The Toxic Manhood Gillette Commercial: Helpful, Horrid or Hokey?

gillette-we-believe-commercial-controversial-masculinity-5c3da4b79d03d__700It’s been getting a great deal of buzz with a host of varying opinions. It’s a new Gillette commercial showing a shotgun spatter of males acting in all sorts of bad ways, as thuggish bullies, cat-callers and body-grabbers. It’s the latest installation in the well over-stuffed “Men are a Problem to Be Solved” files. Over the montage of all this bad-boyness, Gillette asks us to consider whether this is the best men can be, a utilization of their corporate tag-line. Against the visuals of their ad, it’s a dumb question. Only a thorough-going sexist would say yes, this behavior is the best we can expect from men. That would be to conclude that men are less than animals. But Gillette, who wants men who shave to be their friends, thinks it’s a question worth asking.

Of course, there is no problem with the overall effort of the piece: Men, don’t be bullies or sexist pigs. Any man who can’t get onboard with that is not a man. But let’s be blunt. The ad itself is an inexcusable train wreck. Four reasons why.

First, it trades in dramatic stereotypes. Great vengeance and furious anger would rain down upon Gillette if they had portrayed any other group of people solely by their worst behaviors and told them to improve themselves. Now, real men don’t whine about being victimized, but this demands being called out. Replace Gillette’s presentation of men with the worst stereotypes about Muslims, Jews, African-American youth, or Hispanics. It’s unthinkable and for every good reason. For some reason though, it’s gloves off on men and being ok with this simply makes us selective sexists. To employ Gillette’s own question, is this the best we can be?

Second, it man-shames, ignoring what masculinity actually is. The totality of Gillette’s message is most men do bad things and good men stop them. Men can and do act like horrible cads sometimes. No one should tolerate it, especially other men. But to define the virtue of manhood as merely the correction of ubiquitous male toxicity is to reduce manhood to its own homeroom teacher. Minimalist masculinity. This is precisely what Gillette is selling here.

We must understand, however, with great clarity and conviction, that there is no such thing as toxic masculinity. It doesn’t exist and we should correct those who use the two words together. Toxic maleness? Indeed. But masculinity is a virtue. Ladies themselves know this better than anyone. Imagine a woman set up on a blind date by her girlfriends. Excited, she asks the obvious question: What is he like? They describe him as quite masculine. Would any normal woman take this as a warning? Would she ask if he’s in therapy for it? She doesn’t even ask if it’s the good or bad kind of masculinity. She takes it as a wholesale plus.

As far as Gillette has it, a man merely behaves himself. Manhood is so much more, and women want their men to have it in full measure. It’s not a mental illness.

Third, it’s preachy, authoritarian and guilt-signaling. Americans are increasingly sick and tired of having the people on their televisions tell them how stupid – bigoted – regressive – unenlightened – uncaring – homophobic – etc. they are. Gillette hasn’t gotten that memo. This commercial is very finger-pointy, and the first rule of advertising, I would imagine, is don’t tell your customer they’re the worst examples of humanity.

Fourth, the commercial is creatively embarrassing. There’s a lot happening in this ad, and it’s difficult to keep track of it all. It begins with a “Lord of the Flies” horde of boys chasing another one, calling him a “freak.” They oddly run through a terrified woman’s living room where she is holding a young boy who’s crying for no apparent reason. We are presented with the cheesiest of staged audiences laughing uproariously with all the artificiality of a bad toupee at a fictitious 1970s sitcom scene of a man pretending to grab a maid’s bottom. It’s so bad it keeps you from taking it seriously.

gillette-we-believe-commercial-controversial-masculinity-wrestlingThis indefensible behavior is capped off by a scene of two young Opie Taylor-like boys wrestling in the grass at a backyard picnic. Land sakes! Seriously, all of this put in one steaming pot of male toxicity. It’s all backed by an endless row of men robotically standing behind an endless row of barbeque grills. Each are watching the “violence” of the two boys mixing it up on the lawn, uttering a dismissive, “Boys will be boys” mantra like dystopian Stepford Husbands. Yes, it’s that dumb.

Apparently the great majority of viewers agree. On the official Gillette YouTube page, the thumbs-down votes are more than two-to-one over the thumbs-up votes. I doubt these thumbs-downers are men who don’t appreciate being told not to abuse women. More likely they are both men and women who don’t much care for being talked down to and have a much higher estimation of what real masculinity can and should be.

If you want to see a manly commercial that does masculine aspiration ingeniously, it’s here. If Gillette had called us to real manhood the way Chrysler called us back to American pride, I’d be their biggest fan.

Instead, I just feel sorry for them for being so clueless.

Posted in commentary, cultural analysis, culture, gender; masculinity, manhood; masculinity, masculinity, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Trick to Understanding the Totally Contrary Truths of Trump

bad good trump

Ever since a particular evening in early November 2016, nearly eveyone on the Left and many on the Right have been atomically gobstopped at how America could elect the man it did for President. How could so many Americans be so stupid? Didn’t they know how bad this man was?

How could 52% of women have voted for him? Were they stupid, blind, uninformed? Hadn’t they seen that video? How could religious conservatives have voted for him and his casual relationship with the truth and his marriage vows? Even as The New Yorker, NYTs, WaPo, HuffPo, Time and CNN stay steadily on their 24/7 civic duty of reminding us all of how bad this man is, people keep supporting and defending him. Nothing seems to make sense anymore.

Well, here’s what makes sense. These middle-American, Walmart-frequenting mouthbreathers are more politically complicated and dare we say, sophisticated, than nearly all the elites appreciate. A very small few on the Left, such as Arlie Hochschild in her extremely important Strangers in Their Own Land, and Anthony Bourdain have slowed down long-enough to actually spend long periods of time listening to these folks, (Hoschild in SoLa and Bourdain in the mining towns of WVa). They discovered and explain with sharp insight how these folks are nearly nothing like the stereotypes their own peers trade in. They are actually very smart, kind and nuanced people. (Bourdain’s comments at the link above are well worth reading.)

Understanding this tricky nuance is the trick to understanding the seeming Grand-Canyon disparity between these folks personal ethics and those of the President they enthusiastically and proudly elected.

Yesterday, I read two articles from two of the smartest and most articulate conservatives in our nation, two men who I would assume have great respect for one another: Hugh Hewitt and Jonah Goldberg. They both have two diametrically different takes on Trump’s track record so far.

Hewitt, here in the WaPo, thinks Trump has done remarkably important and good things for our nation and oversees an extremely effective adminstration if you rise above the daily circus show and look at the actual record. What makes this article important is that Hewitt is no sycophant.

Goldberg, here at National Review,  holds that Trump’s character, or total lack of it, will be his downfall, explaining,

What his defenders overlook is that his insults are not simply an act; they are the product of astonishing levels of narcissism, insecurity, and intellectual incuriosity. Trump’s Twitter account is simply a window into his id.

Here is what flummoxes the Left. Many on the Right understand that both Hewitt and Goldberg are precisely right and that politics is the art of deft compromise. You have to take some good with the bad and a great deal of bad with the good. To put it another way, MAGAers and 52% of women can walk and chew gum politically. They can grasp the critical nuances and live happily in the midst of them.

If you wanna understand the conundrum of Trump and his supporters, understand that both Hewitt and Goldberg are both precisely right and no small number of Trump supporters have long understood this. And they’ve greatly enjoyed watching the coastal elites pull their hair out because of their own zero-sum simplicity and shameless prejudice.

Posted in commentary, cultural analysis, politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A Most Wonderful Christmas Meeting

Our reading at Mass yesterday was from Luke 1:39-45. It’s a wonderful and too little appreciated part of the Christmas story. If you were asked “Who was the first person, besides Mary herself, to welcome Jesus and announce His coming?” how would you answer? This reading tells us the suprising answer and its richness is more than mere trivia.

This part of Jesus’ story is where Mary, just after hearing that she, a humble young virgin from no where, would give birth to the very Son of God. At this striking news, she “arose and went with haste” to go see her cherished relative Elizabeth, some 90 miles away. Elizabeth was in the 6th month of her own miraculous pregnancy, her womb having closed for business long ago. Of course, her baby was Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist.

The beauty of this part of the Christmas story is the miracle that happens at the very moment Mary enters Elizabeth’s home. But Mary and Elizabeth are not the only ones involved in the divine drama here.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.

And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 

For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

This is a MAJOR event in Jesus’ story and thus the Christian Church, but we seldom appreciate it as such. It is the first time the Son of God is worshiped! And He is worshiped by two people. One very old, one super young.

First to Proclaim Jesus’ Lordship

Elizabeth proclaims the blessedness of Jesus and his mother. Elizabeth is the first one to recognize and proclaim Jesus as her Lord. This confesssion, “Jesus is Lord,” was the first and most basic way that Christians began to proclaim their faith and greet one another. It was the first Christian creed and Elizabeth was the first to proclaim it, even before Christmas morning. Think on that for a moment.

The second greeting is even more incredible and speaks to a very intimate relationship in the Savior’s life. Baby John leaps for joy, literally, at the coming of the Savior. He does so as a child in the darkness of his mother’s womb. (Yes, Christianity has extremely strong words for the humanity of the unborn child in John and Jesus’ remarkable in utero contribution to the Gospel.) John did not start serving as the forerunner of Christ when preaching about His coming in the desert. It was here. It was two mothers, Elizabeth and Mary who were the only ones able to experience this remarkable event. It happened in distincly womanly interiors of their hearts and wombs in the humbleness of Elizabeth’s home.

It is this glorious scene that serves as the first time Christ is received and welcomed, apart from Mary’s own welcoming reception when the angel Gabriel tells her what the rest of her life will be about. It is the first time the baby Jesus’ divinity and Lordship is proclaimed.

Pensacola-Philadelphia-March-2013-108To be sure, the Christian Church, which is often incorrectly charged with being sexist by people who know little of it’s actual story, is founded upon two women being the first to welcome and praise the Savior. (Remember as well, it was a small group of women who announced the “second birth” of the Savior, if you will, at His resurrection.) What other major faith or philosophy has women playing such a signficant role in it’s founding? I cannot think of one.

I’d like now to move to looking at two pieces of art that illustrate as well as any both of these wonderous events, the Annunciation and the Visitation. They are both painted by the first African-American painter to achieve signficant critical acclaim: Henry Ossawa Tanner. He is a remarkable man and one of my fav painters.

The Annunciation

One of the things I like best in Tanner’s two works here is that he shows us the simple humanness of Mary and Elizabeth. They are not super-natural, other-worldly saintly subjects in the typical sense. Tanner’s images show us the regular everyday women they were.

He will not allow us to miss the youth, innocence and commoness of our Mary. Tanner doesn’t give her a facial expression that communicates anything obvious. Is she scared? Stunned? Joyful? Solemn? His Mary is more complex than many artists’ as is certainly more true to that actual event. Tanner has her communicating all of these at once. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary with this most startling news, he found a young teenage girl living a typical young teenage girl’s life. The greatest royal announcment in all of  the history of the universe takes place in this teen girl’s humble bedroom, illuminated by the majesty of God’s oracle. That is precisely what Tanner is giving us and it’s just stunning.

The Visitation

As wonderful as Tanner’s Annuciation is, his Visitation is even more striking.

Just look at it and consider what’s happending here.

“When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leapt in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Tanner allows us to personally witness this very event. Elizabeth certainly did not have any notice that Mary was coming or the grand news that prompted the visit. She is sitting at table having her breakfast just like any other morning when she hears Mary utter what any of us likely would as she comes to the door, “Liz, you home?”

Elizabeth’s divine suprise and wonder is dramatically communicated simply in her uplifted hands. It’s a powerful devise Tanner employs here. Are they hands of praise or surprise? Certainly both. This simple scene of a surprise family vistaiton and domesticity is the first scene of Jesus being worshiped. Reflect on this a moment. The event we are witnessing right here in this kitchen is the initiation of what the rest of history and etermity will be about, the worship of the second person of the Divine Trinity, Jesus, the Father’s beloved Son. It is commenced here in this moment.

The interchange between these two women in this domestic setting is unspeakably profound. And we typically move over it too easily, wanting to get onto what we see as the center of the Christmas story, the manger. This one is just as important because it is the first revelation of Christ beyond Mary’s own heart and womb.

Sidenote: I knew that Mr. Tanner lived in Philadephia for some time, so on a biz trip there many years ago I looked to see if his house was noted. It was and I found it, right around the corner from John Coltrane’s home. How cool is that?



Posted in arts, christian faith, commentary, feminism, God, religion, theology, womanhood | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Most Telling Outcome from the 2018 Mid-Terms

US-VOTE-REPUBLICANS-TRUMPThere is was no blue wave last night. There was no red wave. As most midterm elections are, last night was largely a national thumbs up or down on President Trump.

Was he a winner or a loser?  Of course he was both, picking up a handful of seats in the Senate, but losing the House and a number of Governor’s Mansions.

But here is the big picture that tells the larger story.

Presidents Clinton and Obama were brilliant politicians and generally popular. They were certainly dear darlings of the MSM and earned their effusive praise. But let’s remember what happened in their first mid-terms in 1994 and 2010 respectively.

They both got creamed. CREAMED.

President Bill Clinton – 1994

-54 / Number of House Seats Lost

 -9 / Number of Senate Seats Lost

-11 / Number of Governorships Lost

President Barack Obama – 2010

 -63 / Number of House Seats Lost

 -6 / Number of Senate Seats Lost

 -6 / Number of Governorships Lost

Obama referred to his first mid-term outcome as a “shellacking.”

So how did President Trump’s mid-term stack up to these two?

President Donald Trump – 2018

-27 / Number of House Seats Lost

+4 / Number of Senate Seats Won   (this reflects Arizona landing Trump’s way.)

-7 / Number of Governorships Lost

Had he done as well as either Clinton or Obama, that would have been a remarkable evening for Trump, having kept up with these two. Like staying even in a pick-up game against Larry Bird or Lebron James.

But that was not Trump’s fate. He finished dramatically better than both. That is no small thing to be sure and perhaps the biggest angle coming out of last night.

Last week, Time’s cover story explained how the Anti-Trump Resistance was using it’s time cover 2018 Midtermanger to organize itself and would thus force Trump right off the page, literally.  Time and so many others were so sure of themselves. Our President’s arrogance and self-importance is in actuality no match for a great many of our nation’s journalists and their editors. A scrum between the two on that score would go well into overtime.

So this is what we learned from last night: The #Resistance is extremely angry and might have done something yesterday, but it didn’t appear to be going to vote and lynching Trump. Instead, they set their Devil up for a much stronger likelihood in 2020 and a nearly guaranteed appointment of another Kavanaugh by the name of Amy Coney Barrett.


Posted in commentary, culture, gop debate, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Beast Highlights the Terrible Injustice Against Stiletto-Wearing Men

A buddy sent me a meme yesterday from the Onion saying they were on the verge of collapse because it was becoming impossible to make up stuff that was more idiotic than current reality. It’s funny because we all know it’s true.

Much of the gold-medal wackiness is proudly generated by the create-your-own-gender folks under the guise of total normality. Last week I wrote about a journalist at the Washington Post who shared with us her sincere praise for two men who let their 2-year-old decide for the world what gender he/her/they would be. Goofy parents doing so is one thing. A major newspaper that pretends to take itself seriously reporting on it approvingly is something else altogether.

This week, our friends at the Daily Beast took it to another level, if that’s possible. Some would think their chosen topic is a “first-world problem” as the youngsters say today, but it’s not. It sits right at the intersection of high-fashion and basic human rights. What’s more serious than this?

Well, it’s this. They tell us more men are wearing, not just high-heels which is so yesterday, but stilettos. I’m clearly not paying adequate attention to the trends, or perhaps it’s just the conservative Christian bubble I live in. I should get out more.

The title and sub-title of the piece are worth showing you.

Daily Beast Stilletos

You see, the problem is summed up in this quote.

“The only way you could get proper stilettos as a man was if you got them custom-made.”

Ain’t nobody got time for that.

This unfortunate fact is expressed by Shaobo Han who realized he looked great in heels at the tender age of 11. That’s when he took his momma’s high heels and started, as he explains, “prancing around the house when no one was around.” If a boy is going to prance, I say he should do so in heels. You see Shaobo thought, incorrectly the story explains, “that boys weren’t supposed to wear heels.” Thus, the shame of his home-alone risky-business. Shaobo explains his “male-presenting friends” all have the same collective memory that “even though nobody taught us how to wear heels, we all tried them.” The implication we’re supposed to pick up here is it’s all ok because its natural. No one taught them to do it.

Shaobo got his first pair of very own heels at Forever 21. He said he was lucky because his size is a men’s 8, which is a woman’s 10. That is lucky! Look at him.

Daily Beast Stilletos2

Who could deny that Shaobo was made for heels and heels were made for Shaobo? He’s absolutely faaaabulous in these sling-backs. If wearing heels is wrong, Shaobo doesn’t want to be right. And seriously, who would really want him to? He’d look simply ridiculous in anything else.

However, there are some serious problems with this growing men’s market. They’re not what you think.

As cutting-edge and progressive as the high-fashion world of women’s shoes is, they harbor a terrible prejudice against, not only white men, but all men. It’s just wrong, as if they would just rather ignore that fact that a man can love how great a pair of indigo peek-a-boo Christian Louboutins make his legs look as much as any woman. But who wants to live in a world where a 6 foot, 210 pound man can’t find a decent pair of pumps that don’t pinch and still do right by his calves? The male customer has unique needs because, as we are told, “Males who experiment with heels generally do it much later in life than most women do.”

Thus, the well-stilettoed man needs more retailers to meet his unique needs. But there might be nefarious intentions lurking behind some of those looking to fill this empty space and this creates a confounding Catch-22. One of these men frets that while we certainly need more places that cater to the male-presenting woman’s shoe demographic, “we’re afraid that the mainstream industry sees us as a money opportunity.” The horror! Has he checked the price of women’s shoes? He’s not alone though in his fear. William Graper (as seen below) is terrified that he “can’t tell if major brands are authentically embracing queerness, or simply exploiting it in their branding to make a profit.”


The potential tragedy is that “such commercialization [could] corrupt what small, queer-owned brands have done in promoting inclusivity for inclusivity’s sake?” Apparently, one of the most important things about promoting inclusiveness is keeping it exclusive.

Fortunately, “Such appropriation hasn’t come for the stiletto world yet, but it could be just a matter of time before Big Fashion comes for men’s heels with dollar signs in its eyes” the article predicts. The answer to this dilemma seems simple. Have the national big-box retailers give today’s stiletto-wearing man greater and easier access to satisfy his fashion needs, but just don’t charge him. Doing so, while of course continuing to charge women crazy prices, would communicate that their motivation is clearly gender equality and not economics.

The article worries that this dream might not ever be truly realized as long as the following is true,

“Even in New York, a city where you can openly sob on the subway and be left alone, people will openly gawk over a man in heels.”

Even in New York City!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Wild and Wacky Inconsistencies of Gender Theory

Is There a "LGBT" Community?

First trans solidarity rally and march, Washington, DC USA

A few years ago I was invited to participate at a gender studies conference at a university in Denver. In the sponsoring professor’s introductory remarks, he explained that no one could determine his gender just by looking at him. To arrive at the correct conclusion, he insisted, they would have to get to know him, hear his story, and come to learn what he was about. This is gender theory 101, and all the students nodded in agreement. I considered raising my hand to ask if I could chance a wild guess at the answer, but I refrained.

After this introduction, the professor began the first talk of the day. It was truly a very good lecture on sexism in advertising, one that was, in essence, so conservative that it could have been given where I work, at Focus on the Family. His—I’m being presumptuous here—talk showed example after example of how women were portrayed in advertisements as sex objects while men were portrayed as the consumers.

As he worked his way through the print advertisements he used to demonstrate his point, he would make remarks like, “Notice this woman in this skimpy bathing suit, down on all fours, and these two men standing over her in a position of dominance and control.” He went through perhaps a dozen such examples showing how women were depicted as being degraded by men, all in the pursuit of commerce. He was right to call out these ads for being unhealthy.
No one seemed to appreciate the Costco-size contradiction in his presentation. He knew who all the women and men were in the ads. Had he met and heard every one of those models’ stories? The professor’s entire talk was predicated on a whooping violation of his own introductory caution…

Continue reading at the Weekly Standard here

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My Quick Take on the Ford/Kavanaugh Hearings

I watched every bit of the Senate Judiciary Hearings and testimony of Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh today with great interest. (I was supposed to be working on a book deadline!)

I thought Professor Ford was very compelling in telling her story. She was poised, gracious, polite, careful and articulate. Anyone can tell this has weighed on her tremendously.

I can say the same for Judge Kavanaugh. He was very compelling as well.

So what happens from here?

Well, we need to remember what this hearing was and was not about. It was not a criminal proceeding. As was mentioned by the Committee today, there is no Statute of Limitations for what Professor Ford claims was done to her in Maryland. She can pursue criminal justice there.

What this was about today was simply letting two different people present their story around a particular incident to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and thus, the whole Senate. They are they ones who  will be voting on whether Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Each Senator can now make up their minds about what they think given the two testimonies today. Is it a complete investigation? Of course not. It is not intended to be. It is not a court of law.

But the Committee investigated (which the Democrats on the Committee did not participate in) and each side had a lengthy and fair hearing and any member of the committee could ask any question of either Judge Kavanaugh or Professor Ford and do so before the world.

Professor Ford was accommodated in every way that she and her lawyers requested, save for her requested for confidentiality was violated when the media discovered who she was.  At that point, only Diane Feinstein’s office knew of her allegation.

It must be noted that Professor Ford presented no evidence. Only her accusation and her own recollection of the events. The people she said could corroborate her story – the names that she herself gave, one being a life-long friend – not only did not corroborate, but said the party described did not happen. Not just that they not recall it, they state it did not happen.

On top of this, Judge Kavanaugh was able to produce very detailed calendars/journals from that year showing that he was not in town but two times over the weekends of those years. (He picked up the habit of keeping a very detailed, daily calendar of what he did from his father, he told the committee.) He gave copies of that calendar/diary to the members of the Committee. No one – Republican or Democrat – questioned the reliability of the calendar for making conclusions relative to Professor Ford’s accusation.

So Kavanaugh had two pieces of evidence that were not challenged by anyone on the Committee.

After Kavanaugh finished his testimony, many Democrats on the Committee asked him many questions about his High school years that did not pertain to his interaction with Ford. The topics addressed where his heavy drinking, vomiting, passing out and jokes made about farts. Do any of those Senators truly believe that questions like these from one’s teen years are relevant here. Allegations of sexual abuse? Of course. But not these silly things. One Senator even asked him if he believed Anita Hill. Goodness.

It was not one of the Senate’s finest days. It was a low day for our national politics. Not that the hearing happened. That was important. It was a shameful day on the behavior of many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


This was not an exercise on whether victims of abuse should be believed or not, or how they should be treated.  That is a very important discussion, but for another time. Today was not about that. It has nothing to do with this whole proceeding actually.

Today was not a test or demonstration of how brave or noble Professor Ford is, (or Judge Kavanaugh for that matter.) It was not a contest. (BTW, I have not talked to one of my more conservative friends today who doesn’t think she handled herself with dignity.)

Today’s hearing was all about, and only about, letting those members of the Senate voting on Judge Kavanaugh be able to hear from both parties, through the best means available to them, and make up their own minds as to how they would vote.

That is what today is about. It’s not a time to demonize anyone, especially the two people whose lives and their family’s lives will never be the same because of this spectacle.

That should bring delight to no one and the process itself, sadness to everyone.

Posted in commentary, cultural analysis, culture, Uncategorized, womanhood | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: Ford’s Life-Long Friend Has No Recollection of Attack

I’ve been following the Kavanaugh story very closely over the last couple of weeks. (What sports are to some folks, politics is to me.)

Some news broke last night by CNN that is very interesting and extremely important just as Professor Ford is still trying to negotiate her testimony by her terms only. CNN reports that the third witness Ford offered as a corroborator, who admits she’s been a life-long friend of Ford’s, says she has no recollection of the event Ford is alleging. This means not one of the three people she offered as witnesses have supported her story.

I have not found an article that lists out in one place many very key turns in this whole story. So I wanted to write something up myself that lists them out so we can see the larger picture. If you believe I have gotten anything wrong here, please let me know.

With that, here are some extremely critical central points that one would have do some digging through news reports to find explained so directly:

1) Senator Grassely, the Judiciary Chair in charge of the hearings, has granted Professor Ford 7 concessions in their negotiations of the terms of her testimony, including the offer for her to testify behind closed doors and be interviewed by a woman.

2) Ford has rejected each of these, save for Grassely’s concession this morning that she could testify this Thursday because of her claim that she has a fear of flying.

3) Thus, the charge by Ford’s lawyer and Sen. Feinstein that Grassely is trying to rush this testimony with no consideration to Ford’s well-being is ridiculous by any reasonable measure. No one can name one turn at which she has been forced to do anything.

4) Professor Ford said she cannot recall the time or place the alleged attack happened. That is not inconceivable.

5) But this also makes it difficult for any witness to say, “Yes, this did or did not happen on this night at that” They best they can say is that they do or do not remember such an incident or even if they were at the location it happened.

6) Ford gave investigators the names of three students who she remembers being there. These are Mark Judge. Patrick J. Smyth, and Leland Ingham Keyser. Government officials have questioned each.

7) Judge and Smyth say they have no recollection of such a party, evening or any troubling behavior on Kavanaugh’s part. Both report that the behavior Ford alleges would have been totally against Kavanaugh’s character. Mark Judge however, said he doesn’t remember much from those years due to of his fondness for intoxicating beverages.

8) The third person Ford gave investigators as a corroborator, Leland Ingham Keyser, has been a “life-long friend of Ford’s” according to CNN.

9) CNN reported last night (Saturday, Sept 22) that Keyser, through her lawyer, responded to investigating officials with the following simple statement:

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

10) Each of the witnesses Ford provided to officials as being able to confirm what happened that night have said they have no recollection of such a party, much less the alleged attack itself.

11) Ford, as Charles Cooke  explains,  is the only one of the five named attendees at the party that evening (Kavanaugh and Ford being the final two) that has not made an official statement about that evening under the force of oath and thus severely punishable under law if false. Until today – assuming she really does intend to testify on Thursday – she has made every effort to avoid doing so.

12) Ford has made the stunning request that Kavanaugh testify first before the Judiciary Committee, and she will follow him. Seriously, have the accused defend himself before the official accusations have been presented? This raises serious questions about Ford and her attorney’s clarity of mind.

13) Even Senator Feinstein didn’t take Ford’s charges seriously when she received them months ago. They were obviously not convincing enough to compel her to bring them up to officials when she received them, nor during the Committee’s official questioning of Kavanaugh.


14) Earlier this month, 65 women came forward, officially attesting through a letter addressed to both Senators Grassely and Feinstein, that they knew Kavanaugh in his high school years and that such an accusation was diametrically at odds with the young man they knew then and today.  These 65 women state:

“Many of us have remained close friends with [Kavanaugh] and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day. The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views.”

This letter has been put into the official record of these Senate Judiciary proceedings.

Charges of sexual abuse of any kind are tremendously serious and consequential, obviously for the accuser, but also for the accused. We should all remember that any accused is presumed innocent until people are questioned and facts are gathered that establish the accused’s guiltiness beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Ms. Ford should receive a hearing and Judge Kavanaugh the opportunity to defend himself. But it must be treasured as a fundamental part of our law, that as an accused, Kavanaugh is presently innocent. And very few of the developments in the time-line and the testimony of others thus far seem to either support or speak positively of Ford’s charges.

I can’t help but think that if Ford were making the same charges with the same evidence against a Democratic president’s appointee, we would all know, in great detail, repeated ad nausea through the non-stop, 24-hour cable news cycle, how flimsy this accusation is and how questionable an accuser Ford is.

No honest person familiar with today’s political reporting can disagree with a straight face. That should be concerning to all of us as a non-partisan press is essential to a vibrant democracy and an informed citizenry. For as the Washington Post tagline heroically claims, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

The media should just not be so selective about where they shine that light.


Posted in commentary, culture, debate, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Regardless of What NYTs Says, VP Pence is Not Crazy Because He’s a Christian


Bruni. Not a Mug Shot

Some weeks ago, NYTs columnist Frank Bruni wrote a very nasty piece saying the Number 1 reason for NOT kicking Trump out of office is what would come next.  Seriously, for the all the freak-out on how evil Trump is in every way, there is something worse? And merely because the VP is a Christian who takes his faith with sincerity. That is precisely what Bruni charges.

I write about his piece here.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ignored my Blog, But Still Alive

Probably to most your great delights, I have not posted anything here for months. I’m still alive and not in a witness protection program. I will start being a better blogger and get busier here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment