a book, we are likely to remember the general ideas expressed but not the exact words used (e.g., Bransford & Franks, 1971; Sachs, 1967). To fill in the gaps, we often assume, infer, or imagine what happened. However, these internally generated events, ideas, or beliefs sometimes go beyond filling in minor gaps, creating memories for things that we never experienced (e.g., Bartlett, 1932; Bransford & Johnson, 1973). Such false memories include remembering experiencing events that we only imagined (e.g., Johnson & Raye, 1981), had suggested to us (e.g., Loftus, 1979), or inferred on the basis of our prior knowledge or schemas (e.g., for reviews, see Alba & Hasher, 1983; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Johnson, Hashtroudi & Lindsay, 1993). In certain situations, such as when giving or hearing eyewitness testimony, it is critical to distinguish false from true memories.

Two key points should be noted. Christine Blasey Ford's memory of the alleged sexual attack is considerably less than vivid in the sense that the memory is incomplete in detail (she can remember no date, no place, no complementary memories (e.g., how she got to the party and how she left)). It is reasonable to argue that the incompleteness of the memory could be attributed to its being a false memory in the clinical sense. In addition, there was absolutely no attempt during the Senate hearings to probe Ford's memory of the event to attempt to "distinguish false from true memories." That would have been considered an "attack on Ford" by the #MeToo crowd, discouraging any questioner from going there, however gently.

As the researchers note, people do create "... memories for things that we never experienced. Such false memories include remembering experiencing events that we only imagined, had suggested to us, or inferred on the basis of our prior knowledge or schemas. I believe that Christine Blasey Ford is one of those people—steadfast in her belief that her memory is accurate, even though it isn't.

That indicates that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth as her memory dictates it to be. But if her memory is false, her allegations do not reflect reality, only false memory. That also makes Brett Kavanaugh innocent of the charges she has levied against him.

Lindsey Graham

It's exceptionally rare when political theater becomes a profile in courage. That happened yesterday.

Senator Lindsey Graham—meet Army Lawyer, Joseph Welch.

For those who don't know history, Welch was the witness who finally brought down Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, during McCarthy's anti-communist inquisition (there is no better word) that destroyed the lives of dozens, possible hundreds, of people.

Yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) rose high above the cesspool, and in righteous indignation did much to dismantle a collective Democrat inquisition that was intended to destroy the life of one man and his family, all because his ideology conflicted with theirs.

From the transcript:

Senator Graham.

GRAHAM: Are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said 23-minutes after your nomination, “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, I have (sic) a bipartisan — and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” Well, if you weren’t aware of it, you are now.

Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?

KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein…

GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: … I did not know that.

GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this — allegations for over 20 days?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.

GRAHAM: [Directed at the Democrats] If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me. You’ve got nothing to apologize for.

[Directed at Kavanaugh] When you see [SCOTUS Justices] Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve [Directed at the Democrats] done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy.

[Directed at Kavanaugh] Are you a gang rapist?

KAVANAUGH: No.

GRAHAM: I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.

[Directed at the Democrats] Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham. That you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford; none.

She’s as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you’re looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend. Do you consider this a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: If (ph) the advice and consent role is like a job interview.

GRAHAM: Do you consider that you’ve been through a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: I’ve been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which…

GRAHAM: Would you say you’ve been through hell?

KAVANAUGH: I — I’ve been through hell and then some.

GRAHAM: This is not a job interview.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRAHAM: This is hell.

KAVANAUGH: This — this…

GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook — you have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation.

You’re supposed to be Bill Cosby when you’re a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden, you got over it. It’s been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don’t stop.

Here’s my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is the very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. He’s entirely ethical, is a really decent person. He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He’s the nicest person — the ABA.

The one thing I can tell you should be proud of — Ashley, you should be proud of this — that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for Dr. Ford.

To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.

[Directed at the Democrats] You want this seat? I hope you never get it.

[Directed at Kavanaugh] I hope you’re on the Supreme Court, that’s exactly where you should be. And I hope that the American people will see through this charade. And I wish you well. And I intend to vote for you and I hope everybody who’s fair-minded will.

There is very little about this travesty that would cause anyone to smile. After Lindsey Graham concluded his remarks, I smiled.

UPDATE:
--------------------
As she always does, Kim Strassel looks at the bigger picture:

Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.

To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”

The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitter rule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.

Mob rule should never be tolerated. Ultimatums insisting that wholly unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations must be believed should never be tolerated. Demands to prove oneself innocent should never be tolerated.

This cesspool must be drained—right now!

Cesspool

There's a memorable scene in the movie, Slumdog Millionaire, in which the young hero is submerged in sewage and breaks through the surface gasping for air. Objective observers experience the same feeling as they witness the single most vicious, despicable, repugnant, and dishonest display of partisan politics in modern history.

And when the Democrats add a surface froth of sanctimonious hypocrisy to the mix, the cesspool overflows.

Just today, new unsubstantiated allegations from Democratic partisan and porn lawyer, Michael Avenatti, suggest that-- wait for it -- Kavanaugh was a member of a rape ring in high school. It's very convenient that Avenatti's client's allegation, like others already made, goes back 36 years, making it unverifiable, but nonetheless salacious and newsworthy. The Democrats wade into the cesspool gleefully, believing that the excrement they and they alone have dumped on the public is really whip cream.

Like other earlier unsubstantiated claims against Kavanaugh, none of the accusations have been corroborated, but that doesn't stop Democrat senators from demanding an FBI investigation, as if that will settle the matter. NOTHING will settle the matter for the Dems—they state that they "believe the women" and demand that Kavanaugh prove his innocence—that he must prove these allegations didn't happen. The simple reality that our system of justice works in exactly the opposite manner doesn't phase the through-the-looking-glass crowd.

Yeah, yeah, I know, we have to "listen" to the women who have "risked everything" to tell us that 35+ years ago, Brett Kavanaugh was a juvenile sexual thug, then exposed himself to a woman at a college party, and was a de facto member of a ring that gang-raped unsuspecting women at high school parties. Senator Lindsey Graham dissects that claim:

I have a difficult time believing any person would continue to go to – according to the affidavit – ten parties over a two-year period where women were routinely gang raped and not report it.
Why would any reasonable person continue to hang around people like this? Why would any person continue to put their friends and themselves in danger? Isn’t there some duty to warn others?

I very much believe in allowing people to be heard. But I am not going to be played, and I’m not going to have my intelligence insulted by the Michael Avenattis of the world. I will not be a participant in wholesale character assassination that defies credibility.

Yeah ... that sums it up rather nicely. We are all being played, because the Democrats lost an election, lost the House, and lost the Senate. They're angry and bitter and apparently, will stop at nothing to win at something—anything.

Remember—no evidence, no corroboration, no dates, no times, no places, but BELIEVE!! And to even suggest that there may be some other motive to the timing and content of these charges is, well, extremely politically incorrect. So, to quote one Democrat Senator, we should just "shut up!"

The cesspool is getting deeper by the day.


UPDATE:
-------------
As this morning's hearing (circus) begins, the cesspool gets deeper. There was yet another accusation from a woman who claims Kavanaugh assaulted her in the 1990s, but then conveniently recanted her statement after the trained hamsters in the media ran with it. More interestingly, two men have now come forward indicating that they had a sexual encounters with Christine Blasey Ford during the early 1980s and that her recollection might have mistakenly confused Kavanaugh with them. Of course, their testimony has been rejected out of hand by Democrats because women must be believed, even when countervailing statements surface.

Although I'm not a big fan of Twitter, it sometimes condenses opinion rather nicely. I ran across a tweet that addresses the Democrat demand that Judge Kavanaugh must prove himself innocent:

Believe women? Believe men? I believe evidence. Facts. Truth.

The pernicious idea you must automatically believe all women no matter what is so destructive to the rightful tradition of cross examination and presumption of innocence.

This is tribal. This is must be stopped.

And finally, this tweet from a conservative woman:

Up next: Democrats will accuse Brett Kavanaugh of drinking so heavily he drove off a bridge with a young woman in the front seat, fled the scene — leaving her to drown, then later finding out she suffocated to death instead.

Heh. The Dems' sanctimonious hypocrisy froths the cesspool.

Perfect Karma

Shelby Steel discusses the Left and its propensity to control our culture by identifying real menaces and then demanding that they be remedied. That was okay and resulted in important cultural change. But today, the Left creates imagined menaces and then promotes them in an effort to develop broad support for its ideological position. Steel writes:

The left had important achievements. It did rescue America from an unsustainable moral illegitimacy. It also established the great menace of racism as America’s most intolerable disgrace. But the left’s success has plunged it into its greatest crisis since the ’60s. The Achilles’ heel of the left has been its dependence on menace for power. Think of all the things it can ask for in the name of fighting menaces like “systemic racism” and “structural inequality.” But what happens when the evils that menace us begin to fade, and then keep fading?

It is undeniable that America has achieved since the ’60s one of the greatest moral evolutions ever. That is a profound problem for the left, whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression. The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power. The great crisis for the left today—the source of its angst and hatefulness—is its own encroaching obsolescence. Today the left looks to be slowly dying from lack of racial menace.

A single white-on-black shooting in Ferguson, Mo., four years ago resulted in a prolonged media blitz and the involvement of the president of the United States. In that same four-year period, thousands of black-on-black shootings took place in Chicago, hometown of the then-president, yet they inspired very little media coverage and no serious presidential commentary.

White-on-black shootings evoke America’s history of racism and so carry an iconic payload of menace. Black-on-black shootings carry no such payload, although they are truly menacing to the black community. They evoke only despair. And the left gets power from fighting white evil, not black despair.

Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left.

Maybe, but the Left continues to find legitimate problems in our culture and then amplifies them into a faux menace that causes otherwise rational people to think and act irrationally.

For example, in recent months elements of the #MeToo movement has evolved from a legitimate attempt to stop men like Harvey Weinstein from praying on and degrading women to a thuggish cult that denigrates all men (but particularly "old white men"). Activists within #MeToo now suggest that all but "woke" members of an entire gender (men) cannot be believed when accused and should not be treated fairly when accusations arise.

In the case of SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, the Left uses the cover of politically correct thinking while it weaponizes innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, and the demand that every woman's claim of sexual harrassment or abuse MUST be believed. I suspect that because Christine Blasey Ford's original allegation is so thin and evidence-free, the Democrats looked hard for a second "victim." Sure enough, out popped Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale with Kavanaugh. Despite denials from witnesses who she herself named to substantiate her claims, we now see news reports that a young Kavanaugh exposed himself, causing Ramirez trauma. In a scathing critique of The New Yorker piece in which this allegation first surfaced, Charles Cooke writes:

Judge Kavanaugh labels The New Yorker’s report a “smear, plain and simple.” He should be applauded for his restraint. I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of “journalism” in a major outlet.

Even the New York Times (certainly no friend of Kavanaugh) refused to print a story on Ramirez' specious claims writing:

Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident [they did NOT] and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

To its credit, the NYT decided this was news that was NOT fit to print.

It's useless to question the veracity of Ramiriez's or Ford's allegations or to point out that arguendo, they were the actions of a drunken high school or college kid that occurred 30+ years ago and have little bearing, if any, on a life and career that have been by all accounts exemplary. After all, belief is all that matters to the Left. Democrats believe these allegations because they want to believe them. They view Kavanaugh as a "menace" and will do anything, no matter how repugnant and vicious, to bring him down. Their trained hamsters in the media are doing everything possible to help (think: The New Yorker piece on Ramirez).

But it's the professional politicians in the Democratic party who bear the most blame. Their behavior has been and continues to be cynical, hypocritical, and sanctimonious (no big deal, that's common currency among all politicians). But it also has been and continues to be vicious, despicable, and damn close to evil. There used to be limits that even the most partisan hack never crossed. No more.

The only justice that might come out of this is if the Democratic party pays a price in November. I doubt that will happen, but it would be perfect karma if it did.

Belief

On Friday, I posted a piece entitled "Sexual McCarthyism" discussing the use of wholly unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse as a bludgeon to destroy people who you don't like. Although polling is difficult here, I would suspect that a substantial minority of Democrats along with a much, much smaller percentage of independents and a tiny percentage of Republicans simply believe that Christine Blasey Ford's allegations are true.

I have on numerous occasions noted that far too many Democrats operate on belief, rather than evidence. They seem perfectly willing to believe in fantasy (e.g., socialism will lead to a utopian existence), even though clear, irrefutable historical evidence indicates that their belief cannot withstand the harsh glare of reality. When fantasy collides with reality, reality wins every time.

In the case of Ford v. Kavanaugh, we honestly don't know what the reality of the situation is and that provides an advantage for the Dems. Sure, every shred of evidence currently offered suggests significant skepticism when assessing Ford's allegation. The accused unequivocally denies the charge; no other person, even those who Ford named in attendance at the "party," has any memory of the party or the incident; Ford herself can't remember the date, the time, the location, the manner in which she arrived or left, and the alleged event is shrouded in the mists of time, when both people were juveniles—36 years in the past! And now, Ford is negotiating her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee in a manner that is clearly political.

Byron York comments:

... Democrats are dedicated to trying to stop the Kavanaugh nomination on the basis of a charge without verification.

Now, out of the Democrats' faith comes a new argument: It doesn't matter whether Ford's charge is true. It is credible. And that is enough, because even a credible allegation -- no word on who defines what that means -- disqualifies Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court.

"The truth is, I believe her," Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said. "She has a credible allegation against Judge Kavanaugh."

Some academic Ford supporters lent their scholarly credentials to the credible-is-enough argument. "The existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying," wrote Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw in the New York Times. "If members of the Senate conclude that a credible accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against Judge Kavanaugh, that should be enough to disqualify him."

Wait, what!? A Law Professor suggests that we jettison the notion that evidence-based allegations be valued above evidence-free allegations, that belief in the allegation is all that matters? I have to wonder whether she feels the same way about recent allegations of sexual abuse (that do have substantial evidence associated with them) again DNC co-Chair and Minnesota AG candidate, Keith Ellison?

When Christine Gilliband (D-NY), a sitting U.S. Senator, suggests that all one needs is "a credible allegation," she has crossed a line and entered into the realm of McCarthyism. Joe McCarthy alleged, often without evidence but always with innuendo, that a person was a "member of the communist party" because they knew someone who was a member, once spoke to a member, of even attended a meeting in which communists were present. He made what his supporters believed (that word again) were "credible allegations." As a consequence, the accused lost their careers, were often publicly shunned, and were ruined. Years after, whispers continued to surface.

Byron York continues:

So there it is: Ford's supporters believe in her because they believe in her. They think a credible allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh. And even if that allegation is not, in fact, true -- even if Kavanaugh is innocent -- he is still disqualified. In the current battle, Kavanaugh's opposition is essentially faith-based, trying to create an environment in which there is no way he can win.

Heh. Political genius on the part of the Dems. And a really convenient, if cynical, argument in this case. And here I thought that Democrats eschewed "faith-based" initiatives.

Sexual McCarthyism

When a man violently assaults a woman and there is clear, irrefutable evidence that the assault occurred, the man is scum and deserves imprisonment. When men use positions of power to harass women, impact their employment or job prospects or otherwise injure them professionally, they are scum and deserve opprobrium. When men make remarks that belittle women or think them incapable of strong action or leadership, they are jerks or worse and deserve harsh criticism or worse. All of that is true, not because PC or #MeToo says it's true, but because decent human beings have believed it to be true for centuries.

But what happens when one group weaponizes a broadly-held belief that woman should be treated with respect and dignity (like all humans) and then uses that belief as a cudgel? That's called 'sexual McCarthyism' and it is cruel, vicious, indecent and reckless. Toby Young comments:

It is hard to know what has caused this sexual McCarthyism. One claim, often made by #MeToo advocates, is that American universities are in the grip of a rape epidemic and if the authorities don’t start taking their responsibilities to protect women more seriously it will only get worse. In fact, sexual assaults of female college students in the US dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013. In the same period, young women in college were less likely to be assaulted than those who weren’t. The ‘rape epidemic’ claim is a symptom of the hysteria, not its cause.

My own theory is that a small minority on the identitarian Left have used various Maoist tactics, including public shaming on social media, to persuade people that their doctrinaire positions on #MeToo allegations and a range of other issues – gender is a social construct, masculinity is toxic, climate change is caused by misogyny, etc. – are much more ubiquitous than they really are, thereby stifling dissent.

To think about how this might work, imagine a modern-day version of ‘The Emperor’s Clothes’ set at an American Ivy League college. A skeptical undergraduate is taking a gender studies class and suspects midway through that only a small minority of his classmates actually believe anything the professor is saying. So when she comes up with a particularly far-fetched bit of postmodern Neo-Marxist nonsense – for instance, that menstruation is a social construct – he decides to call her out on it. How do his classmates react, assuming the majority of them share his skepticism?

Unlike in the original story, they don’t immediately burst out laughing and applaud him for his courage. Rather, they look around, trying to gauge the reaction of others and, at the same time, keep their own expressions neutral until they get a sense of what the majority believes. Nothing they see on each other’s faces tells them it’s safe to indicate they share the undergraduate’s skepticism – even though a majority of them do – so they keep quiet. Some of them may even start tutting and shaking their heads, not wanting those they imagine to be in the majority to suspect they hold the heretical view. At this point, the gender studies professor narrows her eyes, accuses the undergraduate of being a misogynist and uses the bias reporting hotline to contact the university’s diversity officer.

A week later, the miscreant has been kicked out even though the professor in question was clearly spouting nonsense and a majority of the undergraduate’s classmates secretly agreed with him.

The phenomenon that Young describes lies at the heart of many politically correct positions. Based on life experience, scientific evidence, and simple common sense, most of us understand that many PC claims are unmitigated nonsense. Yet almost all of us have become afraid to call them what they are—B.S.

Young notes that the Left, once the harsh opponent of puritanical thought, has now become its champion:

Who knows how long this paranoid atmosphere will continue. America seems to go through periodic bouts of hysterical puritanism, which partly accounts for the enduring appeal of The Crucible, Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem Witch Trials.

It is further ironic that the Left has become the champion of sexual McCarthism, adopting the methods and even the language of a man they had vilified in the past. When you ruin a person's life, jeopardize their career, and destroy their reputation using only sexual innuendo coupled with decades-old, unsubstantiated allegations that are almost impossible to disprove, you have become exactly what the #MeToo movement hates—people who harass others to control and intimidate them. If it's wrong to do that to a woman, it's equally wrong to do it to a man.

Decency

The Kavanaugh - Ford debacle, coordinated by the Democrats, reflects a ugly blend of the politics of personal destruction. The Dems express faux outrage over an 11th hour, unsubstantiated allegation that is being used to discredit a fully qualified candidate for SCOTUS, ruin his reputation for the rest of his life, and provide political leverage that just might wreck his chances of getting the nomination after all. They have the chutzpa to demand an FBI investigation that delays Kavanaugh's nomination even though they could have had an investigation completed had they asked six weeks ago. Instead, they have allowed last minute innuendo to ruin a decent man and at the same time, make demands that are so hypocritical, they would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

The GOP looks like a deer in headlights, afraid to buck political correctness or MeToo hysteria to say ENOUGH! Correctly, the GOP has made an attempt to hear out Ms. Ford, even though her recollections are hazy and the event happened 36 years ago—in high school! But Ford has so far (predictably) demurred, demanding a 7th FBI probe of Kavanaugh after six turned up nothing that would indicate he is an abuser of woman. Of course, if an FBI probe were completed quickly, you can bet your life that Democrats would say that it wasn't thorough enough, that it was a 'rush to judgement,' that male bias pervaded the findings, that we must believe the accuser regardless of the outcome.

There appears to be nothing that would satisfy the Dems short of Kavanaugh removing his name from nomination—their overriding goal in the first place. This isn't about #MeToo or sexual assault or even about Christine Blasey Ford, who is either a purposeful tool or unwitting pawn in the Democrat's on-going psychodrama. The Dems have lost power and they cannot abide that. Any action, no matter how crass, that returns them power is acceptable and necessary. In fact, their recent actions vis a vis the Ford allegations are prima facie evidence why the broader American public has removed them from power.

John Kass is eloquent when he discusses this disgusting spectacle:

Because in their zeal to delegitimize Kavanaugh and delay confirmation until after the 2018 midterm elections, the Senate Democrats seem all too willing to delegitimize the Supreme Court itself.

Even if his nomination is confirmed by the Republican majority, the as-yet-unsubstantiated allegation of an attempted high school rape will hang from his neck for as long as he lives. And from the necks of his wife and daughters.

Ford’s charge is serious business. But having them duel it out publicly, for the amusement of jabbering knaves on Twitter and TV whipping up Democratic or Republican tribal outrage, isn’t the best way for a healthy republic to handle things.

Now it’s a freak show. And trashing the reputation of a man who has never, to my knowledge, exhibited even hints of such behavior is the way of our politics.

It is indecent that we accept this status quo.

Long before Kavanaugh was born, at a hearing in Washington on June 9, 1954, Joseph Welch, a lawyer representing the U.S. Army finally confronted Joe McCarthy [a GOP senator who is infamous for his dishonest use of anti-communist innuendo] on national television.

Welch offered a statement that ended McCarthy’s career.

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness,” Welch said. “… You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

It was indecent then. It is indecent now.

It was reckless then. It is reckless now.

Sen. Feinstein, have you no sense of decency?

Nah ... decency disappeared among the Democrats when Clarance Thomas was nominated to SCOTUS, or maybe it was when Donald Trump won the 2016 election. It has never returned. Instead, it has been replaced by a "freak show" that exhibits a level of cruelty and recklessness that is astounding.

UPDATE:
-----------------
Daniel Henninger gets to the core of this debacle by looking at broader motives:

Surely someone pointed out [to the Democrats] that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop.

In #MeToo, which began in the predations of Harvey Weinstein, Democrats and progressives finally have found a weapon against which there seems to be no defense. It can be used to exterminate political enemies. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.

The Democrats’ broader strategy is: Delay the vote past the election; win the Senate by convincing suburban women that Republicans are implacably hostile to them; seize power; and—the point of it all—take down the Trump government.

This is the “resistance.” This is what Democrats have become. Resistance is a word and strategy normally found in a revolutionary context, which is precisely the argument made by the left to justify its actions against this presidency since the evening of Nov. 8, 2016. Anything goes. Whatever it takes. Brett Kavanaugh is not much more than a casualty of war.

Yet, every shred of evidence, with the exception of Ford's wholly unsubstantiated allegations, indicates that Brett Kavanaugh is more than "a casualty of war." He is a decent, competent jurist, who has now been irreparably smeared by the Democrats. This is the party that the Dems have become—a cruel and vengeful collection of ideologues who are incapable of winning arguments on their merits but are fully capable of destroying anyone who stands in their way. They have no sense of decency—none at all.

Pigtails

BREAKING NEWS from the OnCenter News Team!! Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has been accused of gender-based assault, according to reports swirling around Capitol Hill. Although details are unclear, the anonymous victim tells The Washington Post that Schumer attacked her in a kindergarten playground in 1955 — 63 years ago.

In a nationwide exclusive, the OnCenter News Team has acquired part of the interview transcript:

Interviewer: Can you describe the attack?

Victim: Yes. I was in the playground away from the other children and teachers and Chucky ran up behind me and pulled my pigtails—hard! He did this because I was a woman. But it was a violent attack that traumatized me for decades after. It caused physical pain at the time, in fact, I thought for a moment that he might inadvertently kill me!

Interviewer: Why do you think he did it?

Victim: I think he might’ve liked me.

Interviewer: Did your classmates see the attack? Were you injured?

Victim: No one else saw it, except Chucky's friend, who jumped on us both to end the attack. There was no lasting physical injury, but the trauma of the event has stayed with me year after year, decade after decade. The #MeToo movement has taught me that even after all these years, I must now speak out.

Interviewer: Did you tell your teachers or your parents or anyone at the time?

Victim: No. In fact, my recollection of the entire event is rather hazy but I’m absolutely certain it was Chuckie Schumer, or at least I’m pretty sure it was him.

The Oncenter News Team contacted Schumer's kindergarten friend and asked for comment. He responded with a mixture of unfiltered incredulousness and anger:

Wait, what? You're kidding right? This is nuts. And besides, who the hell would dwell on an event that happened 62 years ago, did no lasting physical harm, and occurred when we were kids. It didn't happen as far as I can remember, but that's way beside the point. F*$&## unbelievable.

When asked to comment on the allegation of gender-based assault leveled against the leader of her party's caucus, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with other Democrat colleagues, seemed circumspect.

Reporter (amid shouting by other media): Is Senator Schumer Guilty?

Warren: Whether these allegations are true or not is irrelevant, we must acknowledge the victim's pain. I do that.

Reporter: But doesn't the truth matter? After all, you're innocent until proven guilty in our country. And besides, this allegation is completely unsubstantiated.

Warren: That's true, but I'm certain that Senator Schumer is innocent of the charges, although I acknowledge the victim's pain.

Reporter: You already said that. Why do you think Schumer is innocent?

Warren: Our investigators have uncovered the name of the victim and have further uncovered details of her political ideology. We have her Facebook profile and her Twitter feed. By the way, she recently deleted key elements of it, obviously trying to hide her political positions.

Another reporter: What have you found?

Warren: Well, there's a picture of the woman, now 67 years old, with a red M.A.G.A. hat! That should tell us all we need to know about her politics. It might be a motivation for her allegation, but I do acknowledge her pain.

The gaggle of reporters collectively gasp.

Warren (continuing): If this allegation is politically motivated in any way, that's deplorable ... no wait, check that, I didn't mean to say 'deplorable.'

Reporter (amid shouting by other media): But you just said, and I quote: "Whether her allegations are true or not is irrelevant ..." How can you now say Schumer is innocent" or that the "allegation is politically motivated."

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) from Hawaii (interrupting angrily): You're a man and you can't understand the pain of a pigtail attack. Men need to shut up and do the right thing.

As the controversy intensifies there have been calls for an FBI investigation of Schumer's kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade activities, but Democrats are resisting. When asked for comment, an FBI spokesperson shook her head with a wry smile.

For his part, Senator Schumer has vehemently denied the allegations.

"My goodness," said Schumer, "I, of course, acknowledge the victim's pain, but this alleged incident was 62 years ago."

When asked whether an analogous assault with analogous circumstances that occurred 36 years ago would be different, Schumer responded angrily, "Of course, it would!"

When asked why, Schumer walked away.

Benefit of the Doubt

The Hill reports:

[An IPSOS/NPR] poll, which was published late last year, found that 79 percent of Americans believe that those who report they are sexual harassment victims should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said that people accused of sexual harassment should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, according to the survey.

That's a reasonable position demonstrating the inherent fairness of the American people. However, the clear implication is that there are no extenuating circumstances that might lead the accuser to misremember key events or facts or in the extreme, manufacture events or facts to achieve some pre-defined objective.

When it comes to the sexual harassment allegation offered by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, it is nearly impossible to determine whether she is telling the truth. Sure, she can be given the benefit of the doubt, but in her case, there are more than enough extenuating circumstances to justify significant skepticism.

First, the event in question happened 35 years ago. Even if Ford's intensions are pure and her trauma is real, it is not unreasonable to assume that a detailed memory of that day's events (before, during and after the alleged harassment) may have become hazy and/or unintentionally embellished over three and a half decades. The editors of Wall Street Journal note:

The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. Mistaken identity is also possible.

The Post reports that the therapist’s notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can’t recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening.

It's also worth noting that Ford's inability to remember the location of the alleged assault is odd. If the event were as traumatic as Ford claims, every detail of the location, the time, and the events would likely be etched into her memory. That isn't the case, making it impossible to interview other potential witnesses who were there.

Second, it appears that Ford is ideologically opposed to Brett Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy and may have reason to help derail his nomination to SCOTUS. She deleted her social media history before her name became public. Maybe that was for privacy, or possibly it was to eliminate claims that she is hyper-partisan. We'll never know.

Third, this is not a he-said/she-said case. Another person in attendance said the alleged incident never happened and other women who knew Kavanaugh contemporaneously said the allegation does not conform to their knowledge of him or his actions at that time.

Fourth, there is no known physical or documented evidence to support Ford's allegation—it is unsubstantiated. Her therapist's notes are not a secondary source, only Ford's earlier commentary on the same alleged incident. They do not represent meaningful corroboration.

And fifth, regardless of the conventional #MeToo wisdom that tells us that all women are always to be believed, there is a small, but non-trivial percentage of harassment allegations that have been provably false.

What might sway an objective observer to conclude that the allegations are true? First, if other provable cases of harassment by Kavanaugh had been found, the credence of Ford's claim would grow. It's worth remembering that Kavanaugh underwent detailed investigation by the FBI six times in his career and no such harassment cases were uncovered, nor were any allegations made.

Second, had the allegation been made without the overlay of a SCOTUS nomination process, it might be more believable. Why didn't Ford come forward when Kavanaugh was first appointed to the federal bench or in 2012 when she revealed the incident to her therapist? After all, Judge Kavanaugh's decisions at the Appeals Court level of the judiciary affected many women. Yet, Ford was silent.

Third, if Ford was politically agnostic (she is not), her allegation's might be given more weight. It's worth asking who benefits from the destruction of Kavanaugh's reputation and whether the accuser is of like mind with those who benefit. In this case, it appears that Ford is an activist Democrat.

Again from the WSJ:

The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

None of this says that her allegations are false—we'll probably never know. But there is certainly reason to be very skeptical about their validity, and also reason to give just as much benefit of the doubt to the accused, particularly with the set of extenuating circumstances that come into play in this instance.

UPDATE-1:
------------
After writing about the "collateral damage" that Ford's accusations level on Kavanaugh's family, his daughters and the many woman he coached and mentored, Roger Simon doesn't pull any punches when he writes:

But arguendo everything [Ford] says is true or at least true-ish, is what the young Kavanaugh did anything much different from a million fraternity boys at a million parties? Probably not, although it is reprehensible. But has Kavanaugh since then lived an exemplary life regarding his relationships with women? Evidently. In fact he has mentored them and helped them advance on numerous occasions. Sixty-five women who knew him stepped forward almost instantly to defend him. How many of us could say that? Is he likely to be biased against women as a Supreme Court justice? Nonsense.

Is there a single person of any political persuasion who would vouch for everything he or she did in high school?

Nevertheless, we live in a time of consummate selfishness and evil. Almost nothing is done with clean hands or pure motivation. Few, if anyone, think about others -- in this case even about their very young and impressionable sisters. Christine Blasey Ford is a poster woman for the worst, most narcissistic end of the #MeToo movement.

UPDATE: Grabien is reporting that her students despised Ford and urged others to avoid her. They called her "unfiltered" and "vengeful" on ratemyprofessor.com. This meshes with the vengeance she may have been getting for Kavanaugh's mother adjudicating the trial of Ford's parents.

I'm sure there will be sanctimonious protestations that Christine Blasey Ford has been "victimized" as her life is dissected, following her accusations. Yet, she chose to initiate this ugly episode 35 years after the alleged event occurred.


UPDATE-2:
------------
In a shout out to an awful event that happened over 300 years ago, Lance Morrow discusses the hysteria (called “spectral evidence") that surrounded the Salem witch trials and the strange tricks of memory that had decent people testifying that they saw a woman accused of witch craft turn into a black cat.

Three hundred twenty-six years later, an anonymous woman—a spectral and possibly nonexistent woman, for all that one knew when the story emerged—accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her 36 years ago, when he was a high-school student. It seemed as if the American constitutional process might be drawn back to the neighborhood of Salem, Mass. According to this phantom testimony, 17-year-old Brett held the girl down, pawed her and tried to force himself upon her, and held his hand over her mouth when she screamed, until a second prep-school devil piled on top, they all tumbled to the floor, and the girl managed to slip away. The boys were “stumbling drunk,” according to the account.

You were supposed to feel the sudden wind-shear of hypocrisy. The nominee was a seeming paragon—perfect father and husband and coach of his daughters’ basketball teams. He is a Roman Catholic with an Irish name, but now the script became as gleefully Calvinist as a Hawthorne tale. What imp of hell had possessed the Kavanaugh boy? The Protestant tale seemed to obtain subliminal verification against the background of Catholic sex-abuse scandals.

Thus the constitutional process takes on an aspect of the 21st-century medieval.

I can only wonder how modern day Democrats would have judged the spectral evidence presented in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692.

UPDATE-3:
----------------
This entire Democrat-generated Ford v. Kavanaugh episode is so despicable, so vicious, it deserves three updates. But, but, but, argue progressives ... Merrick Garland.

Uh ... no. The GOP held the Senate at the end of the Obama era and had a constitutional right to block hearings on Garland. The Dems didn't like it but the solution was to win back the senate or have their candidate, Hillary Clinton win or both. Neither happened.

The GOP never vilified Garland, never accused him a sexual harassment and never ginned up last minute unsubstantiated accusations that tarnished his character and reputation. That was left for the Democrats to do this past week.

Richard Epstein writes:

[Christine Blasey Ford ] putting the information exclusively in the hands of key Democrats thus invited the wholly corrupt strategy that has now unfolded. First, the Democrats would try to discredit Kavanaugh by engaging in a set of procedural antics and obnoxious substantive questions during the hearing, without mentioning this letter. When that strategy abjectly failed, they knew they had to go to Plan B, which was to release the letter and the allegation days before the confirmation vote. A perfect sandbag, for the Democrats knew full well that there was no time to respond to them, without causing an enormous delay in the confirmation hearings. Their hope was, and is, to create a huge media circus that would take weeks if not months to sort out. Shipwreck this nomination. Make it impossible for the current Senate to pass on any subsequent nominee before January. Then take control of the Senate and create a stalemate that could run on until the next presidential election.

And for what? Ford, Kavanaugh’s accuser, maintained a stony silence on these allegations for more than 35 years. At no point did she raise them in connection with the Senate confirmation hearings before Kavanaugh was confirmed in 2006. Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations. Late last week, Mark Judge, his alleged accomplice, denounced the allegations as “absolutely nuts.” No other woman has ever made any allegation of this sort against Kavanaugh. and 65 women have written an explicit letter in his defense. Kavanaugh is right not to respond beyond his categorical denial, knowing full well that further comment would only draw him further into a vortex on which credibility determinations would be unending. And the Senate is right to continue with the confirmation vote. The institutional damage to the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the nation has already been enormous. What is left now is only the sorry task of damage containment. What sane judge would like to be the next Supreme Court nominee?

The Dems don't care—it's the politics of personal destruction all the way down. Sad.

Kavanaugh—Part 4

The Democrats tried it with Anita Hill and failed, but not before sullying the reputation of Clarence Thomas and dragging the nation through a vicious episode of the politics of personal destruction. Now, the Dems are trying it again, this time dredging up an unsubstantiated allegation of a teenage "assault" 35 years ago involving Brett Kavanaugh. An assault that he unequivocally denies.

Of course in the #MeToo era, we are supposed to believe the victim without critical evaluation, no matter that the victim is allegedly a left-wing, anti-Trump activist who never reported the now 35-year old incident until 2012 and then, never named Kavanaugh in discussions with her therapist at that time.

Cleverly, her current letter just happened to use the phrase "I thought he might inadvertently kill me," the perfect pull quote for the trained hamsters in the CNN/MSNBC crowd. But if in fact, the drunken teenage "attack" was as serious as alleged, it's rather odd that it was never reported to any adult, to the police, to the victim's friends ... to no one. It's also odd that there was no physical evidence of the attack that might have been noticed by parents or friends, after all, the attack was allegedly so severe that the victim feared for her life.

Of course, the #MeToo era demands that every allegation be fully investigated immediately. But if that were the case, how come Senator Diane Feinstein (a staunch defender of women's rights) silently held the allegation for over two months, doing nothing, and waited until the 11th hour to make it public? It's also rather interesting that the accuser demanded anonymity, something that I thought defenders of woman's rights would respect. Nah, she was outed within 48 hours of the allegation going public in order to give the unsubstantiated allegation the weight of a human identity.

The #MeToo movement suggests that a man's denial is not to be trusted, but how are we to interpret the fact that 65 female high school classmates of Brett Kavanaugh have responded to the allegation by telling us that he was an upstanding student and person who treated women with respect. Are we to believe the single victim who alleges assault without any evidence to prove it happened or the 65 women who tell us Kavanaugh's character and demeanor belie that allegation.

No matter that six different FBI investigations never uncovered the alleged incident. No matter that 65 female classmates of Brett Kavanaugh vouch for him. No matter that the victim's background and politics clearly indicate potential bias against Kavanaugh's conservative judicial temperment or that the timing of the allegation is so, so convenient. Nah, the Senate will now come to a full stop as the episode is fully investigated in what Clarance Thomas rightly described as a high tech lynching. Or maybe, just maybe, the GOP majority on the committee will have the guts to see this for what it is—a ploy to game the system and a cynical attempt to use sympathy for #MeToo to derail Kavanaugh's nomination.

This entire episode stinks to high heaven. It's an obvious delaying tactic designed to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation, provide a political cover for Dems who might vote for him for political expediency before the mid-terms, and possibly derail his nomination after the mid-terms. It's vicious and despicable. It's also what the Dems have done before and are now doing again.

UPDATE:
---------------
David Harsanyi dissects the Democrats' vicious strategy well when he writes:

There is no possible outcome in which Democrats will concede Kavanaugh’s innocence, or even concede that we can’t really know what transpired on that night 36 years ago. Republicans can accede to as many hearings as Democrats demand, and it won’t alter any of the liberal rhetoric or perceptions of partisans. Republicans could put Kavanaugh’s classmates under oath and have them deny that anything inappropriate or criminal occurred that night, and it wouldn’t matter. Nor does it matter if 65 women come forward and attest to Kavanaugh’s sterling character — in fact, for Democrats, it’s merely confirmation that the judge is covering something up. It doesn’t matter that, as far as we now know, there’s no pattern of bad behavior from Kavanaugh into adulthood (unlike say, Roy Moore or Bill Clinton).

What we do know is that there will be no genuine due process in the Senate circus. Kavanaugh, who’s said he’s willing to speak to the judiciary committee, will never get a fair hearing. This is by design. Whether Ford’s accusation is true or not, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein surely orchestrated the leak and subsequent release of Ford’s letter, not merely to sink Kavanaugh and create the impression that he was hiding something, but also to ensure that Republicans will be delayed moving forward with any nomination until after the midterms. Even now, leading Democrats on the judiciary committee are arguing that any hearings featuring Ford should be delayed.

There’s no other explanation for the timing of the letter. The senator claims the allegations are “extremely serious and bear heavily on Judge Kavanaugh’s character.” Yet, according to reports, Democrats were in possession of Ford’s letter for months and sat on it. Feinstein personally met with Kavanaugh and didn’t bring up this “extremely serious” charge of sexual assault. Why not? She could have asked him about the allegations while keeping the accuser’s name confidential. Democrats submitted over a thousand questions to Kavanaugh on the record, and not one of them were about whether he had ever engaged in any “extremely serious” behavior. Feinstein also had Kavanaugh sitting in front of her, under oath, during public Senate hearings, and never asked him about the letter.

It’s worth remembering that these Democrat tactics aren’t only meant to sink this nomination — should they end up forcing Kavanaugh to withdraw — but also to damage the credibility of any Supreme Court featuring Trump-nominated (or, let’s be honest, Republican-nominated) justices. Democrats have been dishonestly challenging the “legitimacy” of the court throughout these hearings. The simple fact is that they don’t want to abide by any authority that treats the Constitution seriously, because it’s often the only thing standing in the way of their coercive policies.

For just a moment, consider what would have happened if during the Senate hearings on SCOTUS nominee Sonya Sotomayor a letter appeared within days of her confirmation vote with unsubstantiated evidence that she uttered a racist slur against a African American man. Or during the confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan, she was accused of having an unsubstantiated sexual encounter with an underage male intern years ago. The trained hamsters in the media would fly into a rage. The "victim" would be vilified and the matter would be dismissed post haste. But here's the thing. The GOP has never done this to a SCOTUS nominee, regardless of their ideology. It has never stooped to this level of vicious and despicable character assassination. That simple reality tells us more about Democrats and Republicans than any policy paper possibly could.

In-The-Small

Sometimes it's important to look at things in-the-small to learn important lessons about things in-the-large.

The Democrats desperately want to take over Congress in order to resist Donald Trump. In fact, that seems to be their entire raison d'être. The Dems seem unable to tell us exactly what they'd do to improve the economy (it's booming), improve the plight of the middle class (it's improving by the month), reduce unemployment (it's already at its lowest levels in decades), fix healthcare (it's hobbled by the remnants of Obamacare, a program they continue to champion), improve the lives of minorities (black and hispanics have seen the best economic and jobs picture in half a century), reduce hot spots around the world (their guy, nincompoop, John Kerry, is working hard to submarine any progress in controlling Iran). But none of that seems to matter, in fact, their message is simple—hate on Trump.

But back to things in the small. Michael Barone writes about the great city of Chicago and the recent announcement that a mega-political operator, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has decided not to run for re-election:

Chicago is one of the great creations of mankind: a frontier post in 1833 that was one of the world’s great cities just 60 years later, showing off in the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 its new lakefront parks, its new electric light systems, its sanitary canal channeling wastewater away from Lake Michigan, its pioneering skyscrapers and enormous stockyards and factories.

Now the economic foundations of the metropolis are being drained and undermined to provide the generous pensions of long-retired public employees, many of them now in income-tax-free Florida, while public schools are closed, services reduced, police patrols pulled back.

That looks like a future of decline for Chicago, and maybe for America, too. Democrats have shown zero interest in reducing the entitlements of retirees, not since President Bill Clinton broke off negotiations with House Speaker Newt Gingrich amid the impeachment crisis of 1998. Ditto Donald Trump, and no Republican seems to be raising the issue, as President George W. Bush did in 2005.

It’s not a good sign — like a cold wind coming off Lake Michigan — that even as shrewd and well-connected a politician as Rahm Emanuel doesn’t see a viable way forward.

Chicago has had a Democratic mayor and city council for 64 of 68 years! Therefore, the city represents an excellent laboratory for the effectiveness of long-term Democratic governance in-the-small. By any viable measure—including the city budget, taxes, pension obligations, education, public safety, net outflow of taxpaying residents—Chicago is in trouble—big trouble.

Barone provides a recent history:

[Democratic Mayor Rahm] Emanuel inherited a city whose electorate was divided roughly equally between blacks on the South and West sides, Hispanics on the West and Northwest sides and gentry liberals running ever farther inland from the lakefront. It had a great economic heritage and enjoyed robust growth in the 1990s.

It has been downhill since. Chicago and Illinois have been hobbled by metastasizing pension obligations, frozen in place by state courts [judges appointed by a Democratic legislature] and [Democratic] state House speaker Michael Madigan. Taxes have been rising: Shoppers on North Michigan Avenue pay the nation’s highest taxes.

Chicagoans have been voting with their feet. Metro Chicago has by far the highest percentage of domestic out-migration of any major metropolitan area, and net outflow this decade is 5 percent of its 2010 population. In particular, blacks have been leaving metro Chicago for Atlanta and other points south.

Emanuel’s electoral base has been lakefront liberals plus a plurality of whichever minority group hasn’t produced his main opponent. That was blacks in 2015, but his standing with black voters has been hurt by his concealment during electoral season of the videotape of a police shooting of a young black man.

At the same time, Emanuel acquiesced in Obama administration oversight of the city’s police department. And police officers’ retreat from proactive policing has led to enormous increases in shootings and homicides.

A tax and spend economic model dovetailed with concessions to public sector unions is the mother's milk of Democratic policy in-the-small and also in-the-large. It has crippled blue cities (like Chicago) and blue states (like Connecticut) forcing economic decline and in some cases, conditions that force significant out-migration.

And yet, the Dems tell us that the policies that have failed in-the-small will somehow work in-the-large at a federal level. The entire presidency of Barack Obama demonstrated that claim to be false, but it's trotted out every two years. To help people believe their demonstrably false claims, Democrats always mix in a heaping cup of emotion—hate Trump, abolish racist, MeToo, and now Democratic Socialism.

If none of it works in-the-small, why on earth would anyone believe it would work in-the-large. But that's what the Dems are selling, and in these turbulent times emotion may very well trump comment sense, past history, and critical thinking.

Dangerous

With furrowed brows, serious expressions and a somber tone, establishment elites from both the Democrat and Republican parties and a fair number of private sector corporate leaders (think: Google, Amazon, etc.) continually tell us that Donald Trump's attacks on the media are "dangerous" or a "threat to our democracy." Why exactly?

Should we, as citizens of the United States, be asked to accept media reports without examination or criticism? Should we be blind to the obvious and increasingly vicious bias exhibited by the vast majority of main stream media outlets against this president and his party? Should we accept faux investigative journalism that picks and chooses the stories to write and the scandals to uncover based on the damage they will do to a preferred political party? Should we accept reporting in which major mitigating facts are omitted altogether or buried in the 27th paragraph? Should we accept editorializing in the guise of reporting?

The answer to all of these question is "no," and a media that expects a "yes" answer is both corrupt and dangerous. It deserves harsh criticism, even from the President of the United States.

Over the past year, there has been irrefutable evidence of a major conspiracy involving the past Democrat administration, the DNC, the FBI, the DoJ, and elements of our intelligence agencies against one candidate for president in 2016. The evidence includes written documents, emails, a money trail, text messages, IG reports, and Congressional testimony that all point to serious wrong-doing. And the media—you know, the same one that claims to be "ethical and professional"—has ignored or downplayed the story and refuses to investigate it vigorously, while at the same time telling us it's "threatened" by the harsh words of the president.

The media isn't threatened by anything but its own bias, dishonesty, sensationalism, and incompetence. It isn't endangered by anything except the public's sinking trust precipitated by it's own lack of accuracy and evenhandedness.

As they say, "The truth hurts." And in the case of Trump's often harsh critique of the "fake news" media, the pain may be more than the media can bear.

UPDATE-1:
---------------
As a classic and somewhat comical example of blatant media bias, the New York Times (headline complete with a picture of Haley subsequently edited to remove Haley's name and likeness) yesterday reported that $52,701 was spent "customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Haley’s New York City residence"—all paid for by U.S. taxpayers. The clear impression was that the cost-cutting Trump administration spent money on decorating while reducing employment at the state department. Only one problem—the expenditure was proposed and approved by the Obama administration. The NYT issued a correction, implying it was all a mistake.

No ... it was sloppy journalism driven by a biased narrative designed to make both Haley and her boss, Donald Trump, look bad. Narrative driven reporting leads to "mistakes" like this one. It's unprofessional and deserves the criticism it gets.

UPDATE-2:
---------------
Writing about two "fake news" media plays over last week—the innuendo-laced and evidence-free story about "sexual abuse" levied against SCOTUS nominee, Bret Kavanaugh and the ridiculous and erroneous claim that the Trump administration approved a large expenditure for Nikki Haley's curtains—Steven Kruiser comments:

Much has been made in the Trump era about conservatives' enmity towards the MSM. In the media's telling of the story they are simply objective innocent bystanders who are dutifully chronicling history while the big, mean, Most Powerful Man on Earth gins up a mob that hates them.

It's pure rubbish.

President Trump didn't manufacture conservative distrust and dislike of the media out of whole cloth as they would have us believe. Paraphrasing the words of the previous president: they built that. Their relentless and often unhinged partisan advocacy isn't remotely akin to journalism. They can call themselves whatever they want but if it acts like a partisan hack, talks like a partisan hack, and writes like a partisan hack...well, you know.

They actively engage in partisan-driven attempts to ruin careers, reputations, and even families when they're on a roll. As I recently wrote, the same media who were lauding John McCain at his funeral once reported on a nonexistent extramarital affair in an effort to derail his presidential bid. They did this while sitting on verifiable evidence that Democrat John Edwards was not only cheating on his sick wife, but had fathered a child as a result of the affair.

President Trump just happens to be the first Republican president with the guts to admit publicly that this group masquerading as truth-to-power torch bearers for freedom are thoroughly corrupt.

And the media doesn't like that accusation one little bit.

Kavanaugh—Part 3

Way back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court to replace a retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas was a conservative, and Democrats told us that Roe v. Wade would be nullified, that our democracy was in jeopardy, that ... you know the litany of hysterical claims. Thomas, who is African American did not pass the ideology test, was viewed as inauthentically black, according to Democrats. In what Thomas himself properly characterized as "a high-tech lynching," the Dems trotted out Anita Hill, who made tawdry claims about Thomas from years past. The Dems' performance was despicable, and their viciousness wasn't questioned or investigated by their trained hamsters in the media. They did not succeed.

Just yesterday, it appears the Dems have dusted off their old playbook. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is aiming to vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination next week, so get ready for the late hits and last-ditch smears. The latest came Thursday when ranking committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein announced that she has “information” . . .

Of course she does. Some Democrat was bound to have something. Mr. Kavanaugh had come through his confirmation hearing last week without a dent, and Democrats had made themselves look bad by editing his quotes and spreading innuendo unrelated to his judicial views. Meanwhile, the political left is demanding that Democrats do something, anything, to stop the highly qualified jurist from joining the High Court.

Enter DiFi. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Ms. Feinstein said in a statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

The Dems have serious trouble winning rational, substantive debates on the issues, so they rely on innuendo, personal attacks, and character destruction. It is as predictable as it is repugnant. It also smacks of a desperation.

They will not succeed.

POSTSCRIPT:
-----------------
I fully understand that national politics isn't beanbag, but dredging up an anonymous allegation that is 40 years old (!!), that dovetails perfectly with the current MeToo hysteria, and that sullies the reputation of a well-respected jurist, is beyond the pale should make every Democrat feel uneasy. Shame!

UPDATE:
-----------------
This from Scott McKay describes the situation nicely:

If this is all they have on Brett Kavanaugh, it’s time for the Democrats to admit they’re beaten on this nomination.

What an embarrassment to a major political party that 11th-hour surprises involving behavior as a high school student that was never brought to the attention of the police, and for which the statute of limitations would certainly have run even in the event a crime was committed, are where we are.

And for Dianne Feinstein to be trafficking in this, after surviving — thanks to the atrocious refusal of the legacy media to report it — a major scandal involving her employment of an aide who was a Chinese spy as a staffer for some 20 years is nothing short of shameful. One would think Feinstein would lie low after the disclosure of such careless and incompetent mismanagement of her office — but we already know that Democrats don’t take their responsibilities seriously where information is concerned. We know that thanks to the Hillary Clinton email scandal, we know it after the House Pakistani IT fiasco, we know it from the OMB hack, the DNC email leak, and countless other examples where corruption, incompetence, and disrespect for the law, our state secrets, and the American people have surfaced.

Fear

Bob Woodward's best selling book, Fear, tells us about all of the horrible, terrible, frightening, startling, ominous, unstable, ineffective, backbiting, dysfunctional, out-of-control, ... things that are the Trump presidency. The trained hamsters in the main stream media have given Woodward tens of millions of dollars in free publicity, all in an effort to promote a book that reinforces a narrative that they themselves have promoted for almost two years. There's also the small matter of the upcoming election and the trained hamsters desire to once again insert themselves (via Fear) into the blue wave they fully expect to be coming. It might work.

Nevermind that Woodward uses unnamed anonymous sources throughout; never mind that White House principals named in Woodward's book have flat-out denied saying what Woodward says they said and doing what Woodward says they did ... and most important, never mind that a dysfunctional crew that Woodward describes could never (in a million years) accomplish what this administration has accomplished. In fact, if Woodward is accurate and "the White House is suffering from a nervous breakdown," maybe all White Houses going forward should suffer similar breakdowns. After all, consider these comments from the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

Remember those warnings of an economic implosion if Donald Trump was elected President? Well, instead, the economy has broken out of the 2% growth doldrums from 2009-2016, and Barack Obama is suddenly elbowing his way back into the public debate to claim credit. Yet the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual report on U.S. income released Wednesday underscores how the Obama policies of redistribution retarded growth for so many years.

Real median household incomes ticked up 1.8% to $61,372 between 2016 and 2017 while the poverty rate dropped 0.4 percentage points to 12.3%, according to the Census Bureau. Income gains were strongest among Hispanic households (3.7%). The poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics fell to 21.2% and 18.3%, respectively, the lowest since at least 1972.

Incomes increased across the distribution range with the share of people earning less than $15,000 declining 0.3 percentage points to 10.7%, the lowest level since 2007. The proportion of households earning more than $150,000 increased by 0.7 percentage points to 14.7%.

Surging investment earnings have driven up incomes at higher incomes. But at lower levels the income growth appears due to more people working more. While the number of people with employment earnings rose 1.7 million last year, the number working full-time and year-round grew 2.4 million. This lifted nearly one million people out of poverty in 2017.

As AlGore might say—an inconvenient truth.

The crazy, unstable trumpsters have done more for the US economy in two years than the last four president have done in 30. But it doesn't stop there. Those same crazy, unstable, ineffective and otherwise incompetent trumpsters have begun to repair the foreign policy wreckage created by the last administration, are negotiating international trade imbalances that have plagued our country for years, and have made a stronger attempt to moderate the behavior of bad actors than anything accomplished by the past three presidents.

But all of that requires a steady and detailed examination of the facts, an examination of the numbers and a clear study of real-world accomplishments and failures. That not what Fear does. It feeds the emotional turmoil of a political party and its supporters who lost an election they knew they would win and then needed to invent reasons why they were beaten. They also badly need to demonize the winner. Fear reinforces their hysteria.

Op-ed, Revisited

Like most things that are promoted by #Resistance and their allies in the main stream media, the hysteria associated with the New York Times anonymous op-ed has already begun to wain. But not before the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd has used it as yet another reason for the overthrow of Donald Trump as president. In a noteworthy (and angry) commentary, historian Victor Davis Hansen writes:

The [op-ed] writer’s chief complaint is that Trump “is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision.” Flesh that out. That would imply something along the lines that Trump ignores advice from New York Times op-ed writers and instead thrashes about and cancels the Iran deal. Or he dangerously and rashly gets out of the Paris Climate Accord. Or he stupidly insists that the U.S. embassy be moved to Jerusalem in helter-skelter fashion. Or he insanely demands massive deregulation, tax cuts, and new oil exploration without following any overarching principles in achieving 4 percent quarterly GDP growth or a record high stock market. Worst of all, madman Trump screams, yells, and ends the sacred idea that after 70 years the Palestinians are still refugees.

Certainly, there are principles behind such Trump moves, but they are not always those of the Washington establishment, whose agendas the writer reflects. Trump’s initiatives are often long overdue moves that would never have happened in either a “sober and judicious” Democratic or Republican administration, however much they might have been polled and discussed.

Trump has mostly one principle: he was elected to pursue a conservative populist agenda without too much worry what the Washington establishment said or did, whose record on the economic front since 2008 and in foreign policy was not especially stellar. In that sense, he is far more principled in carrying out his promises than many past presidents whose stump speeches on taxes, illegal immigration, trade, educational reform and a host of other issues were either never reified or flat out broken ...

Anonymous huffs: “In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the ‘enemy of the people,’ President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.” Again, Trump has said repeatedly he would prefer no tariffs if trade was just reciprocal. On trade issues, he has made progress with the EU and Mexico and likely soon Canada and China, all of whom enjoy trade surpluses which Trump throughout his campaign claimed were harmful to the United States and would diminish under his presidency.

As for as Trump’s loud anti-media tweets, worry not about what he now says, but when he [like the Obama administration] orders his attorney general to start monitoring on the sly the communications of Associated Press reporters or the private emails of a Fox correspondent, or when his Justice Department and FBI hierarchy deludes a FISA court in order to spy on American citizens.

As far as “anti-democratic” and a Russian-appeasing Trump, he has not yet claimed [as George W. Bush did] that Putin was trustworthy and genuine based on a soul-gazing stare into his eyes. Nor has he been caught on a hot mic [as Barack Obama was] promising to give up U.S. missile defense programs in Eastern Europe, if Vladimir would just give him “space” during his reelection bid. Trump has said silly things about Putin, but so far his actual record is certainly not of the [Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama] reset sort that greenlighted Russian entrance into the Middle East, Ukraine, and Crimea.

Somehow it’s “news” that a senior, unnamed official claims all the bad stuff that we don’t know happened, or actually never quite happened, was due to Trump alone. And, of course, all the good stuff that we do know happened was only because of noble, smart, patriotic, and visionary officials like the writer and his friends ...

The recent op-ed is yet another episode in an endless resistance cartoon, another pathetic effort of self-important grandees to undo by fiat what the voters did by voting in 2016.

Yep. That about covers it.

If the Washington elites in the Democrat and Republican parties, along with their deep state allies and their media flunkies, had accomplished great things on either the domestic or foreign policy fronts over the past two decades, they might be worth listening to. But they haven't. In fact, it can be argued that Donald Trump has accomplished more in two years than they have in 20.

In this era there are far too many people who value words and style over accomplishment and results. Far too many politicians and activists tell us they care, tell us they'll improve the plight of the downtrodden, tell us that their way is the road to a better tomorrow. There's only one problem—they never seem to put one foot in front of the other and achieve actual results that actually benefit the people that profess to care about (you know, more jobs, better pay, a safer neighborhood), that improve the plight of our citizens (like reducing the number of them who depend on food stamps), or lead to a better tomorrow. That's left for the gruff people who actually do stuff, not talk about doing stuff.

Treason

In his typical hyperbolic manner, Donald Trump obliquely referred to the now infamous anonymous op-ed in the New York Times as "treason." It's hardly that, although the op-ed certainly is a self-indulgent, hubristic attempt at moral preening that will thrill the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd but few others.

Frank Miele comments:

The word treason has been thrown around recently to describe the attempts to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump, and though treason as a crime has a very narrow definition in the United States, it also has a broader meaning that is certainly appropriate to describe the betrayal of the president and the Constitution by various powerful people and institutions.

In some ways, we are living through a new and more intense version of “The Treason of the Intellectuals,” described by French author Julien Benda in his book of that name in 1928. “Our age,” he wrote, “is the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds.” Anyone who watched the Senate Judiciary Committee’s disgraceful hearing on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court knows that we are still living in such an age, only more so.

Benda wrote at the beginning of the age of mass communication, and yet he already saw that “political passions have attained a universality never before known. … Thanks to the progress of communication and, still more, to the group spirit, it is clear that the holders of the same political hatred now form a compact impassioned mass, every individual of which feels himself in touch with the infinite number of others, whereas a century ago such people were comparatively out of touch with each other and hated in a ‘scattered’ way.”

The internet has accelerated these changes in ways that Benda could never have imagined, but he did state that these “coherences” of passion “will tend to develop still further, for the will to group is one of the most profound characteristics of the modern world.”

It seems that we are now living out Benda’s worst nightmare — an age of manipulation of the masses by those who think they know better — whether you call them the “deep state,” the “opposition party,” “the national elite,” “the entrenched bureaucracy,” or just “the establishment.”

I have noted in previous posts that at least part of the fury exhibited by the media and directed at Trump and his supporters is due to the simple reality that the media no longer has the influence on public opinion it once did. What infuriates the media is their inability to destroy Trump with the clear implication that their influence has waned. After all, the tsunami of negative news offered up by the media has resulting in polling data that indicates a rise in Trump's standing among the general public—exactly the opposite of what has been intended.

The media is no longer trusted as it once was. And it certainly doesn't present the intellectual or analytical fire power it once had. The media has become a partisan extension of the Democratic party, not the objective arbiter of national events and policy.

Miele, the retiring managing editor of The Daily Interlake in Montana, a media source that is about as far removed from the New York Times as geography, culture, and editorial position allow. He concludes with this comment:

... let me conclude by saying that “I am Part of the Resistance Inside the News Media.” To paraphrase the Times’ anonymous op-ed, I believe my “first duty is to this country” and that the news media “continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.” I am not loyal to the news industry but to the truth. Anonymous sources, biased reporting and smirking superiority in the newsroom should be decried by everyone who works in this business. We can only get to the truth by putting aside our personal beliefs and telling stories fairly and without an agenda of our own.

The news media should not be “the opposition party” to Republican presidents; rather, it should be the umpire that fairly calls balls and strikes. Is that too much to ask?

In today's world, I must sadly conclude the answer is 'yes.'