Category Archives: culture

Mexico Says It’s Not a Safe Country?

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said that the US and Mexico have reached an agreement—at least in principle (although Trump is his usual more definitive self)—that those seeking asylum in the US will remain in Mexico until their asylum cases have been heard and acted on by the US.  The Washington Post has claimed to quote incoming Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero as saying so, too.

However, Sanchez Cordero says that she said no such thing to WaPo.  In fact, she says that no such deal, no Remain in Mexico program—”of any sort”—exists.  Given that newspaper’s record of honest reporting, I believe Sanchez Cordero.

What interests me about her statement, though, is this:

The future government does not consider […] that Mexico assumes the status of “safe third country” for Central American migrants, or from other countries, who are on Mexican territory or for those who will reach it in the future[.]

There are a few interpretations for this statement.  One is that Mexico doesn’t consider itself to be a “safe” country of any sort—a recognition that would be consistent with the corruption rampant in the Mexican police at all jurisdictional levels and with the broad power held by the several drug cartels that operate freely throughout Mexico.

Another is simply that Mexico doesn’t want the legal liability that would accrue from accepting that status.

A third is that rejecting the status is not the same as declining to make an exception for the current “caravan” of persons claiming to seek asylum in the US after having explicitly rejected Mexico’s offer of asylum.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

A Necessary Start

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is on the verge of issuing actual rules (not “guidance” letters) directing the way in which colleges and universities must handle accusations of sexual assault.  These rules will include

  • the right of every survivor to be taken seriously and the right of every person accused to know that guilt is not predetermined
  • both the alleged victim and the accused would be able to inspect and review all evidence
  • All Title IX hearings would include cross-examination, which could occur in-person or by live stream, with campus adjudicators allowed to observe the demeanor of witnesses as they assess credibility
  • statements of anyone who refuses cross-examination could not be considered in the final determination Title IX judges would be required to consider both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
  • acknowledges that schools’ “treatment of both complainant and respondent could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex”
  • both the alleged victim and the accused would enjoy the same opportunities for appeal, and, if both parties agreed, administrators could offer informal resolution processes like mediation
  • universities could still use a weaker “preponderance of evidence” as the standard of proof, similar to civil cases, rather than a higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

The proposal is a good start toward redressing the inequities of the Obama administration’s infamous Dear Colleague Letter, but there remain a couple of serious weaknesses.

One is the continued use of the preponderance of evidence standard.  The problem with this is that accusations of assault, whether sexual or other, are accusations of felonies.  That demands the clear and convincing evidence standard.  Related to this is the investigation and adjudication itself.  Such accusations demand the police and a criminal court conduct the investigation and trial, not the school and its administrators.  Sexual harassment accusations also need a more serious standard of proof than 50%-plus-one-minim of belief.

And: as long as acquittals—however a college/university wants to style them—are appealable by the accuser, there still is no justice possible in the proceedings or the rules that structure them.

That Progressive-Democrats object even to this nod toward justice, though, is instructive for 2020 and what a Progressive-Democrat Congress and White House will do to individual liberty.

Schism?

Posted on by
Reply

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops met last week to consider, among other things, two important mutual accountability proposals that would begin to address the Catholic Church’s history of child molestation by members of the Catholic priesthood—some of whom have gone on to rise in the ranks of Church hierarchy.  The proposals also were simple enough: one simply applied a zero-tolerance policy for sex abuse, and the other would have created an independent review board to investigate claims against bishops and refer credible cases directly to the Vatican.  (I’ll elide the latter’s being a matter of having the weasel rule on alleged violations of the hen house.)

Then Pope Francis told them to sit down and shut up.  Which they meekly did, without action on those proposals.

What to make of these bishops’ timidity? One conclusion is that fealty to a Church prince is more important than protecting our children.

Here’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of the San Francisco Archdiocese on the matter:

We’ve heard how important it is to listen to our people.

Sure. But what’s the value of “listening” if you won’t act on their concerns?  Or better, knowing these things are happening, act on your own initiative, not needing to have the concerns of the parents surfaced first as though if they don’t speak up, there’s no problem?

How will we discriminate your “listening” from your simply hearing a noisily empty cacophony?

Do we need an American Catholicism separate from the Vatican’s Catholicism, loosely (perhaps very loosely) analogous to the Church of England’s separation from the Vatican? One that keeps (most of) the foundational tenets of Catholicism, but that also holds the safety of children sacred?

After all, the Church of England was born of a concern for children, too, albeit from a different direction.

Bodies

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew Hennessey, of The Wall Street Journal, had some thoughts on this, as it pertains, I suppose, to (groups of?) people.

One of the most vexing recent developments in the world of words is the tendency to refer to human beings as “bodies.”

I’ve picked out a couple for comment.

California Progressive-Democratic Party Senator Kamala Harris, during the Brett Kavanaugh attempted lynching confirmation hearing, asked the good judge,

Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

Just to pick out one body of examples, we have a variety of criminal laws that lock up the male body and restrict its avenue of motion and its state of being.

And

The country has done a lot of soul searching over the years about what to call members of minority groups.

All along there has been the obvious term for such folks: Americans.

Projection

Posted on by
Reply

The projection is especially strong in Mary Anne Marsh, as she demonstrated in a Fox News op-ed last Monday.  Here are just a few examples.

If the House impeached Trump would the Senate do the same? It is clearly a concern for the president….

Heh.  Leaving aside the pedanticism that the Senate cannot do the same as the House—it can only try a case based on a House impeachment—the foolishness of this claim is demonstrated a couple of ways.  One is that the Senate will not convict—that would take 67 Senators—as the votes aren’t there, especially since evidence to support any sort of conviction the Progressive-Democratic Party’s House might dream up isn’t there.

The larger foolishness is that a Progressive-Democrat impeachment isn’t anything to be feared by President Donald Trump.  On the contrary, it’s a move devoutly to be wished; such a thing would demonstrate the irrationality of that Party.  Just as the Republicans’ impeachment of Clinton ended badly for the Republicans, any impeachment of Trump will end badly for the Progressive-Democratic Party: 2020 is only two years off.

Trump’s appointment of conservative justices who are indebted to him for their new posts….

This is an especially blatant projection.  Progressive-Democrats do, indeed, expect their appointees to rule according to the debt they owe their appointers.  However, Conservative judges, by their nature, rule in accordance with the text of the Constitution and of the law; they don’t rule in repayment of any debt.  Republicans know that, and so they have no expectation of repayment when they nominate and confirm.

Aside from that, a lifetime appointment, which is what Justices and Federal judges get, inures them from any sort of debt—were there any (arguendo), there can be no consequence for not honoring it.  Most folks understand that.

his [Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s] confirmation hearing left many unresolved questions, pointedly asked by Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) and others….

There were no unresolved questions at the end of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, especially after the unusual additional episode of sworn testimony by both Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.  Harris “and others” asked no serious questions of him.

Trump is also now hedging his bets with the House by supporting Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. Or so he thinks. Trump clearly believes he can flatter his way into Nancy Pelosi’s heart by promoting her as Speaker….

More projection.  Trump—and lots of other Republicans—would love to see a Speaker Pelosi, given they don’t have the majority in the coming Congress.  Pelosi will be a two-year gift for Republicans.

Last but not least is the nuclear option: Fire Mueller.

Last, but not least, this is what Progressive-Democrats would do in spades.  Trump, though, has spent all of the time since Mueller’s appointment disparaging him and his pseudo-investigation.  Disparaging and ridiculing and complaining about Mueller and his…investigation…nearly every day since that early 2017 appointment.  Mueller still is on the job, unimpeded.  Trump has made clear in word and deed that he has no intention of firing Mueller.

These are all things Progressive-Democrats would do or worry about were the shoes on the other feet.  They assume, from that, that everyone else would do the same.

Again: heh.