Resisting a Lynch Mob

[DKW 86 7,411]

 

Quote

 

Resisting a Lynch Mob

September 23, 2018, 12:03 am

Atticus Finch resisted, but the Democrat lynch mob won.

When it was published in 1960, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird won the Pulitzer Prize for literature and became an instant classic. In 1962, it was made into a movie starring Gregory Peck, a role for which he won an Academy Award for Best Actor.

The story is based on Lee’s childhood in rural Alabama during the 1930s. The narrator is six-year-old Jean Louise Finch. The protagonist is her father, Atticus, who is a small-town lawyer appointed by the court to represent Tom Robinson, a black man who has been charged with raping Mayella Ewell, a young white woman. Despite the community’s near universal condemnation, Atticus defends Tom in and out of court.

One night, Atticus sits vigil outside the county jail where Tom is being held. A lynch mob arrives, and, while Atticus blocks their way, little Jean Louise appears and sweetly greets some of the lynchers by name. Shamed by her innocence, they back down.

At the trial, Mayella testifies unconvincingly that Tom raped her. When Atticus gently cross-examines her, she breaks into tears and angrily repeats her claim.

Under questioning by Atticus, Tom convincingly protests his innocence. After Atticus’ closing argument, it is clear to the reader that Mayella is lying and Tom is innocent.

But facts and logic do not carry the day. The jury quickly convicts Tom. While Atticus is visiting Tom’s wife to discuss the appeal, word comes that Tom has been shot and killed while trying to escape.

Viewing this classic tale from the perspective of 2018 and the #MeToo movement, it is clear that Harper Lee, a female, was a self-hating misogynist who promoted for profit the idea that a woman could actually lie about sexual assault and that such a lie could unfairly destroy an unjustly accused man’s life. Atticus Finch, the so-called hero of the story, is glorified for questioning the victim’s credibility, as if that sort of behavior is supposed to be acceptable and, even worse, praiseworthy. How did such a  disgusting piece of trash get published? Why haven’t the book and movie been banned for promoting a negative stereotype of women?

And Gregory Peck? What a pig! How much was he paid to portray Atticus as a brave seeker of truth? His estate should be forced to pay retributions to the National Organization for Women.

By today’s standards, the only heroes of the story are the all-white jurors who saw through Atticus’s trickery and believed the female victim.

These are just some of the thoughts that have come to mind over the past week as Christine Blasey Ford has been negotiating the terms of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Charles Grassley has rejected as “unreasonable” Ford’s demand that she, the accuser, must testify after Brett Kavanaugh, the accused. Why would Grassley and the other committee members reject this demand? Don’t they understand that the paradigm has shifted and that Ford’s sketchy allegations of non-consensual teenage groping by Kavanaugh must be believed and that the burden is on Kavanaugh to somehow clear his name? (There are actually op-eds out today stating the BK must prove himself NOT GUILTY, not be proved GUILTY.)   Based on that premise, of course Kavanaugh should go first. Since he has been accused by a woman, it’s up to him to explain himself without knowing any of the pesky details such as the exact what, when, and where of his alleged actions.

Those are today’s rules. The old system under which a female accuser had the burden of proof was a product of the oppressive patriarchy. Under the new, improved, much more efficient justice system, a woman’s accusation alone should be enough after which it is up to the squirming male worm to try to wriggle his way out it. Why? Because all women tell the truth all the time and all men are pigs and must be destroyed.

Unless, of course, the accused male is a progressive Democrat.

3

I say this again: If the tables were reversed this would be heading in exactly the opposite direction. If this was Ted Kennedy or WJC (only exception being Anthony Weiner, some are even now calling for Franken to make yet another run for Senate.) if this was a bonafide hardcore member of the Democrat Party with Ivy League Credentials, 90% of the Press and 100% of the DNC would be out to crush the woman. Everybody here should remember the Bimbo Eruption Team that was part of the Clinton Campaign and Administration. Back then credible stories with facts to back them up, and certainly well-known proclivities, actually had multiple witnesses and multiple accusers. Some on the Left set out to destroy the multiple women. 

We had the Duke Lacrosse Team Case where DA Democrat Mike Nifong hid exculpatory facts and slimed and smeared some young men and their coach for the rest of their lives over anti-fact backed testimony by one woman. These young men were destroyed because they fit the narrative and if it took accepting a case from a single person with extremely sketchy details That was okay. You see it was against men perceived to be white, probably conservative, and privileged. Nifong was found out, disgraced, dis-barred and sued and lost. But the stain of the accusations will forever be on the innocent.

We had the UofVirginia-Rolling Stone case. RS basically wanted an article to fit a certain niche and basically paid a reporter to manufacture it. The reporter found again a singular person to make outrageous accusations with little if any proof, and what proof she did offer turned out to be proveably wrong. They too were caught, shamed, sued, lost. But the real damage was done again more innocent people had their lives destroyed over nothing that being identified as white, probably conservative, and privileged.

In the era of identity politics, the worst crimes some folks see is being accused of "not being like us."

This is making me physically ill. There is just about zero proof this ever happened. None of her named witnesses back her up, not even the lifelong female friend she named as a witness. The males named all deny it happened. The lifelong friend denies it happened and that she even ever knew BK. 

Quote

"Simply put," Walsh said, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford." The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.

But all that doesnt matter to the Ring Masters in the Lynch Mob. Just like in Ms Lee's book, the truth doesnt get in the way of a mob intent on stringing someone up.

[homersapien 11,354]

So presumably, you think Ford is lying?

[DKW 86 7,411]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So presumably, you think Ford is lying?

Wrong again weed hopper. Its been 36 years. I dont know if she is lying or bad memory, etc.

But, I am mature enough to admit that she has nothing to back up her claims.

If i am to judge whether BK is fit or not, and I personally do not like the pick at all, that is beside the point.
Is he qualified? He has the education, background, credentials, and highly respected for his body of work. Volumes of published work. He is undeniably qualified. Hell, he may be the most published applicant ever.
Is this enough to question a lifetime of positive work? No. Once the lynch mob mentality calms down, those of sane mind will see that this is just not enough to say no. 

Do I personally like him? No. 
Do i think we need another overprivileged son of the elite on the SC? Oh.Hell.No.

But the sitting President, whomever that is, has the privilege of nomination. As long as the nominee is qualified, we must honor his choice.
The question of the nominee's politics is settled at another time in November. 

[homersapien 11,354]

Boy, I've seen someone project mixed signals before, but not as extremely as you do.  

[DKW 86 7,411]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Boy, I've seen someone project mixed signals before, but not as extremely as you do.  

Sorry if being something more than simple-minded confuses you. Sometimes you dont get things the way you want. It is called being an adult. 

I dont like BK. But the sitting President gets to make the nominations. BK is qualified. Not my pick...not at all.
Dr Ford, her story while it could be true, is not substantiated, supported, backed by anyone at the time, at the place where she said it happened. 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

"Sorry if being something more than simple-minded confuses you."

  No DKW complexity doesn't confuse or bother me at all. 

In fact I am perhaps overdrawn to it, if anything.

I just found your rant about lynch mobs - combined with the belief she could be telling the truth - to be a somewhat a mixed message, with typical emphasis on the emotional component.

I would have expected such a rant from Mikey (for example), not from someone who is open to the possibility she's telling the truth.

[DKW 86 7,411]

A possibility is just that. It is nothing more.

So far, all of her own prescribed corroboration has not gone her way.

Could she be telling the truth? Possibly.
Could she be lying? Possibly.
Could she be confused or whatever? Possibly.
Could she be a Space Alien? Possibly.

Can we make a career-ending decision for you based on possibly?

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

A possibility is just that. It is nothing more.

So far, all of her own prescribed corroboration has not gone her way.

Could she be telling the truth? Possibly.
Could she be lying? Possibly.
Could she be confused or whatever? Possibly.
Could she be a Space Alien? Possibly.

Can we make a career-ending decision for you based on possibly?

The Senate can certainly make such a decision based on their gut feel, and "possibility" undoubtedly plays a roll in that. 

I suspect you already knew that, right?

And let's not forget there are other reasons to oppose him which might also factor in, such as his positions on campaign financing or executive power.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

A possibility is just that. It is nothing more.

So far, all of her own prescribed corroboration has not gone her way.

Could she be telling the truth? Possibly.
Could she be lying? Possibly.
Could she be confused or whatever? Possibly.
Could she be a Space Alien? Possibly.

Can we make a career-ending decision for you based on possibly?

Not giving someone a lifetime appointment most take to their 80s to make life and death decisions that impact all of us is hardly career ending. This is not an impeachment proceeding or a disbarment.

[DKW 86 7,411]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Not giving someone a lifetime appointment most take to their 80s to make life and death decisions that impact all of us is hardly career ending. This is not an impeachment proceeding or a disbarment.

Life & Death? What the hell are you smoking? Put the crack pipe down man.

So you are going to be totally fine the next time Hannity trots out a lynch mob to bork the next Democratic Nominee? 
At what point do we make the Bork a Nominee line? There will be 330M that have equally valid voices in this. 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Life & Death? What the hell are you smoking? Put the crack pipe down man.

So you are going to be totally fine the next time Hannity trots out a lynch mob to bork the next Democratic Nominee? 
At what point do we make the Bork a Nominee line? There will be 330M that have equally valid voices in this. 

You don’t think the Supreme Court makes life and death decisions?

I think there are ample reasons to reject this nominee without this accusation. That said, I think the standard for decision making is what’s most likely true. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[DKW 86 7,411]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

One singular accusation is one thing, multiples in different arenas, different schools, etc is completely different.
Kavanaugh is toast.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

One singular accusation is one thing, multiples in different arenas, different schools, etc is completely different.
Kavanaugh is toast.

David, being a Dem, I have admired you objectiveness in all this but now disappointed that you have fallen for another last minute desperate attempt by the Dems to smear Kavanaugh

[DKW 86 7,411]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

David, being a Dem, I have admired you objectiveness in all this but now disappointed that you have fallen for another last minute desperate attempt by the Dems to smear Kavanaugh

Proud...This is a quantuum level or more different. She is not just a drunken 15 year-old with holes in her story. This isnt the next step, This probably is the end. Ronan Farrows name on the article alone is enough to be the mortal blow. There are going to be pols that are just not going to get in a knife fight with the hottest reporter in America. I almost expect Trump to pull the nomination and soon.

I would tell you that I feel sorry for the spoiled elitist privileged prick, but I would be lying. I feel sorry for the wife and kids. not him.And yes, there was something in the reporting on the Su Ching that just sounded too good ole boy prickish too. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Proud...This is a quantuum level or more different. She is not just a drunken 15 year-old with holes in her story. This isnt the next step, This probably is the end. Ronan Farrows name on the article alone is enough to be the mortal blow. There are going to be pols that are just not going to get in a knife fight with the hottest reporter in America. I almost expect Trump to pull the nomination and soon.

I would tell you that I feel sorry for the spoiled elitist privileged prick, but I would be lying. I feel sorry for the wife and kids. not him.And yes, there was something in the reporting on the Su Ching that just sounded too good ole boy prickish too. 

I respect you opinion but just disagree. This whole thing smells like rotten fish to me.

you should be careful describing Farrow as 'hot.'

[DKW 86 7,411]

Ford had no one to back her up. The new article, has details, research, etc behind it. I bet Farrow even held a lil back for the interviews he is going to get in the AM. Noone has questioned anything he has written so far. on all the #metoo stories. To start now would be dumb. He has a ton of credibility with his name.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

29 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Ford had no one to back her up. The new article, has details, research, etc behind it. I bet Farrow even held a lil back for the interviews he is going to get in the AM. Noone has questioned anything he has written so far. on all the #metoo stories. To start now would be dumb. He has a ton of credibility with his name.

OK we will see. But the timing is again suspect for her credibility.