"And, why?" [View all]

[H2O Man]

“And, why? Because here, in this Western world, and particularly in America, it has always been accepted that a man may possess immense knowledge but without ever having seriously considered his level of being. In America, it is acceptable that a man may be a Supreme Court Justice, a Doctor, a National and International Politician and/or Scientist, has the right to be a racist, or a petty, egotistic, caviling, mean, envious, vain and malicious snake!”
Rubin “Hurricane” Carter; June 26, 1979


The recent events involving the republican attempt to bulldoze Kavanaugh through to the Supreme Court reminded me of the above quote from a long letter Rubin wrote to me almost 40 years ago. I knew Rubin well enough to be fully confident that he would add “a sexual offender” to his list of character traits of the snakes he was describing.

The answer to the question – “And, why?” – is painfully obvious. They do not care. While it is theoretically possible that a tiny minority of republicans do not know that Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, the vast majority do. Most take the Lindsey Graham stance of “So what am I supposed to do? Ruin this man's life?” As if Kavanaugh is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court, despite having inflicted severe damage on a woman's life.

One of the interesting things about Kavanaugh's Fox interview was his repeated denial of having done “this thing.” That conscious effort to separate himself from “this thing” is of special interest to those who have investigated sex crimes, and/or those who work in the field of psychiatry. I have had employment in both areas, including those involving a specific sect of Catholics. Decades ago, I had a case involving a priest. More, I have discussed the topic with an uncle who investigated several of the cases in Pennsylvania

In my conversations with my uncle – who was called the best investigator in the country in the 1990s, and who trained investigators in the FBI and CIA – he never mentioned the way alter boys dressed as a factor. But we did discuss But we did focus on the offenders' self-justification, based upon Romans 7:17-20. This says, in their interpretation, that if they want to do good, and still offend, it really isn't them doing “this thing.” Nope, it's all “the sin that lives in me.” Now, ain't that a fancy way to avoid taking ownership of your behaviors?

The combination of a sense of entitlement with the failure to take personal responsibility adds up to the self-righteousness we witness today. And what else could explain the republican support for Trump, who admitted on tape to sexual offenses? Though Trump later claimed it wasn't him on the tape, the republicans didn't think it was”the sin living in him.” No, they justified voting for a man who “lives in sin,” so long as it benefited them.

They also resent those who question their sense of entitlement. Indeed, they seek to discourage those who question their character, by engaging in vicious character assassination. We remember Anita Hill, who could only be described as a nice, honest, intelligent and brave lady. Yet she was subjected to yet another assault when she testified. And, in the time that followed, jackasses like David Brock and Orlando Patterson continued attacking her.

When confronting opposition such as these, no individual should stand alone. Because, really, this struggle is less about the past, than about today and the future. It impacts all of us, and thus demands a united front. And that includes recognizing that we combat the unacceptable – not only on one front, but on all fronts.
Two brave women have come forward. They did this, knowing full well what price Anita Hill and countless others were and are subjected to. We need to respect their decisions, including each of them selecting their own legal representatives. A third woman is scheduled to come forward within the next 24 hours. She has decided what lawyer she believes can best represent her. We should respect that decision, at the same level we respect the first two women.

I find it curious that some find fault with her choice of Michael Avenatti. I think that he has done a good job representing Stormy Daniels. The two of them helped to focus attention on Michael Cohen, and to expose crimes that led to Cohen's plea. And that has resulted in some exposure of Trump. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Stormy.

If Avenatti helps put a glaring spotlight on Senate republicans, that's a good thing. I feel safe in speculating that the woman who retained his services was fully aware of his tactics. There is an absolute zero chance that her decision to come forward will hurt the opposition to Kavanaugh, or somehow help him get confirmed.

Thus, if they don't like Michael Avenatti, that is fine. As long they don't hire him, and avoid watching him on television, I'm confident that they will be okay. But please respect the fact that one of the victims of Kavanaugh's sexual assaults did hire him.

Fight the Good Fight – keep calling Senators!
H2O Man