Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

[PhatMack19]

Collin’s called a presser for 3pm which makes me nervous.  Why would she need a press conference to tell us she is voting the same tomorrow as she did today?

 

If she flips, that gives Manchin cover to vote with his party, and I won’t trust Flake until after his vote is counted.  Still a long way to go until the vote tomorrow.  

[PN-G bamatex]

Susan Collins gave an excellent speech in which she explained her decision to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation.

"Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

"Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

"In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

"The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness." -- Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's a fitting end to this mess that a female, Republican United States Senator from a solidly blue state should be the one to cast the swing vote confirming Kavanugh tomorrow evening, and to articulate such a thoughtful rationale so well-grounded in our nation's core philosophical principles today.

A lot of my faith in our system of government was restored today.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Susan Collins gave an excellent speech in which she explained her decision to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation.

"Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

"Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

"In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

"The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness." -- Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's a fitting end to this mess that a female, Republican United States Senator from a solidly blue state should be the one to cast the swing vote confirming Kavanugh tomorrow evening, and to articulate such a thoughtful rationale so well-grounded in our nation's core philosophical principles today.

A lot of my faith in our system of government was restored today.

I have enormous faith in our system of government...now some of those that are in charge, not so much.

By the way, good post.

[Englebert]

7 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Susan Collins gave an excellent speech in which she explained her decision to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation.

"Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

"Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

"In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

"The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness." -- Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's a fitting end to this mess that a female, Republican United States Senator from a solidly blue state should be the one to cast the swing vote confirming Kavanugh tomorrow evening, and to articulate such a thoughtful rationale so well-grounded in our nation's core philosophical principles today.

A lot of my faith in our system of government was restored today.

I will have to disagree with your use of "excellent" in describing her speech. The speech, in all common practically, should be labeled as "well duh", even by Captain Obvious. I have no problem, within this climate, that you labeled the speech as excellent, and I somewhat concur. But the fact that common sense would be considered "excellent" is just staggering to the core. This issue is 100% political, and Collins' resorting to making this a moral issue is so ingenious to me. Luckily her faux consternation ended up in the right direction. I have perhaps even less respect for Collins than I did before this fiasco. She had to shine the spotlight on herself to state she would uphold morality, indicative of slimy politics. These people have no moral compass...unless the morality is beneficial to their political ends. I'm almost to the point of wishing that every one of these people will have a last minute "credible" charge of sexual misconduct right before their re-election bid. Maybe the taste of medicine will elicit a common sense reality. My faith in our system of government remains strong. My faith in our leaders elected to maintain our system of government has been shaken considerably.

[Reagan]

Hummm!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

8 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Hummm!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Put them all in jail.

[BS Wildcats]

Congrats to the newest member of the SCOTUS, Justice Kavanaugh!  Try as the leftards did, the truth will always come out on top.

MAGA!!

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Congrats to the newest member of the SCOTUS, Justice Kavanaugh!  Try as the leftards did, the truth will always come out on top.

MAGA!!

We won't here any more about the these 3 women!  Let's watch and see.

[PhatMack19]

Thread title updated with his official title.  MAGA

[Hagar]

While posting on a liberal friends FB page (which has many liberals posting), Most continually post that they think BK is guilty.  I’ve mentioned preponderance of evidence.  I’ve listed the witnesses Ford used to corroborate her story, and that none did, under penalty of perjury, but still they believe Ford.  I finally posted that I hope none of them ever sit on a jury.  

How could any reasonably intelligent person still think BK is guilty?   How has so many people’s minds become incapable of logic.  I know this sounds crazy, but could someone be putting something in flu vaccines?  I’m serious, it’s as if many of them are brainwashed, but how do you brainwash so many?  I have a hard time with this. It’s like some kind of real sickness.  It makes no sense.  I mean, if some woman did the identical thing to Schumer, with the same outcome, I’d shrug my shoulders and move on.  I understand hating Trump - hating Kavanaugh - sure, but not this incessant, He’s guilty.  The only logical solution for my mind, is some kind of mass persuasion/brainwashing.  Yes, it’s X-Files or conspiracy theory, but I can’t think of any other logical explanation.  If one of you has one, enlighten this old man.

[BS Wildcats]

6 hours ago, Hagar said:

While posting on a liberal friends FB page (which has many liberals posting), Most continually post that they think BK is guilty.  I’ve mentioned preponderance of evidence.  I’ve listed the witnesses Ford used to corroborate her story, and that none did, under penalty of perjury, but still they believe Ford.  I finally posted that I hope none of them ever sit on a jury.  

How could any reasonably intelligent person still think BK is guilty?   How has so many people’s minds become incapable of logic.  I know this sounds crazy, but could someone be putting something in flu vaccines?  I’m serious, it’s as if many of them are brainwashed, but how do you brainwash so many?  I have a hard time with this. It’s like some kind of real sickness.  It makes no sense.  I mean, if some woman did the identical thing to Schumer, with the same outcome, I’d shrug my shoulders and move on.  I understand hating Trump - hating Kavanaugh - sure, but not this incessant, He’s guilty.  The only logical solution for my mind, is some kind of mass persuasion/brainwashing.  Yes, it’s X-Files or conspiracy theory, but I can’t think of any other logical explanation.  If one of you has one, enlighten this old man.

More proof the left have lost their minds

[Hagar]

This barely fits into the confines of the topic, but I thought to good not to share.

A relative sent me a tweeter link from Ann Coulter where she said, “Know what the best part of being Senator Blumenthal is?  If a Vietnamese woman accuses you of sexual misconduct, you can prove you didn’t do it”.

Just to freaking funny not to share  

[baddog]

8 hours ago, Hagar said:

While posting on a liberal friends FB page (which has many liberals posting), Most continually post that they think BK is guilty.  I’ve mentioned preponderance of evidence.  I’ve listed the witnesses Ford used to corroborate her story, and that none did, under penalty of perjury, but still they believe Ford.  I finally posted that I hope none of them ever sit on a jury.  

How could any reasonably intelligent person still think BK is guilty?   How has so many people’s minds become incapable of logic.  I know this sounds crazy, but could someone be putting something in flu vaccines?  I’m serious, it’s as if many of them are brainwashed, but how do you brainwash so many?  I have a hard time with this. It’s like some kind of real sickness.  It makes no sense.  I mean, if some woman did the identical thing to Schumer, with the same outcome, I’d shrug my shoulders and move on.  I understand hating Trump - hating Kavanaugh - sure, but not this incessant, He’s guilty.  The only logical solution for my mind, is some kind of mass persuasion/brainwashing.  Yes, it’s X-Files or conspiracy theory, but I can’t think of any other logical explanation.  If one of you has one, enlighten this old man.

Here's my take. It all goes back to parenting. We have now raised two unspanked/undisciplined generations. These people have not been taught the fear of God, respect for their elders, right from wrong, conscience or morality. They have been left to decide for themselves without any guidance whatsoever. An idle mind left to fend for itself will lean towards wrong. Right has to be taught.

Bring to mind someone who is a spoiled brat. Yeah, everybody knows at least one. How does their mind operate? Well, I think that says it all.

[Reagan]

13 hours ago, Reagan said:

We won't here any more about the these 3 women!  Let's watch and see.

I told you!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, Hagar said:

This barely fits into the confines of the topic, but I thought to good not to share.

A relative sent me a tweeter link from Ann Coulter where she said, “Know what the best part of being Senator Blumenthal is?  If a Vietnamese woman accuses you of sexual misconduct, you can prove you didn’t do it”.

Just to freaking funny not to share  

lol...good one.

[Reagan]

Paid outrage!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Here's my take. It all goes back to parenting. We have now raised two unspanked/undisciplined generations. These people have not been taught the fear of God, respect for their elders, right from wrong, conscience or morality. They have been left to decide for themselves without any guidance whatsoever. An idle mind left to fend for itself will lean towards wrong. Right has to be taught.

Bring to mind someone who is a spoiled brat. Yeah, everybody knows at least one. How does their mind operate? Well, I think that says it all.

This is a very interesting point.  I think there’s a lot of truth in this.  

[stevenash]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

Here's my take. It all goes back to parenting. We have now raised two unspanked/undisciplined generations. These people have not been taught the fear of God, respect for their elders, right from wrong, conscience or morality. They have been left to decide for themselves without any guidance whatsoever. An idle mind left to fend for itself will lean towards wrong. Right has to be taught.

Bring to mind someone who is a spoiled brat. Yeah, everybody knows at least one. How does their mind operate? Well, I think that says it all.

 

[Hagar]

13 hours ago, TxHoops said:

This is a very interesting point.  I think there’s a lot of truth in this.  

As usual, on the weekend, out of likes.  

[Reagan]

[Hagar]

15 hours ago, baddog said:

Here's my take. It all goes back to parenting. We have now raised two unspanked/undisciplined generations. These people have not been taught the fear of God, respect for their elders, right from wrong, conscience or morality. They have been left to decide for themselves without any guidance whatsoever. An idle mind left to fend for itself will lean towards wrong. Right has to be taught.

Bring to mind someone who is a spoiled brat. Yeah, everybody knows at least one. How does their mind operate? Well, I think that says it all.

Thanks baddog.  From my perspective, a great post.  I’d rather think you’re right than my harebrained theory lol

[Hagar]

One more thought to share.  After watching the demonstrators this week, you can burn your copy of Origin of Species, by Darwin.  Evolution is over.  We’re now in regression.

[PN-G bamatex]

17 hours ago, baddog said:

Here's my take. It all goes back to parenting. We have now raised two unspanked/undisciplined generations. These people have not been taught the fear of God, respect for their elders, right from wrong, conscience or morality. They have been left to decide for themselves without any guidance whatsoever. An idle mind left to fend for itself will lean towards wrong. Right has to be taught.

Bring to mind someone who is a spoiled brat. Yeah, everybody knows at least one. How does their mind operate? Well, I think that says it all.

I take your point, and I'm not trying to quibble with it in this post. I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I think the issue is broader than what you've outlined here.

Simply put, I think we have a generation of people that has lost its sense of reality. It's not merely that people around my age were raised without a sense of discipline or morality. This generation has not had to grow up living with the same, harsh realities that prior generations had to contend with. I think what I'm trying to say here is best explained through examples.

There are young women that I went to law school with at UT who will look you in the eye and tell you, with a straight face, that your mere existence as a white male means you will always have power over them. You can ask them what they mean by that, and most of them won't even try to explain it to you. They'll tell you it's just something you wouldn't understand. The gist of their argument appears to be that men carry out certain microagressions in professional environments which inherently oppress women, and there are certain things men can get away with doing that would be looked at differently if carried out by women (though they'll never accept the corollary that there are things women can get away with which men can't). Occasionally, they'll point to general, conceptual examples, though I've rarely seen them offer hard evidence even by anecdote. The most popular one I've heard proffered is that a man's assertiveness is characterized as confidence and desired in the work place, where a woman's assertiveness is characterized as "b*tchiness" and shunned. I've looked - hard - for concrete examples of this, and haven't been able to find it either at the law school or in working for a host of state and federal offices during law school and since graduation. The best example I've been able to come up with to date involved important contextual factors that simply eviscerate the point. But even accepting this as a premise, the best example that these very intelligent, driven women can come up with of the "oppression" they face boils down to office semantics. More tangible issues, like the pay gap or the number of women holding executive positions, are undermined when factors like maternity leave and the number of women who leave the workplace altogether to raise children are accounted for.

The infinitely more significant factor in this equation, though, and the one that seems to get overlooked the most in my experience, is that the same women who will tell you this with a straight face at UT Law, and I imagine in dozens of other highfalutin academic circles around the country, will turn around and leave the building they have access to because their father is paying their tuition through a trust fund, go to the $200 parking space in the nearest garage that their father purchased access to, hop in a BMW, Mercedes, Lexus or Range Rover that their father bought, and drive to the million dollar condo down on Rainey Street that their father rents with his oil money. The whole time, they're carrying around the Louis Vuitton handbags and the Prada sunglasses they received as Christmas and birthday presents from - you guessed it - their parents. They'll spend their breaks from school on vacations in East Asia, or the Bahamas, or Europe, or Latin America, all expenses paid for by - guess who - their fathers.

The women that say this are not the middle and working class women of America who help keep America running; the ones who go out and do real work to earn their paychecks every day can't even spell Louis Vuitton, much less afford it. These women have never had to fight for the right to vote, which was so coveted by Susan B. Anthony. They never watched the family fortune evaporate, and have never been left wondering if they'll have food on the table or clothes on their back like so many millions of women were during the Great Depression. They've never done an ounce of real, physical labor, like the millions of women who stepped up to the plate to perform during the manpower shortages of World War II, just to be sent back to the kitchen when the men came home and could work the jobs again. The women who make these claims were never passed around in the Antebellum slave trade, or in the modern day sex trade. These women who run around saying these things never had to fight for the passage of egalitarian milestones like Title VII; they've never walked into a workplace where their paychecks were literally withheld until they performed sexual favors, because they've never lived in a world where the law allows that.

And yet these women have the audacity to claim they know what 'oppression' is because they feel a few things they say or do may be mischaracterized by men in the workplace. The very idea indicates to me that they don't know what actual oppression is. And why should they? We've done a damn fine job of eliminating it in this country so they wouldn't have to. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that when these little inconsequential incidents occur, they're taken as the dead giveaway of sexism by a generation that hasn't experienced real sexism and thus can't differentiate.

On a very related note, I think the same issue presents itself with respect to all of this newfound outrage over sexual assault. Once upon a time, rape was what happened to the poor, defenseless woman who was cornered in a parking garage or a back alley late at night. It involved real violence - as in beatings, lacerations and even gunshots. That conception was formed by generations of Americans who lived in far more violent eras than the one we're in today. And it was against that background that we construed other forms of sexual contact. It wasn't that long ago that drunk sex was something Willie Nelson wrote songs about, and the subject of those awkward scenes in romantic comedies. When it happened in real life, at worst, it was a regrettable mistake. 99% of the time, the parties got over it and moved on with their lives, understanding that people have been getting drunk and having sex since alcohol was invented. Heck, sometimes, relationships even formed out of it. In that world, drunk sex and rape were flatly incomparable. They were just two different things.

But now, if two people get drunk and have sex on a college campus, it's a sexual assault. Heck, at UT, even if both parties were drunk and can't remember having sex, the guy still committed a sexual assault - there's a lawsuit over that very case right now. That is the product of a generation that doesn't know what violent rape actually is. We are fortunate today that violent crime rates, including sexual assault rates, are at historic lows. We just don't see the street violence in this country that we did even twenty years ago. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that this generation, which has never had to live in that violent world, conflates drunk sex with actual rape. They just don't have the raw experience to draw the distinction.

The same can be said for the changing conceptions surrounding guns. There were whole generations of Americans who fought in long, terribly bloody wars with guns everywhere. To the men who spent four years driving tanks in Europe and firing 16" shells from battleships in the Pacific, the idea of a man with an AR-15 just isn't all that scary. They've seen worse. The guys who spent a decade in Vietnam getting shot at by guerrillas with AK-47s don't take much issue with the idea of buying an AK of your own to have around the house if things ever get out of hand - they know exactly how good of a gun that is. But to the kids who barely remember 9/11 and didn't pay all that much attention to Iraq, the mere presence of a Glock is earth-shattering. On that note, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that a generation that throws around the word "Nazi" with the likes of Donald Trump and his supporters has never lived in a world where actual Nazis had actual power; if they were alive today, I shutter to think what my great uncles who went ashore at Normandy and helped liberate Buchenwald would say to the white liberals who think they know what a Nazi is.

And I can't make a post like this and not mention the LGBTQ+ movement. I have sat there when transgendered students have literally said their very right to exist is abridged by multi-stall bathrooms reserved for specific sexes. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuals were castrated, tarred, feathered, burned at the stake and/or hung by their entrails. Now they can get married. It wasn't that long ago that transgendered persons were committed to mental institutions. Now they can get on the cover of Time Magazine. A generation that hasn't seen those burnings, hangings and so on doesn't understand what infringing on a person's right to exist really is.

I say all of that to say this: I think you're correct in saying that we have a generation of "spoiled brats," but I think it's a mistake to narrowly describe them as spoiled because their parents have given them whatever they want or they haven't received proper moral instruction. They're spoiled in the sense that they've grown up in a world free of the lion's share of brutalities prior generations dealt with every day, and sacrificed substantially to eliminate. For all the benefits of that, the bad biproduct has been a generation that's lost vital perspective, and doesn't realize how good it's got it.

[baddog]

7 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

I take your point, and I'm not trying to quibble with it in this post. I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I think the issue is broader than what you've outlined here.

Simply put, I think we have a generation of people that has lost its sense of reality. It's not merely that people around my age were raised without a sense of discipline or morality. This generation has not had to grow up living with the same, harsh realities that prior generations had to contend with. I think what I'm trying to say here is best explained through examples.

There are young women that I went to law school with at UT who will look you in the eye and tell you, with a straight face, that your mere existence as a white male means you will always have power over them. You can ask them what they mean by that, and most of them won't even try to explain it to you. They'll tell you it's just something you wouldn't understand. The gist of their argument appears to be that men carry out certain microagressions in professional environments which inherently oppress women, and there are certain things men can get away with doing that would be looked at differently if carried out by women (though they'll never accept the corollary that there are things women can get away with which men can't). Occasionally, they'll point to general, conceptual examples, though I've rarely seen them offer hard evidence even by anecdote. The most popular one I've heard proffered is that a man's assertiveness is characterized as confidence and desired in the work place, where a woman's assertiveness is characterized as "b*tchiness" and shunned. I've looked - hard - for concrete examples of this, and haven't been able to find it either at the law school or in working for a host of state and federal offices during law school and since graduation. The best example I've been able to come up with to date involved important contextual factors that simply eviscerate the point. But even accepting this as a premise, the best example that these very intelligent, driven women can come up with of the "oppression" they face boils down to office semantics. More tangible issues, like the pay gap or the number of women holding executive positions, are undermined when factors like maternity leave and the number of women who leave the workplace altogether to raise children are accounted for.

The infinitely more significant factor in this equation, though, and the one that seems to get overlooked the most in my experience, is that the same women who will tell you this with a straight face at UT Law, and I imagine in dozens of other highfalutin academic circles around the country, will turn around and leave the building they have access to because their father is paying their tuition through a trust fund, go to the $200 parking space in the nearest garage that their father purchased access to, hop in a BMW, Mercedes, Lexus or Range Rover that their father bought, and drive to the million dollar condo down on Rainey Street that their father rents with his oil money. The whole time, they're carrying around the Louis Vuitton handbags and the Prada sunglasses they received as Christmas and birthday presents from - you guessed it - their parents. They'll spend their breaks from school on vacations in East Asia, or the Bahamas, or Europe, or Latin America, all expenses paid for by - guess who - their fathers.

The women that say this are not the middle and working class women of America who help keep America running; the ones who go out and do real work to earn their paychecks every day can't even spell Louis Vuitton, much less afford it. These women have never had to fight for the right to vote, which was so coveted by Susan B. Anthony. They never watched the family fortune evaporate, and have never been left wondering if they'll have food on the table or clothes on their back like so many millions of women were during the Great Depression. They've never done an ounce of real, physical labor, like the millions of women who stepped up to the plate to perform during the manpower shortages of World War II, just to be sent back to the kitchen when the men came home and could work the jobs again. The women who make these claims were never passed around in the Antebellum slave trade, or in the modern day sex trade. These women who run around saying these things never had to fight for the passage of egalitarian milestones like Title VII; they've never walked into a workplace where their paychecks were literally withheld until they performed sexual favors, because they've never lived in a world where the law allows that.

And yet these women have the audacity to claim they know what 'oppression' is because they feel a few things they say or do may be mischaracterized by men in the workplace. The very idea indicates to me that they don't know what actual oppression is. And why should they? We've done a damn fine job of eliminating it in this country so they wouldn't have to. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that when these little inconsequential incidents occur, they're taken as the dead giveaway of sexism by a generation that hasn't experienced real sexism and thus can't differentiate.

On a very related note, I think the same issue presents itself with respect to all of this newfound outrage over sexual assault. Once upon a time, rape was what happened to the poor, defenseless woman who was cornered in a parking garage or a back alley late at night. It involved real violence - as in beatings, lacerations and even gunshots. That conception was formed by generations of Americans who lived in far more violent eras than the one we're in today. And it was against that background that we construed other forms of sexual contact. It wasn't that long ago that drunk sex was something Willie Nelson wrote songs about, and the subject of those awkward scenes in romantic comedies. When it happened in real life, at worst, it was a regrettable mistake. 99% of the time, the parties got over it and moved on with their lives, understanding that people have been getting drunk and having sex since alcohol was invented. Heck, sometimes, relationships even formed out of it. In that world, drunk sex and rape were flatly incomparable. They were just two different things.

But now, if two people get drunk and have sex on a college campus, it's a sexual assault. Heck, at UT, even if both parties were drunk and can't remember having sex, the guy still committed a sexual assault - there's a lawsuit over that very case right now. That is the product of a generation that doesn't know what violent rape actually is. We are fortunate today that violent crime rates, including sexual assault rates, are at historic lows. We just don't see the street violence in this country that we did even twenty years ago. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that this generation, which has never had to live in that violent world, conflates drunk sex with actual rape. They just don't have the raw experience to draw the distinction.

The same can be said for the changing conceptions surrounding guns. There were whole generations of Americans who fought in long, terribly bloody wars with guns everywhere. To the men who spent four years driving tanks in Europe and firing 16" shells from battleships in the Pacific, the idea of a man with an AR-15 just isn't all that scary. They've seen worse. The guys who spent a decade in Vietnam getting shot at by guerrillas with AK-47s don't take much issue with the idea of buying an AK of your own to have around the house if things ever get out of hand - they know exactly how good of a gun that is. But to the kids who barely remember 9/11 and didn't pay all that much attention to Iraq, the mere presence of a Glock is earth-shattering. On that note, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that a generation that throws around the word "Nazi" with the likes of Donald Trump and his supporters has never lived in a world where actual Nazis had actual power; if they were alive today, I shutter to think what my great uncles who went ashore at Normandy and helped liberate Buchenwald would say to the white liberals who think they know what a Nazi is.

And I can't make a post like this and not mention the LGBTQ+ movement. I have sat there when transgendered students have literally said their very right to exist is abridged by multi-stall bathrooms reserved for specific sexes. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuals were castrated, tarred, feathered, burned at the stake and/or hung by their entrails. Now they can get married. It wasn't that long ago that transgendered persons were committed to mental institutions. Now they can get on the cover of Time Magazine. A generation that hasn't seen those burnings, hangings and so on doesn't understand what infringing on a person's right to exist really is.

I say all of that to say this: I think you're correct in saying that we have a generation of "spoiled brats," but I think it's a mistake to narrowly describe them as spoiled because their parents have given them whatever they want or they haven't received proper moral instruction. They're spoiled in the sense that they've grown up in a world free of the lion's share of brutalities prior generations dealt with every day, and sacrificed substantially to eliminate. For all the benefits of that, the bad biproduct has been a generation that's lost vital perspective, and doesn't realize how good it's got it.

I'm not even going to try and match you paragraph for paragraph. Your post is great and mine may have been the tip of the iceberg as to how kids are raised. I didn't explore the environmental aspects, even though it can play a huge part in the development of minds and where they can stray. 

We have taken corporal punishment out of the schools. No discipline at school or at home. What is a young mind to do? Teachers have become teachers of curriculum only. I learned a lot from my teachers, a lot more than what was in a textbook...... And I am sure there are exceptions to that statement. I could go up and hug my teachers. Do that today, they get you for sexual assault. You can send a kid to RAC and maybe it works. I fear that that is where some of those kids would rather be. Again, no repercussions at home. 

If you can instill a sense of respect in a child, teach them the love and fear of God, and teach them to have a conscience, they will grow up to be better human beings, regardless of outside influences.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

In a social media post on Saturday, a writer for CBS's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" seemingly celebrated the damage done to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's reputation during his bruising and bitterly partisan confirmation battle.

"Whatever happens, I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life," the writer, Ariel Dumas, posted on Twitter. 

 

Well, at least she's honest about the left's intentions...sick.