Standards Joe Biden does not meet
In Liza Featherstone's essay for Jacobin, "For Elite Democrats, Joe Biden’s Candidacy Means Ditching #MeToo," we are told about how the #MeToo movement is basically disbanding itself to avoid confronting Tara Reade's demands for justice. So okay let's imagine that you grant these fair-weather feminists their wish and vote for Joe. What guarantee will you have that, over the next four years, celebrity sexual assault won't be more or less okay?
One of the more spectacular things Featherstone says in this piece, though, functions to provide an "out" for the Biden voters who doubtless form some part of the audience for her writings, be they in Jacobin or elsewhere. She, in short, lowers the standard.
(Parenthetically, here's what you can find on Featherstone's NYU profile: "A free-lance journalist and essayist, she has also written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsday, Columbia Journalism Review, Salon, Slate and many other publications." So she has a wide audience.)
At any rate, here's what she said:
Let’s be clear. If Joe Biden had a personal history of dismembering grandmothers and feeding them to children as an after-school snack, he would still, in my view, be far preferable to Donald Trump or Mike Pence, or whatever Koch-funded revival meeting is running the executive branch at the moment.
Perhaps this statement is true. But if you're one of the grandmothers, Biden isn't preferable to Trump and its truth is of no consequence. You lose either way. And there are going to be plenty of people out there who are going to be in the position of the grandmothers.
Sure, the mass-media-promoted alternative to Joe Biden is currently Donald Trump, who is mostly concerned with his Florida possessions at this time. But let's check out where Joe stands on the coronavirus, okay?
Biden Sides With Big Pharma Against Plan That Could Make Coronavirus Vaccine Affordable
So yeah, after this is over the Fed chair of St. Louis expects 32% unemployment. A lot of folks with no money will be needing a vaccine. But Joe isn't interested in helping. So, if you're one of those people, and the odds are pretty substantial that you are one of those people, you're one of the grandmothers.
If you can't afford to use your health insurance, or if you can't afford health insurance at all, Joe doesn't meet your standards either. Tens of thousands of people die every year because they prefer financial solvency to medical treatment. Joe made these deaths possible by engineering the 2005 bankruptcy bill. Oh and Joe isn't into Medicare for All. Nor is he into abortion rights, nor is he interested in giving you back the money you put into Social Security.
Do I need to add that Joe is not planning to run a credible campaign for the Presidency? If you were depending upon a real campaigner to defeat Trump, Joe isn't your candidate:
But maybe the Biden faithful can win a whole Presidency for Joe all by themselves by shaming people for telling everyone they're not going to vote for him. The mass media will help; but they can only do so much if Joe can't make decent public appearances. By all means, if you're a Biden supporter, apply all of the weapons of shame and guilt that you can possibly muster against the #NeverBiden crowd. Do consider, however, that no matter how heroically low you set your standards, Joe is going to fail to meet them.
Comments
You owe it to your children and grandchildren- don't vote Biden
It should be obvious to anyone with a brain and a soul that this country is completely f*cked up. The Dems offer more corporate MIC dem candidates, fully bought and paid for. Nothing will change if we vote for them. At some point, soon I hope, they will get worn out from being losers. Just look at the lineup - Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill CLinton, Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, etc, etc. ad nauseum. Problem number one is either to fix the Dem party or replace it. There's nothing we can do about Trump, the Dems put him in office. He's divorced from reality, but so are they. He's corrupt, but so are they. He got elected because he appealed to boiling populism from the Right. The Democrats appeal to what, business as usual? Well F that. This pandemic has ripped the skin off of this festering infection called a country. It has exposed us for what we are, a Kleptocracy powered by we serfs, kept broke on purpose. If we had any more money they would figure out how to get it, higher rents, taxes, energy bills, connectivity charges, education, health insurance, etc.
Here's just one example. Rental real estate sells for a market price that includes potential rent, that's your hard earned dollars. So the fact that you pay exorbitant rent justified high sales prices requiring exorbitant rent. This comes undone in a crisis. If you allow a rent holiday then the property owner cannot pay his mortgage and taxes. It's a self reinforcing system of economic rent. What is the solution? Zero out rent during this pandemic, force the landlord to declare bankruptcy and have the state or federal government take the property and pay the bank $.20 on the dollar. The rent is then recomputed using rational taxes and maintenance. The property is now off the market and rents are controlled for ever. Any other method eventually results in massive homelessness. You can defer rent, but then how do you pay it? It will really come down to deciding who really owns the country, the oligarchs or the people. We know what the Democratic party believes. They serve no earthy use to the people, why would you vote for them?
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
It's going to be really tough
once the "shelter in place" period is over. The elite class stands united against us. People are going to have to give up on a lot of their celebrity-worship habits. The elites thought Joe Biden could ride the wave of celebrity-worship all the way to the nomination. I'm not sure it's going to work.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
Brilliant rant!
Wow! Yes! You've really brought together all the necessities of life that are suddenly, obviously, not supported by capitalism and that will have to be taken over by people who do the work of sustaining life.
I hope you will post your comment to the discussion of the Council on Foreign Relations sudden realization that capitalism can't solve the pandemic's effect on the economy.
I agreed with you completely
until you advocated stealing property.
EDIT:
Just talking about seizing property and paying 20 cents on the dollar, reinforces the charges that we are Communists and want to turn the USA into the USSR.
If you do, that's all right with me. I think you are wrong, but you are allowed to be wrong. I'm allowed to be wrong too.
But I think it's counter productive.
I'd like to take the top the tiers of bankers out and shoot them. But I don't advocate it as public policy.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
With respect,
I don't read Wizard's comment in the way that you may read it. But I think the subjects of housing and commercial real estate will have to be addressed in connection with how it is owned if people's work is what pays for it.
Also, when it comes to the idea of the government seizing property and paying $.20 on the dollar, what did we do when we bailed out the banks? Did they get 100% on the dollar? I don't know. Did we seize the property?
I would agree with what you said if the banks were allowed to fail, but they're not. Instead, we make them whole. Why shouldn't we make the people who paid the rent and mortgage payments whole instead? Not meaning to argue, just exploring the concept.
This is what the banks did
Obama let blackrock buy houses for pennies on the dollar. They jacked rents and became slumlords Mnuchin took people's homes if they owed less than $100. Lots of people got in on the buying foreclosed homes at a bargain rate and then flip them. Lots of huge property owners get away with making people live in horrible conditions even though they are breaking laws.
I don't see the problem here.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
People signed mortgages that gave them the power.
The property is security for the loan. If you miss one payment they cam foreclose. People don't realize what they are signing.
The property owners didn't sign anything to allow the government to seize their property just because. You have to do something unlawful like not pay your taxes. Yes, even being $100 short can cause the government to seize your property.
The Constitution prohibits seizure without due process. If anyone is bothering to follow the Constitution.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I agree
that people signed mortgages structured to harm them, all part of a racket based on the most important purchase in a young buyer's life, fraught with need and hope and desperation in ruthless times.
But most of them were adjustable rate mortgages! How can a contract be legal if it leaves the rate open to an unknowable change? "I agree to pay (blank)?"
I agree with you that no one should have signed these contracts, but no one who wrote them should have been bailed out!
Sure.
But then, the only reasons the investment bankers had the resources to buy up those houses at pennies on the dollar were:
A. The federal government floated the bankrupt financial system the credit to do so. Had it not been so, they'd have been in the same penniless state as the defaulted mortgagors, and would have been unable to bid against all the rest of the citizenry for those foreclosed homes.
B. The homes (which had often, of course, been foreclosed illegally -- but that's a different story) were frequently bundled by the foreclosing lenders into large packages for liquidation. This made them unbuyable by ordinary citizens -- including financially prudent individuals who had good credit and might in fact have been saving up to buy a home when the crash intervened.
Item B is a standard mechanism by which the oligarchs have shoveled the nation's real, physical wealth upwards into their own coffers. Zinn gives an example, in People's History, of a letter from a freed slave talking about how land confiscated from Confederates was being bundled into parcels too large for the freedmen to bid on.
I'm sorry, VOIW, but there's just no way to invoke the "law" (e.g., signed mortgage contracts) in order to defend the "justice" of some outcome. It has been centuries since justice and western law had anything but a passing acquaintance.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Banks committed lots of fraud to take homes
You remember the robo signings and MERS done with compliant judges don't you? And they also tricked people into mortgages that they knew people couldn't afford and placed hedges on whether they would default or not.
The banks would never have been able to buy up so many homes if they hadn't been bailed out illegally.
Boy I can't wait to see how many homes get bought after this last bailout. It's going to make the Obama years look good.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
The banks wrote the mortgages
They wrote the mortgages based on the market price of the rental property based on outrageous rents. That was a bad gamble, they should lose. If there are no consequences to bad investments then banks will continue to finance theft.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Now we know where they get the nonsense about
giving a low wage worker a tiny bit more making them lazy. They mean greedy like them.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
But the buyers signed them
That put the risk on the buyers. Ask On the cusp or another lawyer.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Of course, the buyers
signed that binding contract with all that fine print they do not read or comprehend.
Overlooked is the fact that the mortgage is also backed by insurance. The bank will not only get paid by the insurance co., but the $02.0o is actually profit.
Lenders are insured.
Even credit card lenders.
All of the various lenders are in a win-win position.
Banks were not allowed to combine both lending and insuring under the same roof. Or corporate charter.)
But it was the repeal of Dodd-Frank, iirc, that ended that.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
IOW the risk is on the buyers, correct? or incorrect?
morality aside.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
All risk is on the buyers.
As an example, people get sued for not paying their credit card bill. I waste time and breath trying to cut a deal with BOA on their behalf. They reject the offer, sue, destroy my client's credit.
Post-judgment, I pick up the phone, offer them 10 cents on the dollar if they will remove the judgment from public records. They take that deal time after time.
Mortgages just go for pennies to a new purchaser.
The new purchaser is also insured.
It is a scam.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
But the lenders' insurance policies would not have
been paid, because the insurers would have gone under, had not the federal government bailed them out. And if the insurance policies hadn't been paid, the lenders would have gone under, except the federal government was busy bailing them out as well. And the insurers who insured the insurers would have gone under, had not the federal government bailed them out.
Meanwhile, I almost got caught in a squeeze, because my balloon payment came due, and I couldn't refinance, because the underwriters who worked with my credit union had gotten all skittish and tightened up their lending criteria. My home matched too many of their red flags, such as declining values in the immediate area. The straw that broke that camel's back was the ratio of my dwelling's value to my property's value. I get why they added that as a flag -- because they didn't want to lend to people whose "home value" was primarily due to inflated land values. But ... when you own a modest house on a few acres of land situated near a small but growing city ... well, your land is going to be worth almost as much as your house.
Happily, my other credit union was working with a slightly more flexible underwriter, and they were able to save my skin.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Or even more
if you have an old house is a gentrifying area.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
We really didn’t think #metoo was going to last
forever. It was just a blunt instrument to pummel opponents with. Too bad it didn’t work on the really big fish like Donald Trump. But of course in this country wealth and power trump all.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Maybe it will come back --
if Biden goes away.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
It'll come back every time there isn't a prominent
Democrat in a critical position who cannot be dispensed with.
Meaning, it's not a justice movement.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
i admit that i'd seen it
as having been born out of the Dem's PinkPussyHat #McResistance , most 'reports' coming on the washington post. i saw it as mcCarthyism, in that once accused, the accused was most often fired without knowing the identity of the accusers, thus without their day in court.
the sole person i can recall who'd demanded bis day in court was actor geoffrey rush, who was cleared of the charges. sheman alexie? opera singers fired without recourse? it would be fascinating to see the list and what the outcomes were. and of course verbal sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual assault were tied up together.
hollywood,USA is its own animal story. IF it served to cause males worldwide to be less chauvinistic, that's a good thing. but i admit i'd hoped it would be followed by a a #HimToo or #HeToo movement for males accusing female power players.
anyhoo, just a few random thoughts.
um. Cosby. Weinstein.
Also, given the resources many of these men have at their disposal, not to mention charm and a LOT to lose if they are punished "in the court of public opinion" despite being innocent, and I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that many (not all, by any means) of them didn't ask for their day in court because they knew exactly how it was going to go for them (because they knew what they had done).
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
neither of their
accusers were anonymous, and their accusers did testify in court. the mccarthyist quality of the movement was that 'anonymous accusers' could call them out via the WaPo, and they were fired without knowing who was accusing them of what.
now a couple years ago (?) the US military and NATO went #MeToo for protecting women, but i doubt it brought forth many, if any, formal complaints or charges.
You said this:
I gave you the two most obvious counterexamples imaginable -- two of the most powerful men in showbiz -- and then offered a hypothesis about why a whole lot of the other accused men weren't demanding their day in court, namely, they knew damned well they were guilty, and they knew the evidence against them was overwhelming. It's just a hypothesis.
My point was that this one sentence of yours was:
A. Weirdly amnesiacal (you couldn't recall Cosby or Weinstein?)
B. Attempting to draw an inductive inference from a sample of one self-selected guy.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Because a serial grandmother killer
(and child force-feeder) would still be better than Trump/Pence??
What!!!??!!
Does not compute.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Isn't it funny
that those who write such tripe refuse to let others comment on the stupidity that they write?
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I suppose the logic --
is that Trump has already baked in a large death toll through his mishandling of COVID-19, as indeed he has. Trump is, therefore, worse than Biden, who has not yet had the opportunity to be a bad President and thereby to let hundreds of thousands die needlessly on his watch.
"Trump is worse" is the obvious, and only, inspiration for the idea of Biden for President. That and "Bernie is not electable," a piece of obviously flawed logic everyone has been suckered into believing. As I'm suggesting above, however, Biden himself is somewhat effective at thwarting that inspiration.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
'Blue No Matter Who' logic....
Truly metaphysical.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
logic
But not logical!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
It's now officially
'Blech no matter who.'
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Except that, as you know--
they've been making those sort of claims about Trump being undeniably horrendously worse since before he was inaugurated. Certainly well before he even began to approach George W. Bush's death toll.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You could see from far off --
what Trump was going to be, just as anyone with eyesight could see what Hitler was going to be after 1925.
It's time we admitted that there is a genuine justification for voting (D) instead of (R). The clincher for us, of course, is that that justification does not really matter.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
No. I don't think there is a justification for voting D instead
of R. Except the unassailable justification that every person's vote is his or her own business.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You're not going to win over the half-hearted Dem tribalists
with arguments like that. I don't know. Maybe you think there's something to be had in the political vacuum that is American politics outside of its sacred two-party system. In reality, though, political asteroids wander into that sphere now and then like, for instance, the Occupy movement, or wildcat teacher strikes in Oklahoma and Kentucky, or Kshama Sawant in Seattle. Ralph Nader is too old, so don't think about that. Otherwise -- did you know that the vacuum of interstellar space contains about one atom per cubic centimeter? That's what you get outside of a gravitational hub -- or, for that matter, a reason to do politics outside of a minor party's claim to ballot status in a particular state. It's not a lot. In fact, it's far more pristine than a laboratory vacuum.
Bernie Sanders' strategy with those people, by which I mean half-hearted Dem tribalists (and there are a lot of them) is to say "I will support the eventual party nominee." As I've pointed out in this diary, there's a distinct possibility that such a statement is completely pointless. Supporting Joe Biden is merely setting oneself up for disappointment, because no matter how low one sets the bar, Joe won't meet it. That's the point of this diary, and I hope it pleases you to recognize that. The trick, however, is to be able to persuade the half-hearted Dem tribalists to accept this reality. If you can do that, then you stand a small chance of turning 2020 into something other than a repeat of 2016 with a coronavirus thrown in, because you can then get the half-hearted Dem tribalists to join in coalition with those who have Demexited long ago.
The primary political task confronting this era is to shut up the shouting match between tribalists so that real politics can take place. The one positive aspect of the coronavirus pandemic is that, like a bunch of other things none of which worked, it also stands a chance of getting the tribalists to shut up.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
I'm not trying to.
There is a long and fruitful discussion to be had about that particular strategy (winning over those who don't agree with you but are sorta kinda persuadable). But that isn't my cultural job and it never was. I leave it to others, mainly because I have little hope that there is anything substantial to be gained from it.
I have only seen a beneficial outcome from such a strategy once in the past 30 years; the LGBT community's decision to embrace right-wing ideals and rhetoric ("Please let us into the military, we are so patriotic just like you," " Please let us have monogamous marriage, your way of life is so wonderful and all we want to do is share it.") The LGBT population got something out of that strategy. We also lost some significant things, including some people who had to be basically disowned because they didn't into fit the Ward and Joe Cleaver scheme well enough. But we gained significant, real ground and many many people's lives are better because of that right-wing pivot in the 90s. That is undeniable.
It's also the only time I've seen it work in 30 years.
So I leave it to those who wish to try it.
That's examining the question on a pragmatic basis.
On a factual basis, there really is literally no point in voting for Joe Biden, and someday I will actually be able to write the essay to explain my position on that point. I didn't have it in me this week.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
By the way, I do recognize this:
Supporting Joe Biden is merely setting oneself up for disappointment, because no matter how low one sets the bar, Joe won't meet it. That's the point of this diary, and I hope it pleases you to recognize that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Dahlmer 2020!
Now I know why we need to end the death penalty--to find candidates for the Presidency!
And here I thought it was because of racism.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What I can't understand
is the blind spot of capitalism that allows the amassing of huge fortunes. They are clogs in the flow of capital, much like a blood clot in the leg or lung that causes part of the body to die. Biden and the rest aren't statesmen, they're just servants, not to capitalism, but to the wealthy.
blind spot?
Not a blind spot. Or any other sort of bug. The amassing of huge fortunes is the raison d'etre of capitalism; it exists for no other reason. It's a feature.
When you think of a well-balanced system, where capital keeps flowing smoothly and opportunity is available for all, you're thinking about free enterprise. Capitalism -- the ownership and control of the economy by money lenders for the passive profit of said money lenders -- is what free enterprise deteriorates into when healthy regulation is no longer imposed by the governmental authorities and the wealthiest and most powerful make the rules via "the law of the jungle".
Same thing. For one to make an actual living off the vigorish from lending money, one needs to own a lot of money, i.e., multiple millions of dollars independently of assets one uses for oneself (such as one's home). Ordinary working people don't have that and can't get it, regardless of Suze Orman's
bloviationsopinions to the contrary.These things being said, it remains fact that Joe Biden is no statesman.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
This is such a great point
People like to say that billionaires have created their own wealth, but that isn't true. They have gotten congress to write the tax laws in their favor and most of the big companies have received subsidies and tax breaks that most small businesses don't get. Yes some have come from nowhere and created big companies, but they usually get some help before they got that big.
Wasn't that why some people threw a bunch of tea into Boston harbor? The East Indies got subsidies from their king.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
My Dad
would have killed him with his bare hands if he had done that to me.
Or Mom, if she was closer to the fucker.
I am sorry #metoo went to shit.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
metoo
Fell into the same traps that all other Identity Politics does: while forgetting those it was supposed to defend, metoo declared war on its friends and allies.
NOT the way to get what you want!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
They could have made a difference.
I meant, a positive one.
If they swing women toward voting for Biden, that is a difference for women, and the men who care for them, that's extremely bad.
Pick your poison. Support sexual assault victims, or the assaulters.
I have represented at least 6, and it is extremely difficult to cross-examine the victims.
We are just a sick society, and you have no idea what goes on in the homes of your neighbors.
Unfortunately, I know.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Six victims? or six assaulters?
I genuinely didn't understand "I've represented six."
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Men accused of sexual assault.
2 guilty verdicts, 1 voluntarily plead guilty, 1 got probation, 1 was a juvenile offender (age 11) who was sent off to foster care, one plead guilty to a lesser included offense. Oops, make that 7. Another plead guilty to a lessor included offense.
I have managed to put a guy on the witness stand and twist him into knots, and he admitted he did assault his step-daughter. I represented the wife/mom. I told opposing counsel I would do that. He was later, based upon that testimony in his divorce case, indicted, received probation, is a lifetime registered sex offender.
On Monday morning, I will put on 4 witnesses to whom a little girl made an outcry about her mom sexually assaulting her.
Hope everybody has a fun Monday.
I currently represent a man in a custody case who was accused by his son of sexually assaulting him. I cannot put him on the stand. He can't afford me for the criminal case, and will need to ask for court appointed.
I have said before, you likely do not know what goes on at your neighbor's house. I know what my neighbors do.
It is a sick ass world.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
You rock.
And I'd be interested in your opinions of #MeToo. Does it help people?
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
Apparently, it gave some financial/legal
support to women to come forward, and at least got people to start realizing that women hesitate to relive rape by describing it, especially in an environment where people are so quick to just call them sluts.
Just the feeling that there was some group out there that would lend credence and moral support to these women gave them a lot of courage they would not have otherwise had.
I know #metoo declined this particular case due to the inevitable claim they were interfering in politics.
The problem is, when they declined to help this Biden accuser, their decision was PURELY politically motivated. You can't have it both ways.
It doesn't matter who the accused is, or if they are a politician.
It matters that the accuser be given the assistance they need.
These are very tough cases.
Sometimes they boil down to a teenager describing Dad's genitals. And I offer a picture of those genitals into evidence, showing THAT penis is broken, covered with warts, not a damn thing like what the teen described.
No everyone can gut it up and do that.
I remember asking the teen those questions, with a judge ready to toss me into jail for contempt.
That Dad is still my friend.
The strategy saved his life.
Not everyone who makes an accusation is being truthful. Every case should be examined on its' own merits.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
7 !!! That's really precocious!
I didn't start thinking about sex until 12. Mind you, that's merely thinking. Didn't start looking for it until 14. NEVER forced anyone, but smooth talked a few.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
one of your internal links may have this info,
but uncharacteristically, they noted, this a.m.'s popular resistance newsletter ran the story, and it's indeed hideously disgusting.
from refinery29.com:
correction: she was raped by him according to her account.
See?
If you keep lowering those standards, even Joe Biden can look good. Not!
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
She wasn't wearing underwear?
Or he pulled it down? Legally no difference I suppose. To the general male public there is a difference. Ripping her clothes off is worse.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Guess she liked to "go commando", as they call it
But, as she discovered, it does have unexpected hazards.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Well, that's what #MeToo was for
to serve the political interests and ambitions of powerful Democratic politicians, and, more importantly, to keep the population's attention off of other problems (on behalf of the richest and most powerful people in the country).
Oh, and thirdly, to make censorship and character attacks--even those based on lies--seem morally acceptable.
Of course, none of this prevents ordinary women, who do not work for consulting firms or political parties, from joining #MeToo in good faith. Just like some people joined the Tea Party because they genuinely were pissed at Obama, not because he was black, but because he let Wall St off the hook while telling them to fuck off. The only difference is that, to be part of the Tea Party, you have to be at least willing to work with racists, whether you believe in racist ideas yourself or not. Whereas, to be part of #MeToo, you just have to be willing to work with people who make baseless character attacks.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Are you saying --
that ordinary women did not benefit from #MeToo?
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
No. I'm saying that whatever benefits they may have
received were not the primary goal, nor the only important effect, of the "movement." I don't even know whether I should be putting the word movement in quotation marks or not. Is a movement started by political operators to achieve an unacknowledged goal, which then gets joined in good faith by many people who support its ostensible goal, an actual movement or not?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Both alternatives are repulsive
Like voting for either Trump or Biden. My first Presidential election was 1968. My last was was 2016 (voted Green). May not bother this year. I voted in all the others, including primaries, local elections and primaries for local elections.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.