Thursday, September 27, 2018


1. One argument (if you can call it that) for not confirming Kavanaugh is that he's been "tainted" by the coverage. To the contrary, that's a reason he ought to be confirmed.

Here's what I mean: Democrats/secular progressives rely on intimidation rather than truth, reason, and evidence. They dare you to confirm a nominee who's been "tainted". 

And that's a reason he should be confirmed, to incapacitate that tactic. To show that we're not hostage to their approval or disapproval. To show that we're not afraid to confirm a "tainted" nominee.

That tactic is nothing more than psychological coercion. So it's necessary to call their bluff. We must demonstrate that we're not afraid of their name-calling. We don't care. That won't stop us. We'll go right ahead and vote for candidates they say are "tainted". That has no power over us.

He's not "tainted" due to probative evidence of wrongdoing. No, the mere uncorroborated allegation is supposed to leave a candidate or nominee with "a cloud over his head". That tactic must be opposed. That must be ignored. That tactic must be rendered impotent. 

2. In addition, there's the double standard. Female politicians and female accusers can say anything they want any way they want. They can be emotional, angry, aggressive, patronizing. If, however, the accused (a man) is aggressive or defiant in response, that's mean. It makes it almost impossible for a man to defend himself. (Indeed, that's the strategy.) That double standard needs to be relentlessly challenged.

3. Finally, proving a negative is often far harder or simply impossible than proving a positive. If something happened, there may be evidence. But what's the evidence that nothing happened? Well, nothing is evidence that nothing happen. A nonevent leaves no trace.

There are instances in which it's possible to prove a negative. But in many instances that's not the case.

That's why the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. This isn't just an artificial technicality. The burden of proof is different for proving a positive than a negative. 

1 comment:

  1. It’s even harder to prove a negative when the positive lacks details,Ike a date. An alibi for a non-point in time is a tough one.