Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more. Thus sang the gossiping women in “The Music Man” in a stereotypic parody that brings to mind two New York Times reporters and three Democrats. By smearing Justice Kavanaugh yet again, they are hurting the #MeToo movement and the ideal of fairness.
The #MeToo movement has civil rights goals, but so does a conservative man when there is no evidence he (Brett Kavanaugh) was ever a serial debauchee. Still, senators Harris, Hirono and Warren think hearsay is enough to impeach him. Pure BS: the Times reporters found no smoking gun, hearsay is not real evidence, and three gossips are not a real jury.
Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly wrote a book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh. An Investigation,” which appeared in part as a Times essay. The two women don’t actually know what Kavanaugh did in high school or university, but trampled his right to presumed innocence anyway. Because – they believe what an embittered classmate (Deborah Ramirez) and a political foe (Max Stier) remember from thirty-five years ago.
The Times essay is pure identity politics, believing Ramirez’s allegation because it “rings of the truth” and fits their worldview: an elite WASP victimizes a middle-class Latino coed, who was “the good girl” that was “preyed upon by Kavanaugh and his friends.” Ramirez too is practiced at identity politics: “they invite you to the game, but they never show you the rules or where the equipment is.”
Note how identity politics creates a sweeping “they” to damn all preppies for even calling attention to Ramirez’s otherness: e.g. “made fun” of her Latino accent. She could be a sympathetic character – except she chose to attend a boy-girl drinks party, admits to “drinking heavily” and not leaving when party-goers began “passing around a fake penis.” Ahem – when a fake penis appears, every “good” kid knows it’s time to leave.
The reporters contend Ramirez was corroborated by Stier, who has hearsay of a similar incident involving Kavanaugh at Yale. However, the Times had to later admit the “female student refused an interview and her friends state she does not recall the incident.” Moreover, the reporters described Stier as a “respected thought leader” in Washington, omitting that he represented Bill Clinton against Kavanaugh during the Ken Starr investigation.
America’s ideal of fairness comes from scripture: He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone. A man is presumed innocent, two biased reporters are no substitute for an impartial jury, and three gossiping senators should know better. Further, wild-and-crazy tales from the Animal House era are not the evidentiary equal of photographs of prime ministers and governors in black face.
Having observed my fair share of “Otters” and “Babs” back in the day, I am skeptical of drunken recollections and the virtue of binge-drinking coeds, who later blame ill-behaved boys or the punch bowl. One self-evident college truth is this: many complain of their memory and few of their judgement.
Perhaps the young Kavanaugh was not the responsible husband and father we see today, but I have seen no evidence to deny the presumption of his innocence. I suspect Ramirez and Stiers are politically motivated, as are some Democrats and their media allies. Their gossipy hen party is patently un-American, they have buried the truth, and none of them should be in the stone-throwing business.