A Comment on the Reade Kerfuffle
I don't think it's ever fun to encounter criticisms of your sincerely held opinions. I just dealt with one this morning on Twitter, a MeToo tweeter basically supporting Tara Reade's sexual misconduct allegation of Joe Biden, basically arguing that he had groped her genitalia back in 1993. There are specific reasons I question that story; for example, last year she complained about unwanted but less serious/intimate past touching conduct by Biden last year; there is no corroboration from other Biden staffers; her discussions have changed over time, and Biden has no relevant pattern of behavior in over 4 decades in DC. There could also be a political motivation (she preferred Comrade Bernie over Biden for the nomination). This is not "proof"; certainly her story is more credible than Kavanaugh accuser Blasey Ford's, having discussed the specific allegation with a number of others over the years.I think for me there is a personal interest, having been victimized by a frivolous sexual harassment charge at work back in 1994. There was a pretty blond single account assistant who sat in the cubicle facing mine at work. Ever the socially inept nerd, I finally got up the nerve to ask her out; she turned me down, explaining she had a serious boyfriend and was hoping for him to propose to her. I said something to the effect that if I weren't her type, I wouldn't bother her again. She paused and said, "No, I want to keep my options open." Over the next 2 or 3 months, I never said or wrote a word to her, other than any polite greeting in passing at work. I didn't have contact information for her outside of work; I never saw her outside of work other than company social events.
I wanted to buy her lunch at the building cafeteria on my birthday; she wasn't back yet from her Christmas leave, so I left a note. (A big mistake.) I found myself called into the office of the executive vice-president and was immediately told they knew about "the note", it had been forwarded to company attorneys, and if they concluded I had put the company at risk, I would be immediately fired. I was totally disoriented; what the hell were they talking about? They told me SM had filed a sexual harassment grievance against me over my lunch invitation. It was bad enough that she had turned me down, but had done so in front of the whole company. All she had to say was, "No, and please don't ask again." No, this woman was trying to get me fired. I had no idea what was behind the rage; maybe she was hoping to be engaged over Christmas and I became the target of her frustration? I would later find on my desk a predated written warning that she was fed up with my incessant requests to ask her out, not taking no for an answer, and if I did it one more time, she would file a grievance. This was a complete fabrication; I asked her out twice, weeks apart, no other contact whatsoever. If she had taken the option I gave her the first time, there wouldn't have been a second attempt. The only thing I was guilty of was being a socially inept nerd. The company lawyers cleared me and told the management to move me to another area in the facility. She turned out to be a lousy account assistant and was fired while I was working in Brazil over the coming summer. I think that was the last time I tried to ask anyone out.
I have no doubt that sexual harassment happens in real life, and I know I would be furious if it happened to my own relatives. But I know from first-hand experience some women do lie and use the process for their own agenda. And that's why the politically correct MeToo movement repels me; certainly I think personal accountability is a worthy ideal. But the idea that spurious allegations have a right to be believed is rubbish. I was the one being victimized in my own experience by outright lies, but I'm not a psychologist; I don't know what motivated her misconduct; I do know I didn't deserve it. In a just universe, karma would get her.
Trumpkins on the Trump Impeachment
We see Jesus' contempt for the proud Pharisee, the one who met, if not exceeded, all the commandments, the religious mandates (including tithing), etc., pointing out his moral superiority over others, point by point. Jesus would later reduce the commandments to two more demanding ones.I received a couple of Trumpkin reply tweets to the effect Trump's Senate acquittal of impeachment charges was "forever". First, let's be clear: I supported Trump's impeachment and conviction, and that won't change. I don't intend on replicating the case again in this segment; I'm trying to make a broader point.
In essence, the Trumpkin sophists want to argue that impeachment grounds are constitutionally narrow and Trump's alleged misconduct isn't enumerated. This is misleading and disingenuous.
The Founders wrote a fairly general document. They couldn't anticipate all the different forms of corruption in the Office of the Presidency or how the Presidency would expand over the centuries. But there were clear indications of intent by the inclusion of the Emoluments Clause. I would argue that this goes beyond compensation; the Office also comes with power and prestige. The desire to extend one's term in office is also a corrupting factor. Abusing the powers of public office to extend one's tenure is a clear form of corruption.
And this clearly happened in Trump's attempt to use his foreign relations authority to push Ukraine's investigation of his political rival, Joe Biden, This was not in the national interest but in support of Trump's own political ambitions.
There is no doubt that a self-serving abuse of Presidential authority is an impeachable offense. There is corroborating evidence of Trump's unconstitutional quid pro quo for Ukraine; GAO verifies Trump's concurrent withholding of Ukrainian assistance signed into law was illegal. These are based on evidence, including Trump's own abridged transcript of his call to Zelensky. Whereas certain witnesses, like Bolton, would corroborate Trump's "drug deal", they weren't necessary to establish Trump's guilt. Yes, the proceedings were excessively partisan. But the facts weren't.
The Senate's acquittal was equally partisan, fairly notable by its refusal to call witness. Some Republicans agreed Trump's behavior was improper but suggested it didn't warrant removal from office. This was not an exoneration or vindication of Trump's corrupt bargain; it was more fear of reprisal in one's own reelection.
