Showing posts sorted by date for query Cosby. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Cosby. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, July 02, 2024

Absolute Immunity Is Absolute

This will get interesting. I said earlier that immunity is jurisdictional. It is, but in one of those interesting distinctions in the law, it’s not jurisdiction. 

Let me explain.

Jurisdiction is fundamental. You cannot waive jurisdiction. If you raise the issue for the first time on appeal, that’s not too late. Jurisdiction cannot be waived. It can even be raised by any court in the chain of appeals, sua sponte, as the lawyers say. Jurisdiction means the court has authority; or it doesn’t. You can’t get more fundamental than that.

Trust me.

Immunity is a matter of jurisdiction. Consider the criminal prosecution of Bill Cosby, based in part on his own statements. The Supreme Court (of the state) threw out the conviction because Cosby waived his 5th Amendment rights on the assurance his words would not be used against them. He did not, in other words, knowingly waive his immunity. The point being, he could have. But having been conned, the court lost jurisdiction over his prosecution. It could not be party to the misrepresentation.

Immunity is personal, not institutional. Immunity denies jurisdiction; but jurisdiction can’t be waived. Immunity can. You can waive your 5th Amendment immunity. You can waive any claim of absolute immunity. Jurisdiction is always there. Immunity is there only if it is raised by the person immunized. And once waived, you don’t get it back. Not in that case, anyway.

If, as the tweets say, Trump did, then…he’s toast. And the issue never comes up for review, not even by the Roberts Court. The majority can do a lot of damage; but they can’t change the gravitational constant of the universe. Or suspend due process and equal protection and equity and procedure, all for Trump and “just this once.”

That would be an opinion no one would regard as valid.  Well, everyone except Thomas and Alito. There’s always somebody.

Wednesday, August 10, 2022

I've Said It Before And I'll Say It Again

Trump has never been the subject of a criminal investigation.

He's finding out that being a rich white guy, even a former POTUS, is no protection against a criminal investigation by the Feds or Georgia (or even NYS).  He's used to stonewalling civil litigants.  That doesn't work with governments.  And yes, they still treat rich guys better than they do poor ones.
This wasn't sudden.  This wasn't a surprise.  The only thing that surprised Trump was that the FBI could drive through the gates of his pink nightmare and enter the premises and order everyone out while they had a look around.  He took documents and papers that belonged to the United States, whether he "declassified" them or not (hint:  he didn't.  But it's irrelevant.)  The government has one sure way to get those back, and that's a search warrant giving FBI agents the authority to look for and seize any property that shouldn't be there and is covered by the warrant.  

In the end, that's all this was, and the burden is all on Trump.  Which is why he's squealing like a stuck pig.  And why nobody will give a shit by the end of the month; end of next week, more likely.  Maybe even end of this one.

The only way this story has legs is if DOJ charges Trump for illegally removing documents.  And I think the odds of that are zip and none.
Except he's already made a statement against his interests: New question: how many presidents, sitting or former, have ever plead the 5th? Or had to? Opinions vary.

Remember yesterday how everyone was saying the FBI "stepped on" Biden's victory in the Senate, and with the PACT Act?  By that logic, today Trump stepped on his own "planted evidence" story.
QED.


Unscientific concluding postscript:
I really expect Conway to know better than this. Every criminal defendant effectively "invokes the 5th" when she/he does not take the stand in their own criminal trial.  They cannot be required to subject themselves to cross-examination there, and cannot be forced to subject themselves to cross-examination in a civil trial/investigation. A defendant who does not testify at trial is not guilty by silence; that would obviate the 5th altogether.  But the 5th applies to criminal proceedings, which could be brought against Trump if he testifies without immunity.  So in a civil case, an inference that he's covering something can be made.  It doesn't mean he is, however.  It could only mean he doesn't trust to the kindness of criminal prosecutors.

I would refer you to the case of Bill Cosby, who on the word of a criminal prosecutor (and a signed agreement), testified in a civil deposition to things he'd never admit to in criminal court.  That same prosecutor then got a verdict against Crosby, using that testimony.  The state Supreme Court was right to throw that conviction out.  Cosby was guilty, no doubt.  But without his testimony, the state couldn't prove it.  And without that agreement they broke, they could never get Cosby's testimony.  Cosby was under no obligation to make the state's case for them.

To argue along with Trump that only the guilty plead the fifth is to assume the prosecution always has the guilty defendant in the dock.  What, then, do we need criminal trials for?  Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, no?

No.

Thursday, July 01, 2021

But Extremely Relevant To The Prosecution Of The Case

Ya fucked up. The entire court agreed on that. The least you can do is own it.

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

What He Said

BTW:

Saturday, May 30, 2020

"What Are You Doing?"

I will take a moment to combine this with another regular theme here. Trump wants to watch the world burn, and we have met the enemy and he is us. A surprising amount of our society would like to see it burn, and the corollary of it being less important if I am going up and more important that you are going down. It is to our own peril that we ignore the streak of malice and sadism in our culture and in the human heart.

Even after three and half years, I regularly get FB postings about how both sides are completely corrupt, a pox on both houses, there's not a dimes width of difference between the parties. Conversations yield up a lot of underlying anger and a sense of powerlessness that manifests as burn it down, I want my revolution, tear it down and start all over. When this is coming out of the mouths of your middle class and upper middle class suburban neighbors, it gets to be a bit scary.

I think a key factor is a severe erosion of trust in institutions and our fellow citizens. Our governments, religious institutions and companies have too often failed us, justifying at least a high level of skepticism, but this has all been supercharged by a organizations that find it beneficial (particularly right wing media) to stoke this lack of trust into outright paranoia. Lack of trust in anything forces us to fall back to only ourselves, atomized and powerless in our inability to trust anyone or anything and thereby exercise communal action.

In the last two weeks I have listened to college friends with medical practices describing anti-vaxxers that paranoid about the 5G and Bill Gates, they won't vaccinate their kids and certainly won't be getting any COVID vaccine should it arrive. Patients won't believe a coronavirus diagnosis, the doctor is lying to them, the test is wrong, it's all about money for the hospital and to take down the president. This is happening in navy blue states. Neighbors that in conversations start to relate conspiracy theories about the source of COVID from Chinese labs (it's possible they say!!), mentions of conspiracies by Hillary, Flynn, Comey, it makes the head spin. A 100,000 deaths are politicized and it feels as if it is only getting worse.

Hopefully the symptom of Trump is defeated this fall (I am now registered to vote in a purple state, I am doing my part!), but this disease of the body politic is metastasizing and even a new president is unlikely to bring even remission. We really need to figure out how to start rebuilding some basic trust in each other and our basic systems. We are failing, and failing badly.
I'm moving this back up for reasons I will explain below.

And I will take this as my text and climb into my virtual pulpit and do something I haven't done in almost two decades:  preach a sermon.

Get comfortable, choir, we may be here a while.

I have nothing add to this, other than the usual caveat "be careful what you wish for, you might get it."  Nobody really wants a revolution, because revolutions are when things get turned over and poured out and nobody can put Humpty-Dumpty together again.  They don't really change things, either.  How different was the Politburo from the Czar?  Stalin from Ivan the Terrible?  What has fundamentally changed in Chinese culture since the Maoist Revolution?  The Cultural Revolution?  The Great Leap Forward?  Even the American Revolution was just a re-arranging of the deck chairs, and a mutiny that put a new captain in charge of the ship.  Meet the old boss, same as the new boss.  The Brits tried it, too (everybody else was doing it!).  They ended up begging the King to come back after just a few years.  France came closest to getting it right, but after the Reign of Terror decided incremental change was probably better.  It took a long time for the people to finally be in charge, and even then:  Algeria.

Everybody wants a revolution that leaves everything the same but with new people in charge.  And then they want a revolution from that.

I honestly can't remember a time in my lifetime when American politics wasn't in a constant turmoil of ruthless bastards on their side and well-meaning ineffectuals on ours.  LBJ is more honored in absence than he was in presence.  JFK became a plaster saint because of Dallas; before that he bumbled far more than he succeeded, at least in public perception.  He became valiant because his death shocked everyone, not because he was good in office.  LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed over  Kennedy's grave, and he knew it.  One wonders if Kennedy could have passed it had the shooter missed.  One wonders how different American history would be (Voting Rights Act, Medicare, PBS, highway beautification, education, etc., etc. etc.) had that fatal bullet gone askew.

People died on the campus of Kent State, and the prevailing public sentiment was "Serves 'em right!" Well, not among the Neil Young generation, but the "older" generation didn't weep much.  Law 'n' order is what put Nixon back in office.  Whatever change has come in American law and society has come without healing all the old wounds of division and dissatisfaction.  I don't know of anybody who was an adult in the '60's who was thoroughly satisfied with the civil rights laws that were passed and enforced.  I know people unhappy with them now, almost 60 years later.  Many people are still upset a black man was in the White House for 8 years, people who will deny they have a racist bone in their bodies.

Those same people would have denied it in the '60's, but they didn't like what that Martin Luther King was saying, and they weren't quite sure the police shouldn't be using water cannons to get those people out of the streets.  A lot of them, too (I grew up in the South, after all) were still unsettled about the "real reasons" for the Civil War, and the outcome (that started in the early 20th century, when people with no memory of the war decided it was a "noble effort" and began putting up statutes to "Confederate heroes," and Memorial Day stopped being a day that united a torn country, and started being a day to praise the Red White and Blue.  And go shopping, and cook hamburgers, and goof off in the backyard.  Yeah, that's part of the thesis here, too.).  And still they resented being told there was a promissory note that was coming due.  They still do.  Never heard Obama mention that, did you?  Imagine if he had.

That's the part of King's "Dream" speech we forget, too.  Easier to make him a secular saint if we don't remember the parts that should still bother us.

Part of the reason people are angry and feel displaced is because they are; displaced, that is.  The economy has been screwing the middle class that flourished after WWII since the '70's, when inflation took over and women had to go to work not because they longed to, but because they had to.  Wages stagnated, and never really kept pace with inflation or output or efficiency of whatever other measure economists came up with, and nobody really complained because we all became white collar workers or part-time hamburger flippers or managers of hamburger flippers and as the left hand took away (stagnant wages, rising costs, no union or public officials to stand up for the "working man and woman."  That latter was a mainstay of Texas politicians from the 19th into the mid 20th century, especially in the first half of the century just gone.  Impossible to imagine it now; they'd be tarred and feathered as "liberals" and "Democrats."  Of course, back then, they were both, but they looked out for the working class.  Not any more.) the right hand gave:  cars, VCR's, cable TV, TiVo, personal computers, eventually the internet and laptops and cell phones and....you get the idea.  More things to spend money on that you didn't have, but it made up (sorta) for the fact you couldn't affor your house or a decent neighborhood anymore or take much time off for leisure activities (my father was self-employed, and took a 2-week vacation every summer, worked 9-5, took time off in December and late November, played golf or did yard work every weekend, made frequent trips to Oklahoma to visit his best friend who had married my mother's sister.  I've never even dreamed of a 2 week vacation.  Couldn't afford to go anywhere if I had the time.).  We've been screwed by the system for 50 years, in other words; a system that rewarded our parents for reasons we never understood but just accepted, has screwed us over for the same reasons and with as much understanding of what happened.

May I modestly propose that the problem is spiritual.

No, not "woo-woo" spiritual, and not spiritual in that if you take a tonic of the right theology, you will live happily ever after.  Not even spiritual that we all need to hasten back to the churches of our choices (anybody else remember that public service campaign?  Don't tell me I'm that old!) and recover.  But spiritual as in what does it profit someone to gain the whole world and lose their soul?  What is "soul"?  I don't care; Plato's definition or Wordsworth's or Nietzsche's, it matters not to me.  That which makes you, you.   What which makes life as a human being worth living.  That which, if you prefer (without the pantheism, please) even animals possess (else they are animate machines, and I don't accept that).  Is the point of life getting and spending, in which we lay waste our powers?  Is the point of life owning and possessing, which as the Native American chief said (sorry, I can't rememer his name), is a disease with us?  I mean spiritual as something very, very valid and very, very human.  As valid and human as the love you have for any one other person.  What is that, if not spiritual?  Are they still young and beautiful, still fair and bright as they were 30 years ago?  No, not really; but does it matter?  No, not really.  That's spiritual, or enough for our purposes here.  The theology and metaphysics (classical or non-classical) of it can be worked out later.

The point is, life means more than our comforts and our gains.  And of course, that's the problem.  If life is a zero-sum game, and I win only when you lose, what life is that?  "What life have you if you have not life together?"  We cannot stop living as social creatures.  We cannot depart to 327 million individual islands and declare ourselves sovereign of all we survey.  For one thing, what's the point of being a hermit sovereign?  For another, who really wants to be a sovereign?  I've seen the boss's job, as Bill Cosby once said of family life, and I don't want it.  A more spiritual life would allow me to admit the otherness of others, and to be more comfortable with that otherness.  Maybe not wholly comfortable, but certainly more comfortable.  And that, I think, is the root of our malaise:  we are not comfortable because we know others are not comfortable, and nothing we find in this world tells us what to do about that.  So we curse them and blame them for our discomfort, our anxiety, our animosity.  We don't need the example of Donald Trump to teach us to be selfish and to shirk personal responsibility. We all grow up knowing how to do that.  We also learn, or we should, that that doesn't get us very far, and doesn't much increase our happiness.  We learn, or should, that sharing and caring do.  But you can't do that, without some understanding of the spiritual.

I had a neighbor once who was the kindest, most generous, most selfless person I ever knew.  He was practically a spiritual teacher.  But he eschewed the spiritual (gently, as was his nature), and professed nothing more metaphysical than atheism.  It is, truthfully, the posture of the most spiritual people the world has ever known.  To the mystics, God is not at all whatever you think God is; and to even speak of the spiritual is to chase the wrong understanding down a maze of rabbit trails.  But I am convinced, and always was, that he was a spiritual person, as comfortable in his skin as any saint who achieved the greatest blessings of this life.  I don't want to put boundaries on "spiritual" so someone can claim it as their own possession, and deny it, however obliquely, to others.  But the simple truth is true: we must love our neighbors as ourselves.  And we can't do that by achieving Rawls' "original position," or anything close to it.  This is not a path begun in denial, it is a path begun where you are, and by including.  But how can you take the first step on that journey, and it not be a spiritual journey?

And who can you take with you?  Whoever will come.  It is not your responsibility to shanghai them, to drag them along, to make them follow.  It is your responsibility to not leave them out.  Truly, that is the original sin.  Truly, that is where the trouble starts.

So if you see it as a spiritual problem, a spiritual matter, a spiritual journey, you will see them, everyone, all others, as spiritual beings, too.  As one of my favorite self-generated lines used to say, but in a variation on it now, it could be God is already among them looking for you.  What are you doing?

What happened to marriage and family that it should have become a travail and a sadness?...God may be good, family and marriage and children and home may be good, grandma and grandpa may act wise, the Thanksgiving table may be groaning with God's goodness and bounty, all the folks healthy and happy, but something is missing...What is missing? Where did it go? I won't have it! I won't have it! Why this sadness here? Don't stand for it! Get up! Leave! Let the boat people sit down! Go live in a cave until you've found the thief who is robbing you. But at least protest! Stop, thief! What is missing? God? Find him!

--Walker Percy

The questions we are facing now are:  who are the "thugs," and who are the "protestors"?  I saw a report from the protests in D.C. last night where a Secret Service agent said something like "When I take this uniform off, I'm still a black man."  He was expressing solidarity, to at least a degree, with the protestors.  The President, of course, had other ideas:

He has a point:  don't lay the blame on others.  Which means we should take the blame on ourselves.  On "Washington Week" last night Margaret Brennan (IIRC) said the pandemic had exposed the inequalities in our society, and now they were exploding over the death of George Floyd.  It was an insightful point.  This is not just another case of police murder (although it is certainly that); this is also a matter of inequality, of racial violence (would Chauvin have treated a white man similarly?  Even his wife doesn't think so.), of the structural injustices which we have permitted in America because they serve us, or at least serve the people with more power than the people with less power.  And who are those people?

Us.  All of us.  We have no sovereign to blame for this, no government bureaucracy, no "deep state."  This is us.  And we can fix it.  But right now, we have to recognize the reality of it.  These are not thugs.  These are not people "out of control" (well, some are, but is that the fault of police brutally imposing order on anyone on the streets, including camera crews?  Or is that the fault of a handful of people?).  This is us.  Time we faced it.  Time we did something about it.  Now:  what to do?

Perhaps that will be good advice in November; but this is now.  This anger is destructive; but it is also illuminating.  We have danced to the music; now we have to pay the piper.  Will we pay in justice?  Or will we pay in punishment?

What to do?

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

When none of the witnesses saw anything...


....are there any "witnesses"?  Or:  does Christina Cauterucci realize her argument is being undercut by the editors at Slate?  Or is it just a bait 'n' switch to get you to read her article?  What is it about Slate and legal matters, anyway?


The Witness Who Saw Nothing

Reporting on sexual assault too often relies on testimony from people who weren’t there.
Now first I have to say reporting is not testimony.  Nobody answers a reporter's questions under oath. So there is no "testimony" involved in these stories about whether or not Joe Biden sexually assaulted  Tara Reade in the 1990's.  But there is the problem of "witnesses" when no witness saw anything, and the strongest witnesses are dead people (Reade's mother) and a friend.  Their only "evidence" is hearsay, which courts generally (there are more exceptions to the rule than applications of it) exclude for perfectly sound reasons.  The problem of no witnesses at all seems to be one Ms. Cauterucci is oblivious to; and even her editors know it.

Let me be clear:  I'm not arguing for or against Joe Biden, or accepting or rejecting the claims made by Ms. Reade.  But Cauterucci seems to want all claims (there is no evidence of anything, nothing has gone to a court of law) decided in favor of the accuser, and no questions about the accusations to be deemed credible.  If Ms. Reade were in court, even the claim that it is her mother's voice on the recording from 1993 would be a question of fact to be determined by the jury, not by Ms. Reade's assertion.

Here is Ms. Cauterucci's argument in gist:

Over the past few days, multiple new reports have corroborated Tara Reade’s claim that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked in his Senate office in the 1990s.
....
The Business Insider piece also quotes several people who confidently refute Reade’s claims. 

It's the latter, she argues, that is the problem here.  Why?  Basically, it's bad journalistic practice.

It does no service to the truth to quote people who say their failure to witness abuse is evidence of the absence of abuse, unless the alleged victim claims those specific people witnessed her abuse. Writers might want to show they did due diligence in their reporting, but sources that don’t offer new information go unmentioned in final drafts all the time. (There’s also a big difference between quoting someone who solely speaks to her own experience and someone who makes a broad assumption of innocence based on that limited perspective.) An allegation of a sexual violation that involves two people doesn’t demand clueless character witnesses. Only an exhaustive search through Biden’s Senate papers, which the University of Delaware will not release until two years after Biden exits public life, could help prove or disprove the existence of the sexual harassment complaint Reade said she filed—not the testimonies of a self-selecting group of people who agree to say on the record that they never saw it.

So, sexual harassment allegations are just like theft allegations.  Except in the latter, without evidence the theft actually took place, and that the accused was in possession of the stolen property, there is no "evidence" of the crime.  That's not a standard Cauterucci wants to apply to sexual harassment, however.  And complaining about "evidence of absence of abuse" assumes there was abuse, and the burden is on the accused to prove an absence of it.  However, sexual harassment especially is usually proved by a pattern of conduct and the testimony of a number of victims:  that's how Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein ended up behind bars on sexual assault charges.  Allegations are not evidence, either; so an investigation that finds some people say they heard about it, and others say they never saw any such thing happen or had reason to suspect such behavior, is perfectly admissable in a court of law.

But Ms. Cauterucci doesn't want to hold to the standards of a court of law; apparently she much prefers the standards of gossip and innuendo.  What service to the truth is that?   Even outside the courtroom we usually think it fair to demand a bit more than that. And if Reade did file a sexual harassment claim, what then?  Does that prove her allegations, and refute the information (it's still not testimony) of the people who stand by Joe Biden's character and their experience working with him?  

Well, a jury sitting as a trier of fact might think so; but they might not, too.  And that vexes Ms. Cauterucci mightily, apparently.  So much so that even the editors at Slate understand the weakness of her argument.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Witnesses who don't see anything are not terribly strong witnesses, no matter which party they are asked to remark on.

Friday, June 30, 2017

"And what does the Lord require of you?"


This is a very good article on a very weird event.  I have a friend in Louisville, in the ministry, who attended this "meeting" where Gov. Bevins said the solution to violence in Louisville was prayer.  He thought it rather weird, too, to put mildly.  How he put it to me privately is not for publication (because I haven't asked his permission), but we've been friends for over 50 years, so you can imagine it if you try a little.

Gov. Bevins' proposal, as reported by RD, is

for faithful Christians to volunteer and assemble in “small groups of three to 10 people to begin a ritual of quietly walking one block, in one troubled neighborhood, at 7 p.m., several days a week for one year, praying as they walk.” The governor admitted the plan was “Pretty unsophisticated. Pretty uncomplicated. Pretty basic,” but he insisted—“I truly believe… I personally believe”—that such ritual prayer has the power to change material reality. “I’ve seen it,” he testified.
Sure he has.  I mean,  I believe in the Creator, Redeemer, and Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean I believe in magic.  Or that I'm stupid.  I also think it's "unsophisticated and uncomplicated" in a way that allows it to be irresponsible,  as in, the people praying have no responsibility if their prayers don't move the people prayed for to become non-violent poor (black) people.  Let's just take a few quotes from pastors of churches in that part of Louisville, along with observations by the author of the article:

 “The fact of the matter is there is violence in the community because there is poverty, and the poverty is rooted in systemic injustice and racism that has plagued this country since 1619,” [Reverend Kevin Cosby of St. Stephen Baptist Church] said. “To talk about the present situation without talking about the historic and social antecedents that gave birth to it is disingenuous, is dishonest… it’s cowardly and it’s political.”
....
 “West Louisville needs the help that a governor can uniquely provide. Governors hold enormous power. Their hands rest on levers that could combat directly and profoundly the root cause of violence: poverty.” [Reverend Joe] Phelps [of Highland Baptist Church] argues that coinciding with the color-coded areas of the Louisville maps Bevin displayed at his meeting are African-American neighborhoods devastated by decades of national, state, and local policies favoring white communities and leaving black West Louisville to fend for itself. Jim Crow laws. The G.I. Bill. Bank redlining. Social security. All designed for whites to prosper—but not blacks. Systemic, governmental racism. Christians can acknowledge these sins and, like Luke’s story of Zacheus the tax collector, make financial reparations.
Those gentlemen echo the call of Micah:  what does God require except that you do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God?  Frankly, praying in public for all to see is much easier than all those activities, and doesn't require making amends for "systemic governmental racism...all designed for whites to prosper."  Prayer, I might add, should be for you to seek humility before God, not to ask  God to do things to (or for) other people that you can't be bothered to do.  The RD article goes on to examine a divide in American Christian theology which I think is both deep and real and well-realized there, but for my purposes I prefer Occam's Razor and the simpler solution:  people are selfish, and it's easier to pray for someone, than to actually do something for someone.  Which is pretty much why Jesus condemned public prayers, especially of the kind the Governor is calling for.  I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't be too impressed with this, either:

“I think that the problem there is pretty clear that it’s a crime problem,” said Huckabee Sanders. “I think that crime is driven more by a morality than anything else so I think that this is a law enforcement issue and our focus is trying to add additional support.”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is speaking there for the White House about the crime problem in Chicago.  Call it the flip side of what Gov. Bevins is advocating, because it's the same coin:  pray that these people become more moral and therefore less criminal, because crime is driven more by morality than anything else.  Again, a convenient way out of any responsibility for the privileges somebody like Sanders has enjoyed all her life, and a comforting way to turn a blind eye to social injustice.

Christians can acknowledge these sins; but that takes membership in the Church of Sacrifice for Meaning and Belonging, rather than the Church of Meaning and Belonging.  It's just easier to ask somebody else to fix the problem, rather than make any sacrifice on our own (of our time, our treasure, our fellowship) to address the problem ourselves.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Hey hey hey!


The Bill Cosby trial reminds me of a line a friend told me her former employer used.  He was a criminal lawyer, and when he lost a case, he'd always return to the office to say "Justice prevailed!"

I learned, as a legal assistant, that the courts only did things right when the client you represented, won.  Otherwise it was a gross miscarriage of justice and sign of the moral decay of America.  Or something. At least the clients always thought that way.  It was never what they deserved, or a reasonable outcome based on the facts and the law.

So is Bill Cosby guilty, still?  Not legally; well, not yet, anyway.  Tout le internet (well, the few websites I frequent) insist justice was once again denied.  Camille Cosby would beg to differ, and no doubt she will be castigated for her frank opinions (I even read an internet post castigating a former actor on "The Cosby Show" for going to court with Mr. Cosby on the first day of trial, when Mrs. Cosby was conspicuously absent.  Apparently friends of Mr. Cosby are traitors to the rest of us, or something.  Sort of like the outrage directed, for very different reasons, at Megyn Kelly.  Maybe enough is enough; then again, many people probably won't think so.)

Mrs. Cosby's reaction to the hung jury and mistrial verdict sound familiar to me.  She would agree that justice prevailed.  Many others don't think so.  But we don't sit in the courtroom; we don't hear the evidence; we don't carry the burden of the decision.  The Castile shooting case is in the same boat, unfortunately.  It seems perfectly clear the jury decided a black man is inherently dangerous, and police have a superior duty to shoot first and ask questions later, because you never know, right?

Did Bill Cosby equally escape justice because of "rape culture"?  That seems to me rather less well-established.  After all, many were convinced Cosby's lawyers had given up when they didn't put on a defense for their client.  But they knew what the non-lawyers didn't:  the burden of proof is on the state.  There is no burden on the defendant to prove he is not guilty.  The state failed to meet its burden.  If there is fault here, it is on the lawyers who brought this case.

Vox has a typical analysis of a jury trial:  typical, because it is subtly wrong.

After six days of deliberations regarding accusations that comedian Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted a woman, a jury in Pennsylvania could not come to an agreement on whether he drugged and sexually assaulted Andrea Constand, resulting in a mistrial, the New York Times reports.
The jury asked, at one point, for a definition of "reasonable doubt."  What they were asked to decide was not, did Bill Cosby drug Andrea Constand and assault her, but did he do these things without her consent?  Consent is a key element of assault law.  The simple tort of assault is an unwanted and offensive contact.  So bumping into someone on the street isn't assault, but going out of your way to grab someone's butt, for example, is.  The question of what is "offensive contact" discriminates one from the other, and even when someone grabs your butt in a crowd, it can still be an assault (whereas if you don't want to be jostled by crowds, stay out of them).  The jury's question pretty clearly went to the issue of whether or not the prosecution had made its case, and the jury's decision was:  no, they hadn't.  They couldn't agree on whether the elements of the crime had been proven, not whether the acts alleged had occurred.  The jury, in other words, couldn't decide how to define the acts alleged; or maybe even if they believed they had occurred.  Vox has already made up its mind what happened and who is guilty; the jury didn't have that luxury, and had the burden of following the law.  That's why they asked for a definition of a term of law.

The jury did its job as it saw fit.  The prosecutors are the ones who failed the alleged victim.  If there is an injustice in this case, it is in their failure, not the decision, or inability to reach a decision, of the jury.

Monday, July 06, 2015

Not how I wanted to spend my post holiday time....


Because I've mentioned the allegations against Bill Cosby before, I should mention this now.  CBS Evening News (I think it was them; the wife had the TV on, she's off for a week, she never watches TV and she likes the news; I gave up TV news a long time ago, I don't recognize anybody who isn't Walter Cronkite.  Seriously.) opened breathlessly with new evidence Cosby was a serial rapist.  This is from the AP account at Salon:

Bill Cosby admitted in a 2005 deposition that he obtained Quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with. He admitted giving the sedative to at least one woman.

The Associated Press went to court to compel the release of the documents, and they were made public Monday. Cosby’s lawyers had objected on the grounds that it would embarrass their client.

The 77-year-old comedian was testifying under oath in a lawsuit filed by a former Temple University employee. He testified he gave her three half-pills of Benadryl.
That's rather poor reporting:  I had to look it up, but Cosby was born in 1937, making him 67 or 68 at the time of the deposition.  He's 77 now.  Anyway, I dunno, maybe Mr. Cosby is as guilty as sin.  Slipping somebody a Quaalude so you can sleep with them sounds pretty damned sad to me.  Actually giving it to someone is very bad behavior.

I have to be a lawyer, though, and say he didn't admit he raped the person he gave the Quaalude.  Or even that he had sex with her.  Or maybe he did, and the AP didn't include that part of the deposition.  Seems unlikely, but without the deposition, how do we know?  (adding:  see note below, apparently AP did exclude that information, which does surprise me.  But whether the sex was consensual or not is not resolved, even in the material quoted by Deadspin.  There isn't necessarily a difference between  offering a woman a Qaalude and offering her a drink, if by either you intend to lower her inhibitions.)

The article also says he gave the plaintiff in the lawsuit the deposition was taken for, 3 half-pills of Benadryl.  Why, is the question?  That's one reason I pointed out the confusion about Mr. Cosby's age.  Did he give her Benadryl because she had a runny nose?  Did he imagine it was a sedative and would maker her more compliant to his libido?  Was the lawyer trying to prove Cosby used a "rape drug," and all Cosby would admit to was Benadryl?  Was there any evidence of other drugs in her system on the night (presumably night) of the alleged assault?

I dunno.

I ask because this is going to be used to "prove" Cosby is a rapist.  See, he said he gave women drugs!  Yeah, he did.  That can be a foul thing.  But he also admitted to giving one woman, who sued him, an antihistamine, which is a "drug."  And I used to watch TV shows where somebody got "slipped a Mickey Finn."  It was tame enough for prime time, and all it proved was somebody wanted somebody else to be unconscious.  It didn't prove they were a serial rapist.

Cosby admits he bought the Quaaludes.  How many times did he use them?  On whom?  To what result?  And this lawsuit he settled, what did the plaintiff prove in that case?  That Benadryl dried up her nose?

This is tawdry and ugly, but so was Bill Clinton getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and leaving his semen on Monica Lewinsky's dress.  Bill Clinton's actions didn't exactly justify the howling wolf-pack that hounded him through his presidency.  I'm not defending Bill Cosby to wonder if we shouldn't accuse him on the strength of being named "Bill."*

It's as much evidence of being a sex fiend and a liar about sex and even a serial rapist as we have so far.

*I'll be fair, Deadspin has more extensive quotes from a deposition that goes over cases already known in the public domain; cases where Cosby paid money to women he had sex with.  Ironically, better information strengthens my case that we don't know that Cosby is a rapist; we only know he used drugs when he had sex with some women.  Might as well say he used alcohol when he had sex,  to get both parties "in the mood."  You can't assume he used drugs to overpower them, you need evidence that he did, and there is no such evidence in the quotes in the Deadspin article.

All Cosby says in the deposition is that he gave some women Quaaludes and he and the women (on separate occasions) had sex.  This was in the '70's, Quaaludes were a popular drug, it may be he gave the drugs surreptitiously, it may be he gave the drugs because the women accepted them.  Frankly, the lawyer here does a poor job of clarifying that point, he/she could be shredded in court trying to use this deposition to impeach the witness (prove courtroom testimony varied from deposition testimony).  Cosby's lawyer could reasonably argue his client meant the sex and the drug usage were consensual.  Yes, it was illegal; so was (still is) smoking pot.  Doesn't mean people don't do that before they have sex.

You, like the Deadspin writer, may not like Cosby's lawyer's interjections; they are very reasonable to me, in a deposition setting.  Same thing would happen in court, but a judge would decide whether the witness had to answer the questions or not.  A lawyer who didn't object would be committing grave errors on behalf of his/her client.

So, again, who knows?  Was Cosby drugging women to rape them?  Or sharing drugs with them during sexual encounters?  One is criminal, the other was, for better or worse, not uncommon in the '70's (probably not today, either; I don't think alcohol improves libido any more than 'ludes did, but still people use it.)  Was Bill Cosby a sleaze who slept with women?  Well, yeah; but that doesn't prove it was all rape.

This is still a matter of prosecution in the court of public opinion and frankly, no one deserves that fate.  And if you're still wondering why this matters, well:  this is why.

Truth matters.  False reporting and bad reporting and misrepresentation is not to be countenanced.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Is this a fair argument, or not?

If he wore overalls instead of a sweater, would Cosby be more sympathetic?

I should go back to what I was doing....

Rudy Giuliani says this:

"But the fact is, I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks. We're talking about the exception here," Giuliani said on NBC's "Meet the Press" while discussing whether police forces reflect the demographics of the communities they serve.

Later in the argument Giuliani argued that while police officers are only present in certain communities because black people are committing crimes. "It is the reason for the heavy police presence in the black community," he said. "White police officers won't be there if you weren't killing each other 70 percent of the time."
Which is, frankly, racist and disgusting.  Sixteen women, most (if not all) of them white, now say Bill Cosby sexually assaulted and/or raped them.

Which isn't racist, because.....well, I'm not sure why.  The idea that black men are slavering after white women goes so far back in American history it might as well be the original racist trope.  I remember seeing a KKK pamphlet showing a drawing of a google-eyed black man drooling at the thought of raping a fair young white woman, when I was much younger, and I'm still a lot younger than Harper Lee.

I'm not saying there's a racial animus against Bill Cosby; but I'm intrigued by the idea nobody seems to think there could be.  16 white women (or the majority are white, if not all) claim this black man raped them.  And tout le mond is as ready to believe them as the jury was ready to believe Mayella Ewell.

Why doesn't this sound like a case for Atticus Finch?  Is it because the generation so happy to despise Cosby for this, doesn't remember the racism that Harper Lee knew?

Really; I'm wondering.

Friday, November 21, 2014

The art (and necessity) of cross-examination


I was involved in a kangaroo court once.

Does my telling you that make it true?

I was involved as a lawyer, not as a party.

Even if I include enough details to make the story convincing, does that prove it happened?

I've told stories about conference ministers I've known in the UCC; the kangaroo court I'm speaking of is part of one of those stories.

Are those stories true?  I could tell you stories of very strange behavior, vicious animosity directed toward me, other pastors investigated for various allegations of sexual impropriety (it is the most volatile claim you can make against a pastor, to allege improper sexual relations.  One of the strongest memories of my ministry is how many times I was warned by concerned pastors to never be alone with a woman, a church member or a perfect stranger, and to never close my office door, even if I did so to preserve confidentiality with a church member.)

Is any of this true?  How do you know?  Because you trust me?

But what if I'm making all of this up?  How would you know?

I've actually had experience with people making up stories about me.  It happened to me in seminary, in a very minor way.   It happened when I was a pastor, with effect that was more important.  One story was so divergent from what actually happened, what I would actually ever do, it was like an evil opposite version of me, the kind of thing you get from bad TV shows.  I won't bother with the details, but trust me, it's true.

Then again, how would you know?

There is a way to verify allegations of criminal behavior:  it's cross examination in a court of law.  Most of the women named as "Jane Doe" in the lawsuit against Bill Cosby in 2006 have now come forward; probably the rest of them will.  Probably they are the witnesses in that suit (but how do we verify that?).  Assume they were.  Their stories go back to 1967 now.   Almost 50 years ago.  What evidence were they going to present in 2006, except their own testimony?  Are they credible? Do their stories hold up to scrutiny, to even casual inquiry? Can Mr. Cosby be placed with them, or in the same hotel, city, state, on the date of the event?  Is there anything to back their claims, other than their willingness to be interviewed now?

What do they gain from speaking now?  Satisfaction, probably.  Who knows? I had church members decide their goal in life was to destroy my career.  Why?  What did I do to deserve that?  Rape someone?  Argue with them?  Gossip about them?  Denounce them to the assembled congregation?  Spit on the ground every time their name was mentioned?

I did none of those things.  It didn't matter.  I'm not sure what did.  I've had to fall back on Bruce Springsteen:  "Well sir I guess there's just a meanness in this world."

I guess there is.

I no longer expect people to behave like the people I grew up with.  I've learned people can be strange, cruel, vicious, vindictive, and nasty; and none of it for any reason you'll ever understand.  I haven't learned why they act this way, not in all cases; but I have learned never to underestimate the desire to destroy someone, especially when the blood is in the water.  I'm told chickens will viciously attack a bird with a spot of blood on it; that the whole flock will attack until there is little left of the victim.

I've seen people act like chickens; more than once. I still can't explain why.

I was involved in a kangaroo court once.  The people running it were quite sure they were good people, and they were doing the right thing, and that all my legal training and desire for some semblance of order and even to be able to question witnesses on behalf of my client, were not only unnecessary but actually counterproductive to the purpose of getting at the truth.  Which truth they had pretty much settled on before the process began.

They didn't want me involved because they didn't want me to slow down the execution.  A professional, not a physical, execution; but all they wanted was a record to justify their decision.

So I've seen this movie.  I know how it comes out.  The only difference now is, it is aided and abetted by this brave new world we have created on-line.  Those people running that kangaroo court were as certain of their moral righteousness as all the commenters and writers are now.  Just as certain, and just as wrong, because they can't be bothered with justice; they already know what justice is.  Their moral righteousness tells them so.

That is not a good thing.  This is not the improvement in society we've been looking for.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

The Public, Hating


I've spent more time than was good for me reading about the controversy now swirling around Bill Cosby, almost all at Salon.  The stories there reached their nadir with the revelation that in 1969 one of his albums included a story about looking for "Spanish Fly" in Spain, with Robert Culp.  The outrage was that he joked about putting drugs in women's drinks; the story was about how naive he and Culp were, looking for a mythical aphrodisiac.  But somehow it proved Cosby was a serial rapist.

My problem with the Salon stories was not that I believe Bill Cosby is incapable of the acts alleged against him; it is that the allegations go back to events allegedly occurring as much as 45 years ago, and there is no proof of them except the stories of a few women (the number, like almost everything else in this tempest in a teapot, is in dispute.).  It could be the stories are all similar because they reflect the pattern of a rapist; it could be the stories are all so similar because each story-teller is familiar with the other stories.

How can we tell?

This is the best timeline on the controversy I know of.  Most of the details are of the allegations by Andrea Constand, the only woman to have ever sued Cosby for alleged assault.  This suit is the source of the "14 women" number, women who have allegedly made similar charges.  13 are listed in court papers as Jane Doe witnesses.  One woman, Beth Ferrier, claims to be Jane Doe 5, and tells her story in a news interview.  Barbara Bowman is another witness; she also tells her story to the press.  I mention this because these are named witnesses, not anonymous ones.  Much has been made of the fact so many women tell the same story, but the stories of Green and Bowman are two attached to names, and with details behind them.  I haven't found anything about the other witnesses, but the commonly accepted "fact" is that they all tell the same story.  As far as I can tell, those women never told their stories at all.

The Constand case was filed in 2005, settled in 2006.  None of the Jane Doe witnesses testified; at least not in court.  I can't tell whether Green and Bowman were ever deposed, which would qualify as testimony.  All information about their stories comes from news accounts, not from deposition transcripts.

That ends it until 2014.  Joan Tarshis accuses Cosby of rape in November, a rape she says occurred in 1969.  Janice Dickinson accuses him of rape a few days later.  She says her rape occurred in 1982.

So four women have made accusations; one sued.  11 more allegedly made accusations, but we don't know the content of their stories, or what their names are.  It seems pretty ugly; it also seems pretty amorphous.  And today, like Bill O'Reilly screeching about "Merry Christmas!" v. "Happy Holidays," the pack of hounds got its prize:  Bill Cosby won't develop a new sitcom for NBC.

The Republic is saved.  Justice is done.  We can all sleep better tonight.  A major entertainment corporation, like major retailers last December, has proven to have knees of jelly.  They don't want to displease people with their choice of star for a sitcom, or displease Fox News viewers with the greeting they offer customers after Thanksgiving.

And then, of course, there is the controversy over the shirt.

I read a story once, long ago, by Steve Allen.  It was called "The Public Hating."  I think I still have half the paperback book it was reprinted in, the half with the story in it.  I found it tonight on-line, here.  It's an interesting story, and while Allen never imagined modern communications or the internet, he did imagine a world much like the one we seem determined to make on-line.

At least in some corner of it.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Memorable Catchphrases


Polls have generally shown a decrease in the importance of religion in America. And with regard to evangelicalism in particular, The Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey from 2008 “confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%.” The Pew Forum also noted that in “the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults.” So the bigots we upbraid simply aren’t having the influence they’d like to have — and that we’re scared they might have.


 Furthermore, the religiously unaffiliated already say that “religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.” And things are even worse for Christians like Driscoll when it comes to the Millennial Generation, who see traditional evangelicalism as being too judgmental. To them, Christianity “feels stifling, fear-based and risk-averse.” And they see that “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths” as well as unfriendly to those who doubt the faith. The important thing to note here is that their opinion of modern Christianity isn’t based on the vitriol of atheist bloggers or the disparaging posts of their Facebook friends. It’s based on their own experience of Christian culture. This has led millennials to simply view evangelical Christianity as “too political, too exclusive, old-fashioned, unconcerned with social justice and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”And this is why I think the APC can be successful. The work is already largely done for us. Religion literally speaks for itself, even in the mainstream media — and, increasingly, it’s not what people want to hear.

I post that because it comes from a fairly thoughtful article.  The Pew study may or may not point to fundamental changes in America.  It may well be that Protestantism, always supported largely by the culture it existed in, has reached the end of its thread.  The second paragraph of the quote tries to conflate and yet not conflate Protestantism with evangelical Protestantism; that's always a problem in these discussions.  But if you want a confirmation of Mencken's observations about the American "booboisie," a challenge to the idea that universal literacy and education will make us all wise and knowledgeable, you need only wade into the 1000+ comments at that article to be disabused of any optimism.

Flip Wilson was a wildly popular stand up comedian in his day.  He never had the controversies of a Dick Gregory or a Richard Pryor; he didn't challenge racism as overtly as Gregory, or have as flamboyant and troubled a life as Pryor.  He didn't branch out and establish the staying power of a Cosby, known for stand up and comedy shows and even dramas.  But for a time his jokes and catchphrases were common parlance, and probably his most famous line was:  "The Devil made me do it!"

It was a trenchant observation, a wise and wry one, on how we delude ourselves into thinking we are not responsible for the state of our lives or our failure to live up to our ideals, because we can always blame someone else when we do what we shouldn't do.  Geraldine, Wilson's character, bought an immodest dress.  Atheists, on-line and acolytes of Richard Dawkins anyway, declare they must hate Christianity (is there any other form of religion in America?  Not to them.) because Christians make them buy into hate as the only response to religion.

One comment at Salon (long buried) declared that atheists are treated like rapists in this country.  When I demurred (a reflex action) that atheism was not a felony in this country, I was rebuffed as a "Christianist" because someone somewhere has declared atheism should be a crime, and non-believers should be jailed, apparently for the good of society.  So atheists are as good as treated as rapists; or something.  I know of white supremacists who would gladly send all African Americans back to Africa, but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.  And the white supremacists would say the blame is not on them; it's the "blacks" who make them seem evil and racist.  Really, the races just weren't meant to mix, and the sooner everyone else understands that, the better.  See, white supremacists aren't haters; it's the non-white races that make them seem that way.

You get the idea.

It is the ultimate act of childishness, to blame what you oppose for making you sound bad, for making you, in fact, behave badly.  It's pathetic, really.  The most vociferous commenters at that thread have erected a bogey man to justify their most outrageous claims. and they blame that creature of their imagination for their fears and anxieties.  It's one way to create an identity and a group, I suppose; but it's the saddest and most immature way to do it I can imagine.  There is a direct line between these clowns and Richard Dawkins:  he opposes Christianity in all its forms because a few fundamentalists in the world oppose the reach of science into their spiritual and daily lives.  That is reason enough for Dawkins to write books and give lectures and generally expound on how the Christians are making him be an obnoxious atheist.

It's the Devil who made him do it.

Now, hold onto that Pew report on the decline of religion in America, and connect it to this:  it seems college students are attending fewer college football games.

The article notes that a broad approach to this issue may be misleading, since attendance at games varies from college to college.  It attributes the change to more comfortable locales to watch games, and the ability to watch on tablets and iPads and smart phones; and to the fact stadia don't provide WiFi access, or have enough jumbotrons, or something.

It may even be students are less and less interested in college football; but nobody dares say that.  They will hint at it, thought, because the fear is that students who don't bother to go to the stadium a few times a year (think about how many games are played in a football stadium in a year; there are usually more weekends in a month) will become alumni who don't see any reason to support football teams in the future.

So maybe they aren't going to bars to watch the game, or watching on their cell phones in the dorms; maybe they just don't care anymore.

At any rate, it's not the Devil making them do it.  Not yet, anyway.

I know I can connect nothing with nothing, but these two stories seem connected to me.  Not the raging atheism of children on the internet (emotionally and intellectually, I know high school kids who are more mature than most of the comments about religion I find on-line), but the decline in interest in the eternal verities.  Church has been a fabulous invalid since my childhood, but football is supposed to be going from strength to strength, enjoying a renaissance on college campuses especially that rivals the beginning of the sport when you had to be "a football hero."  I think there isa  connection between church and football, and the connection is television.

But not because more platforms are available to watch TV, or because TV's are now everywhere (there was no TV in the bar in Cheers; now a bar without a TV is unthinkable; or any public space, for that matter).  TV is destroying college football because college football exists now not for the students or the alumni, but for the TV markets.  Texas colleges used to play in the Southwest Conference, and the main rivalry was UT and Texas A&M.  Both schools left the SWC for conferences more attractive to TV schedulers, and more lucrative for the schools, and now neither play each other ever.  Those famous Thanksgiving games are just a memory.  Who is being served by college games now?  And what is the point of them, except to generate a TV audience?

Which is pretty much what happened to Christianity in America about 40 years ago.  TV evangelism was already in decline in the '80's, and by the time Bill Clinton was elected Jerry Falwell needed the Viagra of invented scandal to keep his name in the public eye.  TV evangelism made it seem all you had to do to worship, the ultimate corporate action of Christians, was to set your dial to the right channel at the right time.  That didn't last long, in the grand scheme of things (Joel Osteen's church owns a TV channel here in Houston, but I can't find him on any broadcast station at any hour, anymore.  Maybe he shows up on one I've blocked, but TV stations devoted to Christianity are a virtual ghetto now, a sort of digital version of the cable access channels of yore).  But the impact was pernicious.

What is football except a form of secular religion, a panem et circenses of our modern age?  If its appeal is already beginning to pall, if it seems more and more removed from daily life, the players gladiators and not our friends and family, the whole affair less and less democratic as the players become less and less human and more and more privileged in an era when we are beginning to realize the cost of privilege, then what surprise is it that Christianity is beginning to pall, too?

Pope Francis I seems to understand this better than any religious leader alive.  He has replaced an American bishop who was very concerned with abstractions like American government policy and which public figure should be excommunicated, with a bishop who seems likely to follow Francis' line and pay more attention to the poor and to the pastoral care all clergy should model. The Pope is drawing attention precisely because he cares about people, and not just about ideas.  The more one cares about ideas, the more likely one is to ignore the human equation and decide it is the ideas alone that matter.  Follow that line of reasoning very far, and pretty soon you are telling pregnant women to abort their fetuses and try again, just to avoid some abstract possibility of suffering which we know all flesh is heir to.

As the Church, Catholic or Protestant, liberal or conservative, returns to caring about people (who seem to have been the main concern of Jesus of Nazareth), it will recover the attention even of Millenials and younger generations.  Probably not to the degree it had the attention of their grandparents, but church attendance has been declining since that peak in the post-war years.  It was supposed to die from Boomer neglect, but that hasn't happened yet, either.  If younger age groups are turning away from even football (yes, the ratings are high for pro football, but consider the competition:  another CSI set somewhere else, another variation on "American Idol"; what else is on offer?), it may just mean the institutional verities need to change, too.  At long last.  Finally.

When I'm one of the youngest in the room in a church worship space, a radical change actually looks kind of welcome.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

All they will call you will be....


....anything but a former Nazi.

Speaking of Bill Cosby and Woody Allen, somehow this bothers me more:

In doing the research, one discovers that not only was von Braun a Nazi, but a member of the SS. And not only was he running the underground slave labor facility where his rockets were being built — he wasn't running the facility but he was in charge of the science there — but when they were running low of good technicians, Wernher von Braun himself traveled nearby to the Buchenwald concentration camp, where he hand-picked slaves to work for him as laborers.

When you see that kind of activity during the war, and you have to imagine what he saw and what he knew, it's impossible to excuse him from his Nazi past.
Or this:

 They all had different trajectories, but none of them seemed to have been held accountable for what happened and what they were involved in during the war. Dr. Benzinger, who was one of the Nazi doctors, came here, and when he died at the age of ninety-something he had a wonderful obituary in The New York Times lauding him for inventing the ear thermometer. Entirely left out of the story was the work that he performed on concentration camp prisoners.
Does the convenience of the ear thermometer outweigh the fact the inventor was a monster?  And here's a direct quote from the book, to drive the point home:

 The men profiled in this book were not nominal Nazis. Eight of the twenty-one — Otto Ambros, Theodor Ben-zinger, Kurt Blome, Walter Dornberger, Siegfried Knemeyer, Walter Schreiber, Walter Schieber, and Wernher von Braun — each at some point worked side by side with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, or Hermann Göring during the war. Fifteen of the twenty-one were dedicated members of the Nazi Party; ten of them also joined the ultra-violent, ultra-nationalistic Nazi Party paramilitary squads, the SA (Sturmabteilung, or Storm Troopers) and the SS (Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squadron); two wore the Golden Party Badge, indi­cating favor bestowed by the Führer; one was given an award of one million reichsmarks for scientific achievement.

Six of the twenty-one stood trial at Nuremberg, a seventh was released without trial under mysterious circumstances, and an eighth stood trial in Dachau for regional war crimes. One was con­victed of mass murder and slavery, served some time in prison, was granted clemency, and then was hired by the U.S. Department of Energy. They came to America at the behest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some officials believed that by endorsing the Paperclip pro­gram they were accepting the lesser of two evils — that if America didn't recruit these scientists, the Soviet Communists surely would. Other generals and colonels respected and admired these men and said so.
I knew von Braun had worked for the Nazis.  It had conveniently not occurred to me that he was a Nazi.  I had no idea he was a member of the SS.

Suddenly the moon landing doesn't seem like quite so glorious an accomplishment.  I mean, if an allegation against Woody Allen taints his artistic output, what does this do?

Here, try this, also from the book itself:

The [Joint Intelligence Committee, operated out of ring "E" of the Pentagon] remains the least known and least studied U.S. intelligence agency of the twentieth century. To understand the mind-set of the Joint Intelligence Committee, consider this: Within one year of the atomic bomb­ings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the JIC warned the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the United States needed to prepare for "total war" with the Soviets — to include atomic, chemical, and biological warfare — and they even set an estimated start date of 1952. 

I have seen newsreel footage of Gen. Curtis LeMay telling JFK to strike the Soviet Union before the missiles coming into Cuba gave the Soviets the opportunity to strike the U.S. first.  He was plainly and bluntly calling for nuclear war, with all that would entail.  "Seven Days in May" was taken from watching TV, not from paranoid fantasies.  More than a few people in the Pentagon thought such war both doable and necessary.  No wonder they admired the Nazis they were able to bring to America.

I just finished seeing "Monuments Men," which I thoroughly enjoyed.  Now I'm even more grateful someone was trying to save civilization in that war, because clearly even some very influential people on our side were willing to destroy the village in order to save it.

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Sins of the Fathers

Prob'ly wasn't so bad; I'm sure it built character!

Bill Cosby ends his latest concert film with a very funny story about his dropping his kids off at school.  His kids are obviously uncomfortable and ask him to let them out well before the school grounds.  The story winds on for a bit, but he finally finds out his kids are uncomfortable because the other students tease them about being rich.  Cosby sets them straight.

"You are not rich," he tells his children.  "You're mother and I are rich.  You don't have anything!"  Everything they have, he explains, he and his wife give them:  clothes, shelter, food, even money.  So they can tell their friends they aren't rich:  problem solved!

It's funny, but it also struck me as kind of odd.  Only later did I really it was actually quite wise:

That's one big ill we can clean up - if we allowed our children to be able to work at an earlier age, part time, be taught by their parents, be taught by their relatives, and if you would allow schools to have a broader curriculum. We have a system in Maine where every child is going to go to college - boohey! I have seventeen brothers and sisters; I'm the only one that graduated high school. Only one. That doesn't mean that they all failed. Some failed, some didn't. The point is, not everyone is going to learn through books. Some learn through hands. Some learn through seeing. Some learn by hearing. Others learn by all of the above. I think it's just sad that we sit there and we allow adults that have never been there to tell us how they're going to improve things.

This is right alongside the idea that kids should pay for school lunches because there is no free lunch.  Because especially if someone else has to buy it for you, you should be marked as someone living off the kindness of strangers, but you shouldn't expect them to be too kind.  St. Nicholas paid those dowries anonymously, but in America today we don't want to encourage such behavior.  We've got an economy to run here, it doesn't do any good to encourage true gifting behavior!  Gov. LePage there is not really saying anything differently than Newt Gingrich did, when Gingrich said children should do janitorial work at public schools.  Can't let 'em grow up thinking people give 'em stuff just for bein' alive; at least, not unless the stuff comes from parents who can afford it, or even better, who are rich.

Rich kids don't need to learn the value of money; poor kids need to learn the burdens of poverty.  It may not be their fault they're poor, but they should pay for it anyway.  Indeed, it is their fault; that's what they get for being born to impoverished parents.  We've moved from helping families and recognizing children are not responsible for their parents, to being sure the problems of the mothers and fathers rest firmly on their sons and daughters.  In fact, we want to secure them there.

At which point you should be asking:  what the hell is wrong with this country?  Mitt Romney says going after children is crossing the line; but only when those children are identifiable, and are the scions of wealthy white people.  Poor kids are fair game, especially if they are only known anonymously as "poor," or, better yet, "underprivileged" (because we really don't have "poor" people in America, we just have people who don't take advantage of all that is available to them; or just haven't had a chance to take advantage of it yet.  But our wealth never rests on their poverty; why, such thoughts would be disturbing!  It might mean there's a child in the basement of our Omelas!  Perish the thought!).

Going after children is not crossing a line anymore; in fact, it's a political necessity.  An Illinois Gubernatorial candidate Congressman apologized for saying the minimum wage should be lowered.  How many politicians have apologized for arguing we should return to the days before child labor laws?

I'm so old I can remember when child labor was sacrosanct, when any mention of making children earn their own money would have been akin to advocating white supremacy.

Now we do both, quite openly.   This isn't even a pro-capitalist, pro-free enterprise argument.  It's savagery, pure and simple.

Cosby was right, in the technical, legal sense as well as in the comedic sense:  children don't have anything.  By law, they aren't allowed any ownership rights, any possessory interests:  they're children.  He's wise, also, because he means for us to understand our children are our responsibility; we protect them by law and by custom and by social convention, from the burdens of adult responsibilities; and we should do so.  We should also give them what they need, whether we are parents or society; and that includes food and shelter and medical care and a proper education; and when they are old enough to work, a decent minimum wage so they know their work, even if it is just dropping potatoes into a fryer, makes them worthy of their hire.  Because they don't have anything; which means we are responsible for providing what all of them need.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Tip-toeing through the racism



Juan Williams defends himself:

And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.

This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims.

I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.
Notice the lacunae? It's right there:

I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world.
He left out what he said, however:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
Put that back in, suddenly his whole defense looks, and smells, quite a bit different.

I've read at least one defense of Mr. Williams' comments that argues that, "in context," his controversial statement was not really a controversial one. I am less than impressed with that argument when Mr. Williams cannot even provide the context himself. Leaving out precisely what you said from your own defense about why you said it, does not instill confidence that what you said wasn't inherently controversial or, in this case, inherently racist.

The President of Iran never appears in public in "Muslim garb," and yet he is often presented (in the Western press) as one of the most dangerous Muslims in the world. The Royal Family of Saud always appears in "Muslim garb," and yet Mr. Williams never expressed any fear of seeing the last President walking through the Texas bluebonnets holding a Saudi prince's hand. The majority of the world's Muslims are Asian, yet I doubt Mr. Williams is appalled by their "Muslim garb," or ever sees them as "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims." Indeed, I wonder what he thinks of the Muslims living in Africa? Would it be racist for a white man to say he feared African Muslims and their "Muslim garb"?

Mr. Williams offers a "full throated" justification of his statement, without ever saying what his statement was. Apparently there is no defense for it, anymore than I could defend a public pronouncement that young black men scare me because young black men attacked a family member many years ago (they don't scare me, by the way). I suppose that could be a "Shirley Sherrod" moment for me, as Mr. Williams now wants this to be for him; but that would depend on the context. Ms. Sherrod never shied away from what she said. Mr. Williams would prefer not to recount what he said.

QED, Mr. Williams. Your statement was racist, and the cost to you is signing a new multi-million dollar contract with FoxNews. I hope that isn't too harsh a punishment for you.

A brief addendum: Brit Hume claims Juan Williams was a "Bill Cosby liberal" (huh?), and his firing is evidence of NPR's racism. Obviously, I disagree, but it's interesting how we redefine "racism" to be whatever we want it to be (and to the extent I am guilty of that sin here, I can only say "Mea culpa.") More interesting is the argument NPR screwed up by firing Williams, that he has been made a martyr. Well, maybe; for all of 15 minutes he's a martyr.

Is this whole topic starting to sound like the "Ground Zero Mosque" that wasn't? It is to me, except I think the shelf life of this tempest in a teapot won't survive the weekend. Whatever happened to that mosque, anyway? It lasted as a controversy just beyond August, but then everyone moved on, and the sure sign of the end of the Republic as we know it became something nobody much cares about anymore. All the clamor to move the Muslim community center in order to "be fair (and balanced!)" faded, and the center continues, I presume, to raise money and plan for construction.

The same dynamic is at work here. Did callers refuse to pledge because of this firing? I know people who refused to pledge because Williams was on NPR. So it goes. Mr. Williams is enjoying his moment in the spotlight, wallowing in his shame and humiliation at actually being fired ("Where's my 15 minutes?", I hear many people asking, "and do I get one for each job I was fired from?"). Me, I never thought he added anything valuable, and I'm glad he's gone. I don't dislike E. J. Dionne or even David Brooks as much, but I could do without them, too.

I'd be more than happy for NPR to get back to straight journalism, and leave all the "news analysis" to cable TeeVee, where they devote whole programs and networks to it. But then, I'm curmudgeonly, and grow more so as I get older.

Still don't like Andy Rooney, though.