I debated posting this after reading it earlier today when an acquaintance sent me the link. It's from a newspaper, the NYT. So I figured many folks would see NYT and just say Fake News and dismiss it. Interestingly, I'd suggest that this article pokes at the L's a bit, and the point it makes transcends that. By a lot. The title makes it sound like a BK hit job. It's not close to that. It's about the disturbing display the whole carnival was...
It's really an Op Ed, by David Brooks. But the concepts it notes, to me, were really good to ponder. Agree or disagree, I figured you guys would find it interesting and may enjoy it, or at least, enjoy contemplating it.
Enjoy the weekend! Be safe if you are hunting. My wife is working 12hr shifts this weekend, so I'm taking the kids for a fun mountain bike ride tomorrow and hunting Monday Afternoon. Hope you all get to enjoy the outdoors this weekend too!
Have a great weekend yourself Will, enjoy the ride with your kids! Thanks.
Various polls support this position.
Not a big fan of David Brooks but I agree with much (not all) of what he said in the piece.
This thread is actually good example of what he is talking about.
Some people are only willing to consider that which already supports their preconceived notions and views. Anything that even begins to deviate from that particular narrative isn't even worthy of consideration.
I didn't think like that when this issue came into the public eye. It's clear Kavanaugh had been raised in a family that had more than others. He made the best of it and became a success in Law. He didn't become a spoiled rich kid living off his parents. I don't believe that the Left is a giant monster that is out to get me either. What made my opinion was the lack of credibility of Ford's testimony. Ford's accusations that didn't convince me of any wrong doing by Kavanaugh.
The line I most agree with him on. On balance, a good article. Thanks Will.
There are some good points made at the closing of this opinion piece. But it is based on some false arguments and erroneous statements and some deception is weaved in. ( classic straw man argument- approach, after the fact (of them making total fools out of themselves) , to mitigate some of the irrational actions by spreading the blame) "We are all responsible for this big stinking mess etc." and there is the lie.
A problem with "the wacky far left" is the claim/disposition, that they are the moral keepers of all social injustice and that is simply untrue. They claim it as their sole concern ( as if they have a monopoly on what is good and fair. They often site true injustices as their reason for outrage, as if those things don't appall us all and somehow apply to another unrelated event with only superficial similarities) that is insulting to the other side. And ridiculous.
" We defend the small man and social injustice...". by implication, the others do not. Straw man!
In the article, I will start with what is agreeable and work backward to where he was "blending" in order to share the blame.
I Agree: It has become a partisan line approach. I agree: We need a forum for more dialogue that demands intellectual honesty. And not Slander or mudslinging.
But here is why he is off base: The article implies that the two sides are to blame because there are simply two sides. No. There are two sides and one of them is off the rails. Like a fight that was started by one person and the other is equally to blame for defending himself. Straw man. So the blending begins.
He thinks the "Heart of this case" is "a mystery". As to what happened back when. There is no proof or reason to think anything happened "back when" but people are afraid to question her motive or sanity. Because of this, we pussyfoot around it and share the blame or accept there was an incident. The Facts do not show this ever happened but now that we accept it did ( for over-caution of potential victims) then we begin to assign blame or try to reason out why he was doing such a thing, or if he could have etc... already way off base. Already, sharing and blending. Straw man. The actual " heart of it" is how the hell did we allow such trash to be given any honor or airtime when its foundation is not proven or even possibly /provably true. How did we allow any traction of this disgraceful behavior ( the process allowed in the Senate) to be played out like a soap opera and not handled or investigated in a timely fashion in private to evaluate the merit and rational dialogue applied? Well, it's not WE ... It is progressive far left and their contribution and alterations to our culture, that's how. It is an indictment of their values . It's what they are fighting for. Not reason and fair dialogue.
Yes, we the people are bad at spotting falsehoods. We have a hard time telling an honest person from a liar. And we believe lies because we don't process critically. That's old fashion you know? ( body language experts are skilled but) Story continuity, facts, and reason are what we must depend on. Track record and history is a fair indication of character but it's not proof, it's just supporting information to consider. He is a dignified human with a long and impeccable history. She has been caught in lies and her story lacks any context. That is not typical of traumatic events. But it is sold as such. Furthermore, the majority( R side) handled themselves with the utmost respect but didn't allow the slander to go unchallenged. All because it was a dirty technique, just as the author notes but he wants to share the blame. That's where he is dead wrong.
The author assigns to the Judge some motivation and character flaws. Furious etc. Where does he get off ? As if the Judge was out of control. That's his opinion, " as one of the public that can't read a situation" or "detect sincerity or lies." The Judge had been through the fire for 3 days of testimony 10 days of assault and then this public flogging ... He defended his honor and it was painful for him. If he didn't have emotion he would be a cold statue. And of course unfit for judicial duty. Yuck.
The implication is that he is lacking judicial levelheadedness because he was a bit frazzled and some emotion surfaced. Another Straw-man argument! The opposite would also have been said ... He Can't win either way.
His record of judicial measurement is crystal clear. Fair and balanced, highly law based and not emotional or politically based. So the provocation by way of a personal assault and then the judgment of his personal defense, being applied to his judicial discipline and temperament is again a false association.
In conclusion: it is the left side bringing this new ugliness and rhetorical merry-go-round to the public and the other side of the aisle has handled themselves with great dignity. The spokespeople at the top of the Democratic Party have enforced the dirty fighting and fanned the flames of incivility. It's what the new thing is for them. They Love chaos and stand a better chance of scoring a few points than when it is a dialogue based in rational arguments.
As proposed by the author, we need to allow rational dialogue to rule the day. How novel! But how slippery he is. Because The opponent who holds the weaker of the two arguments is in jeopardy of losing the intellectual argument ( in terms of persuasiveness based on merit and reason) Which is the very criticism of the ugly tactics employed by the Democrat representatives. And all who have been bashing away on their behalf.
Now they want to claim civility as their own platform? Typical as I started off with. They do not have a corner on that market either. But it is what cheaters do They say it when it is becoming obvious To trick the casual listener. Heck if it is said by so and so that the other side is going to say such and such ... Well then because I said it first then I must be honest right? It's just intellectual dishonesty and people are not skilled at seeing it for what it is, And frankly, I believe that most of the supporters of the irrational are quite aware of their need to implore such methods for otherwise they are sunk. Its not being stupid, it is immoral. "Avoid the fair fight at all cost if you are unlikely to win..."
I'll keep this short... We need civility and dialogue based on reason and facts. This is something new? No, it is something we need to correct because it has been the new tactic of the far left. Who has gone off the rails?
After listening to the clear and concise oration of Sen. Collins it is no longer a question of what happened in the process and who did it or how this evolved into the spectacle it became. It's No longer a question of this man's character or qualifications. It's no mystery or shared blame. You will not get a clearer example of what the far left has been nurturing for a generation and how irrational people try to work the process of un- fair and dishonest dialogue based in slander and fabrication. Now it is out in the open.
Leftist reporters pull this stunt every single time their foolishness becomes a nationwide spectacle. They think they can hide their complicity in this by leaning a little to 'their' right. But they can't hide the foundation they stand on. No one can.....
Well reasoned post.
You cannot have a rational argument when both sides lack historical perspective and basic information. They believe what they believe simply because the people in thier tribe believe it and reinforce thier opinion. People are uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance and seek out the easiest answers to resolve the conflict. Typically a party line view. Schools long ago stopped teaching history in context with other subjects as a core curriculum. Now people learn from a menu of classes with no common core. Parents mollycoddle thier children and protect them from any physical or mental discomfort. People used to be tougher because they grew up defending them selves physically and mentally from multiple siblings and the other kids on the block. People may not like the Christian bible but believing it or not it is a very centered way to live and raise a family. Everyone in town used to go to church and it helped them play by the same set of rules and expectations. Just some of the reasons I do not think it possible to have a rational dialogue on a national basis any more.
Good video on you tube with a discussion between Jordan B. Peterson and Camille Paglia . It’s a two hours long but a great investment learning from two brilliant minds https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM