When the truth doesn't matter

It is reasonable to view the world from the *what would I do* perspective. We tend to project our own morality and sensibilities onto others. It's why people are so quick to say: *why would she lie about ...* *why would anyone choose ...* *an innocent person wouldn't...* *only a guilty man would...*

Why would Christine Blasey Ford lie? As I said previously, to be the heroine of a cause that means a lot to her, to her demographic, to her political allies, to her gender and her generation. She is in a win-win situation. She is either believed, and she is a victim to the people who matter to her and she thwarts the confirmation of a man who might change their world. Or, she is disbelieved, and she is a victim to the people who matter to her, the people who loathe the sort of people who might question her motives, her memory, her timing. She might come out of this a little bruised by the awkward attention, but because in these instances we can never know, she won't carry this as a blemish to the people who share her worldview -- and that's all that's important to most of us really.

She might well be telling the truth and I don't pretend to know. I just think it's silly for people to suggest that women never lie, or that the only possible reason for a lie would be attention-seeking or mental illness. People lie for all sorts of reasons, and I suspect that to many on the left, (and perhaps many on the right) abortion rights are right up there as a top priority, politically. People do strange things when they are advancing or protecting their cause.

As for Kavanagh, he has every reason to lie. He's followed the life plan for that sort of person he is -- got an education, worked hard, lived decently, and in one fell swoop all of that can be destroyed by something awful he did when he was seventeen? Who wouldn't be inclined to lie about something that no one can ever prove? Or, maybe he doesn't even remember. Not because he was blackout drunk, but because as the perpetrator of an assault, which, to a seventeen-year old in 1982 likely seemed innocuous and unimportant, it's something he would never have to, or bother to, think about again. Real sexual predators plan and recall details, but young men who are aggressive and clumsy are unlikely to feel the significance of their actions to the woman they've assaulted.

It's been suggested Kavanagh lashed out on the stand because he was angry having been caught or called out, but his demeanour, as unseemly as it might have been, is not indicative of guilt. If you've ever been unjustly accused of something terrible, something you know in your heart you didn't do, you'll know how indignant he must feel if his conscience is clear. Is it crazy that he would cry, or yell or would throw out the Clinton name and suggest a conspiracy? Because it would feel like that to someone raw from a vile and false accusation.

Some are saying that his reaction is so contrary to the comportment of a Justice, that he should be excluded from the bench as a result. Much as the testimony was not becoming of a supreme court justice, Kavanagh was on the stand as a man, not a judge. His emotive display doesn't suggest someone who would be unhinged when rendering a decision on a case before him. This was a person going through an intensely troubling ordeal. Guilty or not, the stress of being accused and then dragged through this after all these years must be tremendous. Who wouldn't come off a little intense and histrionic in those circumstances?

Anyone who could look at either of these two people, the things they've said and how they've carried themselves and draw a conclusion to a certainty, is a mind-reader. To my mind, there is just no way to know -- but whether it's true or not, I don't believe an unproven, uncorroborated incident from a person's youth should be the deciding factor in his fate, thirty-five years on. I can understand the injustice someone might feel if the person who hurt them is elevated to a position of honour and authority, but that's irrelevant here (although there are certainly times it shouldn't be). Ask Juanita Broaddrick.

In the end, I believe Kavanagh's only option is to withdraw. His family doesn't deserve to be put through this, and there is no salvaging his reputation now. No matter what the FBI finds, there will never be anything definitive and there will always be a cloud over him. Every judgement will be suspect, every decision over-scrutinized -- he is tainted. It makes no sense for him to continue in this climate, under these circumstances. There are times, even if you believe the other side is wrong, the gracious and decent thing to do is concede and step away. This is one of those times in life, the truth doesn't matter.

And then, what Donald Trump should do, is find the most rabidly pro-life, male judge in existence, and dare the Democrats to do this again.

canadianna   

Seventeen

When I was eighteen, Canada passed the Young Offenders Act. Soon after, a Scarborough boy, about fifteen years old, murdered his parents and younger sister, then took some school friends into his home to see the bodies. Under the new act, the most he would serve is three years and his record would be eternally sealed.

I didn't and I don't agree with that. There isn't some magical switch that flips on when you're eighteen and suddenly you know right from wrong. We are who we are and that boy at fifteen was a cold blooded murderer, no less culpable than someone three years older or someone twice his age.

What I do understand is the intent behind the law. If I was to be judged by choices I made, things I thought, people I hurt at seventeen due to selfishness or ignorance, I would be harshly condemned I'm sure -- as would many people. A seventeen year old will not have the capacity to reason the consequences of his actions (for himself or for whomever else might be involved) as fully as an adult will -- that's why we don't lower the voting age, or allow them to legally smoke or drink or gamble -- we realize that the teenage minds are not fully formed, and the teenage years are volatile even for those in the best of families and that lack of experience, eagerness to grow up, peer pressure, family drama, normal angst  -- all might lead to regretful actions resulting from poor judgement.

I won't comment directly on the veracity of the Kavanagh situation -- we can never know the truth.  It's all just conjecture. But if it's true, he was seventeen in 1982. The behaviour described by his accuser is unconscionable in this day and age. Back then, not so much. I could bring forward several young men who've become wonderful, fabulous older men, who would likely cringe at some of the things they did at seventeen -- and at least as many women. You might say that the incident as described is not singular in its effects -- it included actions upon another -- and I would agree, but I would also say that at seventeen, in the 80s, most young men were pretty sure that most young women were as sexually ready as they were -- the previous generation had opened the door and many from my age group just walked through, often without checking first. Was it right? No. It was as wrong as it is today -- but one can understand why someone at seventeen in 1982, might not have grasped that yet, and might still evolve into a normal, decent human being.

The odd thing is that if Brett Kavanagh had been reported and charged with a crime for what allegedly happened at that party in 1982, and had he been convicted, he was a minor and any criminal record would likely have been sealed or expunged and this would not have been an issue for him some thirty-five years later - which is why laws like the YOA exist -- to protect the adult from the mistakes of the youth.

Also, to those who would say the allegations (and any new ones regarding Kavanagh) must be true because who would put themselves through this for a lie -- I'm just going to say that those on the rabid left would do just about anything to block a judge they fear might overturn Roe v Wade.

Regardless, true or not, much as we can judge the boy and say, if it happened, he was wrong and should have been called out/punished -- condemning a person for sins committed a lifetime ago is not something any of us should be applauding, unless of course, you've lived a blemish-free life.

canadianna
 

Perception

If Maxime Bernier's new party is going to make inroads in the Canadian political scene, he's got to lose his social media director.

Whoever is running Bernier's twitter feed is mean. Period. Every single tweet is rude and hostile, filled with venom for Andrew Scheer, non-Bernier Conservatives, anyone who doesn't agree with him, and of course, the media.

Trudeau won the last election on *Sunny Ways* and while his actions during this term have been less than sunny, his own personal messaging remains constantly positive and upbeat. If he strays in person or seems on edge, it'll be put down the *stress of the job* - not a nasty personality. Trudeau leaves the venom spewing to Gerald Butts, his right hand man, but for the most part, he and the rest of the Liberal team stay above the fray.

Anger might amp up your base, but it will repel soft voters. We're living in a volatile world with a ton of negative news and ideas streaming across the border. The last thing people want is to invite such a steady display of invective into their daily lives even if it's just on social media. And while Bernier's raging is limited to twitter at the moment, and likely the work of a zealous intern, it is quickly becoming his persona. Real or false, it is a perception that will last.

The split within the conservative ranks is a blessing for Trudeau, at a time when our country needs a strong decisive voice from the right. Much as I think Bernier might have been the best candidate a year and a half ago, that ship has sailed and whether or not Bernier's animus is a personal grievance or genuine belief that his vision is best for the country -- it's all irrelevant because from beginning to end, his message is lost in his messaging.

canadianna