Ever heard of “progressive stacking”? I hadn’t either, but apparently it’s all the rage on college campuses. Take a look (and in case you need a crib sheet, “POC” is “people of color” and “WW” is “white women”):
U. Penn history teacher explains what 'social justice' really means in university classes. pic.twitter.com/mx0gDfPQRe
In subsequent post, McKellop explains that the tactic – called progressive stacking – was one learned from a professor in undergrad. ‘In normal life, who has the easiest time speaking, most opportunities? Flip it,’ they added.
‘The classroom is the place YOU get to control social setting.’
McKellop would continue to tweet about the reaction they were receiving for teaching the method and added: ‘Penn thinks I’m racist and discriminatory towards my students for using a very well worn pedagogical tactic which includes calling on [people of color].’
Being “well-worn” doesn’t make it right, of course. And no one objects to “calling on people of color.” It’s the preferences and the exclusions that are the problem, as McKellop no doubt realizes.
When I first heard about college affirmative action I was a liberal. I was all for equal opportunity for every race and every individual, and it’s probably because of that fact that I felt a strong stirring of unease. Two wrongs don’t make a right was my reaction. And More injustice can’t be the proper remedy for injustice.
It puzzled me at the time that I was seemingly in the minority in that opinion, which seemed to me at the time like the obvious reaction for a liberal but certainly was not. I had a lot to learn about myself and my fellow liberals.
It’s not that I had a quick solution to the problem of prejudice. I understood that injustice had certainly been prevailing in my youth, and that it needed to be corrected. But I thought it was already in the process of being corrected and that we needed to keep going in the direction of color-blindness and merit. The idea at the time was that black people had long been unfairly held back even when qualified, and that they also hadn’t gotten the same educational and societal advantages as white people. That was true. But the remedy had been thought to be to correct the educational imbalances and punish those who unfairly discriminated (there was certainly plenty of that) and the rest should follow, although it would take time. Preferential treatment would lead to resentment and would be the replacement of one unfairness with another.
And it has come to pass, and practices such as progressive stacking are the result.
Yes, there was a Republican publication—the Washington Free Beacon—involved in funding some research by Fusion right at the beginning, before Robert Steele or the Russians or the Trump dossier had anything to do with it. But Steele and all the rest was strictly a funded-by-Democrats operation:
Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton. All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.
The MSM had us all guessing which GOP candidate it was, and Jeb Bush was the hands-down leader.
You can’t make this stuff up. Actually, you can. You can make up all sorts of things—and you can try to twist the news of it even now, if you’re the NY Times:
“Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier” is the headline [in the Times\ that should give one pause immediately. The Times identifies the “website” as the Washington Free Beacon, a first rate on-line investigative journal that’s uncovered a lot of information that the Democrats would rather have die in darkness.
WFB is “funded by a major Republican donor” say Haberman and Vogel. No, really? Were we expecting it to be funded by a Democrat donor, perhaps? In this way, the Times tries to implicate “hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer” in the matter of the nasty dossier, though Mr. Singer says he first found out about it when BuzzFeed, a left-leaning website, published it. Hedge fund billionaires are bad when they fund Republicans. The good ones fund the Clintons and the left-wing media.
The Times states that WFB hired Fusion GPS in October 2015 to do opposition research on “several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump” but terminated the assignment in May 2016, when Trump secured the Republican nomination. The opposition research eventually included “a salacious dossier describing ties between Mr. Trump and the Russian government,” but who commissioned the dossier?
The Times wants you to believe that it’s WFB and/or its nefarious major donor, Mr. Singer. Only an inconvenient truth creeps into this story. In April 2016 the Clinton campaign and the DNC retained Fusion GPS “to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his campaign team and Russia.” But that was a month before Fusion GPS was terminated by WFB. Confused yet?
There’s more, but you get the idea. The Times piece is purposely convoluted and the headline purposely misleading—but hey, what else is new?
Meanwhile, if you want some lucid coverage, go to Andrew C. McCarthy.
The musical “Oklahoma” came out in early 1943, a welcome nostalgic respite from the trauma of World War II. The movie (far inferior, IMHO) was released in 1955.
I was raised on Broadway musicals. I know just about every word of every musical (except the flops) of the 40s through the 60s, including “Oklahoma” (which I only saw in revival, at City Center). I learned these lyrics as a young child, which a great many adults around me found quite amusing. For example, one of my favorites was “Fugue for Tinhorns” which I could warble at around age 3, as well as “Doin’ What Comes Naturally”. The first is about betting on horses and the second about sex, albeit in a fairly cleaned-up way.
And then there was “I Cain’t Say No” from “Oklahoma.” It’s sung by a girl who knows the basic mores of the time but has trouble saying no to men who proposition her. It begins this way:
It ain’t so much a question of not knowin’ what to do
I knowed what’s right an’ wrong since I been ten.
I heared a lot of stories an’ I reckon they are true
About how girls are put upon by men…
Here’s the movie version:
I immediately thought of this song when I read the latest accusation of sexual harassment against Mark Halperin [emphasis mine]:
Dianna Goldberg was a young researcher at ABC News in 1994 when she asked a colleague, Mark Halperin, for some information about a story. He readily agreed to help her and asked her to come to his office.
Close the door, he said when she arrived. Come over here, he said, seated at his desk. Sit down and I’ll give you the information, he said. He motioned to his lap.
“What?” she remembers thinking. “I don’t want to sit on your lap.” But Halperin was the political director of the network, a rising star who was highly regarded by ABC’s management, including “World News Tonight” anchor Peter Jennings. Goldberg, who now goes by her married name, May, thought that refusing him could injure her career.
She reluctantly agreed and sat down briefly. Halperin, she recalled on Wednesday, had an erection.
The same routine happened on three or four other occasions, she said. Each instance left her confused, shaken and ashamed…
“I didn’t know what to do,” said May, now a lawyer. “He was important. He wasn’t my superior, but he was certainly in a superior position to mine. I didn’t say anything. I didn’t know how to at the time. I knew it was wrong.
This is nothing like Ado Annie, the character in “Oklahoma” who revels in the attention and seems to consent with full awareness of what she was doing—including the “wrongness” of saying “yes” (“I knowed what’s right an’ wrong since I been ten.”). Annie had also “heared a lot of stories” of this sort and had “reckoned they were true”, so none of it came as a surprise—in 1943 and in 1955. And there’s even a lyric in the song “soon as I sit on their laps, something inside of me snaps…”
But Annie seems to be happy about the attention, unlike Goldberg and her sisters. Women like to be referred to as “women” when they’re in college these days, but they seem a lot less sophisticated—and to have a lot less agency—then the “girl” Ado Annie claims herself to be. Halperin was hitting on young women (he himself was rather young at the time of this incident, by the way: about 29 years old) and using his position of power, although not issuing any threats or promises. And once Goldberg had sat in his lap the first time, he certainly had reason to think he could hit on her again. Perhaps he even thought she was a willing rather than a reluctant participant.
Why on earth was someone like Goldberg—who later became a lawyer—so passive and pliant? It reminds me of Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments, as well as the favorite saying of everybody’s mother “If he jumped off a cliff, would you follow him?”
Yes, Halperin was a user, a sexual opportunist who chased after women in the workplace and used his power to get sexual perks. But in his sexual harassment he was preying not just on the youth and inexperience of these women but on their own ambition as well. Goldberg says she wanted to refuse, but that she thought a refusal would injure her career. But she seems to have expressed nothing of her hesitation to Halperin, and gave in—not once, but many times.
Abuse of power for sexual favors is very wrong. That’s why we condemn priests who abuse children (or who have sex with adult parishioners, for that matter, because priests have taken a religious vow and also have a position of power and influence over adults). Same is true of therapists who come on sexually to clients and of teachers. The workplace contains power differentials, too, so is all workplace sex now verboten? And if it’s not, how on earth is anyone supposed to figure out when an advance is wanted versus when a person is only saying “yes” because she (or he) feels an unstated threat to career ambitions?
If I were a man in the workplace today, I would never say a single sexual thing to anyone, not even a joke. It’s too dangerous out there. And I’d keep many feet between me and anyone I spoke with. I’d also follow the Mike Pence rule—which the liberal press used to say was something that harmed women:
Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”…
Because of that, when men avoid professional relationships with women, even if for noble reasons, it actually hurts women in the end. “The research is irrefutable: Those with larger networks earn more money and get promoted faster. Because men typically dominate senior management, there’s evidence that the most valuable network members may be men,” wrote Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women, in the Los Angeles Times recently. “Without access to beneficial friendships and mentor relationships with executive men, women won’t be able to close the gender gap that exists in most professions.”
Men are to blame for everything, right? That’s sarcasm, by the way. But if women want to be called “women,” they need to earn the title and be women—not girls—women who can say “no” if that’s what they’re thinking.
I thought this subject had been fully aired, but it came up again on a thread yesterday, so I thought I’d address it again very briefly.
The question is whether Paddock could have made money playing video poker. The answer is “yes, if he started with a huge stake and was an obsessive numbers guy, and particularly if he started quite a few years ago when the machines had better odds for the patient and focused video poker obsessives among us.”
The odds are actually not too bad to at least break even if and only if you know what you’re doing and have a lot of patience. Paddock apparently knew what he was doing and had a lot of patience (read: obsessiveness). Here’s the scoop:
For years, Paddock and other professionals had figured out how to make the machines pay, tipping their advantage by a few hundredths of a percentage point by identifying the right games and maximizing points while playing…
“The video poker machines that Paddock played often attract locals who are not seeking the excitement and rowdiness of live poker games,” said Scott Roeben who runs the Vital Vegas blog. “It is not glamorous, it’s not exciting. It’s a game of just slogging away. It’s methodical and solitary.”
For Paddock, who was also a multimillion-dollar real estate investor, it was at least a steady income over a period of years…
But those familiar with the world of video poker say winning has become much harder as casinos, mostly on the Las Vegas Strip, have added machines that hold a better house advantage.
Sometime a little more than a decade ago, the odds changed. And not in Paddock’s favor…
The elimination of most machines that don’t have a broad, built-in house edge has narrowed the field of those who are ready to drop millions, said Jean Scott, who has written several books about video poker and has played at a professional level for decades. “The advantage plays have gone away in recent years. It is getting hard to win,” Scott said. “The casino bean counters are getting tougher.”
Anthony Curtis, a professional gambler who runs one of the authoritative guides to the Las Vegas casinos, the Las Vegas Advisor, said Paddock was what is known as a “comp hustler” ”” someone who plays well enough to get significant compensation in the form of suites, limos and food.
“These kind of players play for the complimentary services ”¦ this guy was not social, but he liked to see himself, his girlfriend and anyone else he brought along be treated well,” Curtis said. “He was a relatively knowledgeable video poker player and definitely knew what he was doing. A player like him does not really lose money ”” they play within their means to an actual plan.”
That fits everything we know about Paddock, and all the reports I’ve seen of his personality and habits are consistent with it. He didn’t actually make five million dollars playing poker, but he started out with millions and apparently kept those millions fairly intact while living what he considered the high life.
The universe shouldn’t technically exist, according to top scientists who have spent their careers trying to figure out how the beginning of everything didn’t immediately destroy itself.
I believe they actually mean “Technically, the universe shouldn’t exist” rather than “The universe shouldn’t technically exist.” But let’s not worry too much about that; bigger things are at issue [emphasis mine]:
The current model for the birth of the universe predicts that equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced by the Big Bang.
But, since matter and antimatter are identical except for their opposite electrical charges, they annihilate each other…
Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research have been looking for any type of variation between matter and antimatter that would have allowed matter to dominate and explain how you’re reading this right now.
“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” Christian Smorra, the study’s lead author, said in a statement. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?”
Good luck with that.
I have long thought that our knowledge of these things is highly incomplete and perhaps even deeply flawed. There are plenty of things “we simply do not understand.” I’m not knocking cosmologists—I couldn’t do what they do—but the built-in limitations seem to me to be permanent, at least on this mortal coil.
Science is one way to approach it. Mystics approach it another way. There’s this, for example, which has become a sort of cliche but is actually profoundly mysterious:
For kabbalists, Ayin became the word to describe the most ancient stage of creation and was therefore somewhat paradoxical, as it was not completely compatible with “creation from nothing”. Ayin became for kabbalists a symbol of “supreme existence” and “the mystical secret of being and non-being became united in the profound and powerful symbol of the Ayin”. There is also a paradoxical relationship between the meaning of Ayin and Yesh from kabbalistic point of view. Rachel Elior, professor of Jewish philosophy and mysticism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes that for kabbalists Ayin (nothingness) “clothes itself” in Yesh (everything there is) as “concealed Torah clothes itself in revealed Torah”.
And this, one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes: “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
The DOJ reached an undisclosed monetary settlement with over 400 conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday.
“The [Internal Revenue Service]’s use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny was wrong and should never have occurred,” Sessions said in a statement Thursday. “It is improper for the IRS to single out groups for different treatment based on their names or ideological positions.”
The Trump administration reached a settlement in two separate cases, one including 41 groups and another filed by 428 plaintiffs…
The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determination process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding some Plaintiffs’ information that TITA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong,” the IRS said in court documents. “For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.”
The settlement comes days after the House Judiciary Committee released internal Obama DOJ emails, that revealed the agency selectively funneled big banks’ predatory lending settlement money to liberal non-profits to the exclusion of conservative organizations.
Note that this apology is not an admission that these conservative groups were targeted for political reasons. It was just some sort of clerical error or something of the sort. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it’s impossible (unless you’re a Democratic hack) to come to the conclusion that this pattern of behavior was the least bit innocent and not politically motivated.
And hey, it worked, right? And unless I’m mistaken, the DOJ will use taxpayer money to pay the injured parties. So we’re all going to be the ones paying for it. And no one from the IRS will ever be tried.
I’ve already said I don’t automatically believe women or men as a class. In fact, I don’t believe or disbelieve a member of any group simply because that person is a member of that group. I evaluate each accusation on its own merits, knowing how difficult that is when the only evidence is often just the competing stories of the parties.
That’s why the proliferation of accusations that are part of the #MeToo campaign on Twitter and elsewhere troubles me. Sexual harassment exists; no doubt about that. There are all kinds and all degrees. There are avenues for redress. And there are sometimes reasons that the victims don’t report the offenses when they first occur.
And there are also lies, both big and small, on all sides.
The process of sorting it out is very difficult, and doubt often remains. But now it’s happening more often that the legal process is circumvented and we are left with the court of public opinion, and the acceptance of every accusation as the gospel truth by a huge segment of the population.
I don’t operate that way. But I seem increasingly to be a dinosaur.
Some of the newest misdeeds reported include an old man’s lame joke. Really? Is a woman so very weak and defenseless that this constitutes some heinous crime? Can’t we save the real outrage for more egregious offenses such as those Weinstein is alleged to have committed, and/or times when there is a quid pro quo (or threat) stated or at least implied?
Five women told CNN that Halperin sexually harassed them while at ABC News, with some accusing him of inappropriately propositioning him and pressing his genitals against them without consent. Halperin served in powerful positions at ABC, including as the network’s political director, though none of the women who spoke with CNN say Halperin threatened their careers or promised to help them in exchange for sex.
In a statement to CNN, ABC News said that Halperin has not worked at the network for a while and that “no complaints were filed during his tenure.”
The five women told CNN that they did not report the incidents to human resources because they feared retribution from Halperin. They spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because they know Halperin is an influential member of the media.
I hold no brief for Halperin. I don’t ordinarily watch the news on TV and until today was almost completely unfamiliar with him except for a few brief moments he was connected to some story or other. He appears to be guilty of some of these offenses, having admitted to the following:
Halperin apologized for “[pursuing] relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me”, but denied pressing his genitals against a woman and grabbing another woman’s breast.
More about the accusations:
On October 26, 2017, CNN reported that five women had come forward and accused Halperin of sexual harassment. One woman told the network she was assaulted after visiting Halperin in the early 2000s. “I went up to have a soda and talk and ”” he just kissed me and grabbed my boobs,” the woman said. “I just froze. I didn’t know what to do.” Another woman told CNN that Halperin once pressed his penis on her shoulder during the 2004 campaign cycle. “I was obviously completely shocked,” she said. “Given I was so young and new I wasn’t sure if that was the sort of thing that was expected of you if you wanted something from a male figure in news.”
As I said, it seems to me that Halperin is guilty—perhaps not of every single element of every single alleged offense, but of the general pattern and of many if not most of them. They are not trivial; although they’re not in Weinstein territory, they are offensive if unwanted.
But I am surprised at these women’s self-reported reactions, too. After all, these are not women who came of age in the 40s and 50s. These are women steeped in the idea that they are strong, and that unwanted touching is bad and that they can report people who sexually harass them at work and get some sort of redress. So, they “froze” and “didn’t know what to do”? Why not? Even a woman of my generation knows what to do—have some courage, and step up to the plate! Is it so hard to tell someone his behavior is unwanted and unacceptable? Is it so hard to report him? Is it so hard to do something that might jeopardize your job? Isn’t it the case that people often have to take a stand that might threaten their jobs, or risk being morally compromised? Is it too much to ask that people do it anyway?
Apparently, it is. Here’s some more:
Halperin served in powerful positions at ABC, including as the network’s political director, though none of the women who spoke with CNN say Halperin threatened their careers or promised to help them in exchange for sex.
In a statement to CNN, ABC News said that Halperin has not worked at the network for a while and that “no complaints were filed during his tenure.”
No threats. No promises, either. And no complaints.
So why were these women so very afraid? What are they willing to stand up for if it threatens their job? Anything? Are they only coming forward now—post-Weinstein, post Ailes and O’Reilly—because it involves so little risk?
I’m not asking everyone to be a profile in courage. But certainly, in the absence of any overt threat, it shouldn’t be too much to ask that a woman report harassment. If you want to mix it up in corporate life, you have to have some sort of spine, don’t you? Must everything be a completely Safe Space, with no risk whatsoever and no responsibilities on your part to even defend yourself in the ways that are available to you?
The Justice Department on Wednesday night released a former FBI informant from a confidentiality agreement, allowing him to testify before Congress about what he witnessed while undercover about the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favorable decisions during the Obama administration.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill a deal had been reached clearing the informant to talk to Congress for the first time, nearly eight years after he first went undercover for the FBI.
…the informant was unable to provide answers to lawmakers’ recent inquiries because he had signed a nondisclosure agreement with the bureau. He also was forced by the Justice Department in 2016 to withdraw a lawsuit that threatened to call attention to the case during last year’s presidential election.
This won’t be for public viewing, though, and the man’s identity will be kept confidential.
This should come as no surprise. Paddock was no dummy:
Paddock is believed to have removed the hard drive before fatally shooting himself, and the missing device has not yet been recovered, sources told ABC News.
Investigators digging into Paddock’s background also learned he purchased software designed to erase files from a hard drive, but without the hard drive to examine it is impossible to know if he ever used the software, one source said.
I assumed he’d either destroyed the entire computer or never used it to plan his crime in the first place. This is a man who was intent on taking his secret to the grave.
A lot of news is coming out now about certain goings-on during Obama’s presidency: for example, the FBI offered to pay for further work on the so-called “Trump dossier.” That’s in addition to the revelations that came yesterday revealing that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were among those who funded it, despite previous denials.
The WaPo has been driving both of these stories. I wonder why. The paper is not ordinarily big on printing things that reflect poorly on either the Obama administration, Clinton, or the DNC, but it seems that these stories do just that. The WaPo writes:
The dossier alleges extensive ties between the president and Russia, but its contents are unverified. It has become the subject of three separate investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Trump has called the document false.
It’s certainly not just Trump who’s called the document false. Even Vox (just to take one example), not known for being particularly Trump-friendly, writes:
Former British spy Christopher Steele did this work for Fusion, and authored what became known as the Steele dossier, which contained salacious (and uncorroborated) political financial, and sexual allegations about Trump and his top associates.
Vox is careful to add this:
Before that point, Fusion GPS had reportedly already done research into Trump, on behalf of a Republican client. But we don’t yet know who that Republican client is.
The WaPo mentioned this Republican too. One wonders whether such a person exists, although it’s certainly possible. However, not only has that person not been named or characterized in any way except as a Republican, but the source for the information has never been named.
While Eric Holder was U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department allowed prosecutors to strike agreements compelling big companies to give money to outside groups not connected to their cases to meet settlement burdens. Republican lawmakers long have decried those payments as a “slush fund” that boosted liberal groups, and the Trump DOJ ended the practice earlier this year.
But internal Justice Department emails released Tuesday by Goodlatte indicated that not only were officials involved in determining what organizations would get the money, but also Justice Department officials may have intervened to make sure the settlements didn’t go to conservative groups.
It strikes me that the more an administration or campaign—any administration or campaign—feels itself immune from investigative reporting of a negative nature by the press, the more and more corrupt it will feel free to be. Of course, it only tends to be the left and/or the Democrats who feel immune to such criticism.
The Obama administration was emboldened to put such a scheme in place. It probably wasn’t just because the press was in Obama’s corner, either. They may have felt—in fact, I think they did feel—that they had established a Democratic dynasty that would be in place for a very long time and would continue to cover it all up. They felt this dynasty was due to a combination of press support, changing demographics, and their own political acumen. This turned out to have been erroneous, but it was believed.
I also think that even now this sort of news falls on a lot of deaf ears, except for the right, in large part because of people’s desire to tune out what they don’t like. How one looks at such news depends at least in part on one’s political bent. If you want to know how the left is reacting to it, go to any leftist blog or webpage and you’ll see the way the denial of any Democratic culpability works. So I think another factor is that they felt that even if the facts came out, the public for the most part wouldn’t care.
Even back in February of 2017 it was fairly well-known that the Trump dossier was a case of Fake News. But it served its purpose, didn’t it? It fueled the post-election Democratic message of Trump and the Russians being in collusion. That not only led to many Democrats believing such a thing, but it also led to the opening of the Mueller investigation of Trump, a fishing expedition which could lead to some way to impeach him (at least, that’s the hope). As Sean Davis wrote:
The Mueller probe is based entirely on two things: a dossier created by Dem collusion w/ Russia, and illegal leaks by James Comey.
I’m not sure about the word “entirely” there, but certainly “in large part.”
[ADDENDUM: More examples of the Democratic/liberal/left reaction to the story.]
[ADDENDUM II: And here’s a credible explanation as to why the WaPo told the story: “the real purpose of it seems to be not unveiling a bomb, but defusing one.”]
I’m not sure I like the name, but this seems like an interesting idea:
Start a Club
It’s hardly possible to overstate the value of placing human beings in contact with other persons dissimilar to themselves”¦Such communication has always been one of the primary sources of progress.
”” John Stuart Mill, 1848
Do you have a friend, relative, co-worker, or fellow citizen whose politics is different from yours, yet with whom you find that discussions are mutually beneficial? Would you be willing to go public, putting on something as small as a dinner party, or as large as a public or televised discussion? If so, then consider declaring yourselves an Asteroids Club and sharing your example with others here on this site.
I know plenty of people with positions very different from mine. In fact, that’s the vast majority of the people I know. I don’t quite live in a complete bubble, but it’s mighty close; probably 90%, anyway. The problem is that for every person in that 90% with whom I’ve found discussions to be “mutually beneficial,” I’ve found ten with whom they’re not only not mutually beneficial but highly acrimonious. And that’s true no matter how polite and respectful I try to be.
So I’d have trouble scaring up a group like this, although in principle I think it’s a fabulous idea.
Here’s how they suggest starting:
Your Asteroids Club must begin with an enduring, established relationship between two people who don’t see politics the same way. If you don’t start with this core of trust, expect choppy waters. Identifying a central friendship is a step that is key to future success. Resist the temptation to begin the club between two friends on the same side of the aisle. If you want to start it with a likeminded friend, find two more acquaintances who are your political foils to join your effort. Have a get-together with your friend/s to both cement the concept and discuss your goals…
After having started with solid personal relationships, your next task is to enlarge your group. People who join should be willing to at least entertain agreement with the founding notion: an acknowledgement that the other “side” may see some real threats more clearly than does one’s own side. Keep the group roughly balanced politically. Avoid bringing in flame-throwers or participants who you intuitively find worrisome. This group of people is most critical as they will create the culture of what is to follow, especially if you plan to hold large or public events. Once the Asteroids Club culture is established, challenging personalities and stronger partisans can join without undue disruption.
Anyone who says that members of a certain group always tell the truth is lying.
There is no such group on earth. I don’t care if it’s a group of Catholic nuns or Buddhist monks. There are liars in every group, at least potentially.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that I’d take the word of an ex-con in the same way I’d take the word of some upstanding citizen of the community. But it means that in any given circumstances—and in particular if that circumstance is a court of law—a person is only as good as the evidence behind him or her.
The difficulty lies when there is no evidence other than a person’s word. Sometimes with sexual harassment or assault claims there is some independent corroborative evidence: an emailed photo, for example. That’s the petard with which Weiner was hoisted. But harassers and abusers aren’t always so dumb as to leave evidence, and then we are left with a hesaid/shesaid scenario. In that case we look at demeanor, before and after behavior, and all sorts of other information that could help us come to a decision.
But never should we rely on something like “being a woman” or “being a man” to tell us whether a person is a truth-teller in each particular circumstance. Nor does membership in a certain race or religion or any other demographic group, including being a child. Even children lie about abuse, sometimes at the behest of a scheming parent and sometimes on their own. It happens, although how often it happens is a matter of some dispute.
In the area of abuse there have been some pretty wild pendulum swings in terms of the belief in the veracity of members of groups. In my opinion, it’s best not to use such categories at all. But that’s not the way things have been going lately [emphasis mine]:
[A recent NBC piece] says one of the big problems with [To Kill a] Mockingbird is that it “complicates the modern ”˜believe victims’ movement”. As most people educated in a school in the Anglosphere over the past 30 or 40 years will know, Lee’s tale focuses on siblings Scout and Jem and their dad Atticus, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman called Mayella. Mayella is lying. …Letting schoolgirls read this book will fuel their “growing suspicion that people don’t believe girls who say they have been raped”, says the NBC News piece. It makes us think there is “reason to doubt” rape accusers.
So the NBC piece isn’t as eccentric as it first seems. It speaks to a now mainstream view: that women (and children) who claim to have been sexually assaulted must be instantly, uncritically believed. “I believe” has been the rallying cry of feminists and journalists and others for years. “Believe the women”, they say, just as anti-abuse campaigners in the 1980s and 1990s said “Believe the children” about children who claimed they had been taken into forests and ritually molested by men in black cloaks (they hadn’t)…
But here’s the thing: there is “reason to doubt” rape accusers. Just as there is reason to doubt everyone who makes an accusation of a crime, be it rape, assault, harassment, or whatever. Indeed, doubt is written into fair justice systems. We treat accusers sympathetically, yes, but not religiously. (“Is the accuser always holy now?”, a character asks in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, to indicate how horribly wrong things can go when accusers are treated religiously.) Our belief in the innocence of the accused, our insistence that his guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, our affording to him of numerous opportunities to scupper the accusations against him”—all of this is designed to indicate skepticism towards accusations, and make it difficult to turn accusation into conviction. Why? For one simple reason: the accused stands to lose something incredibly precious—his freedom. It is right that that should not be easy. It is right that we should be doubtful towards those who say things that could remove liberty, the stuff of life, from another person.
Our entire criminal justice system is built on that edifice. Tear it down and you destroy safeguards that are basic to our liberty.
