Al Conyers, Al Franken, Roy Moore, Bill O'Riley, Matt Lauer,Charlie Rose...and now, Garrison Keillor....
The list of powerful men fired or under pressure to quit because of "sexual misconduct" is growing by the minute, no second.
Women, who often feel that they have long struggled to gain equality with men in politics, business and the workplace, have found a new weapon. It is a weapon that requires no proof, allows no due process and requires only a simple accusation from a woman.
NBC recently announced that they have fired Matt Lauer, twenty-year host of the Today Show for "inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace." Lauer was the highest paid anchor on TV, earning more than $20 million per year. He also had the most longevity of any current TV anchor.
NBC issued a statement that offered no proof of misbehavior, only a single accusation by a woman at the network. While NBC initially said there had been no other complaints, they assumed that this was not an isolated incident. In short, a woman complained, we believe her, and you are hereby fired. That simple.
Then, Garrison Keillor (of all people) was fired by Minnesota Public Radio where he'd worked since 1969. Keillor's crime? He patted a female on the back to console her and her shirt was open and his hand touched her bare back! Keillor, by the way, is 75.
Women should not be subject to harassment in the workplace. Period. However, men should not be vulnerable to unproven, unsubstantiated charges without due process in which the charges are validated. As a society, we have gone over the top in trying to protect a class of people by giving them a super-protective status. Look at a woman wrong, or she claims you did, and you loose your job, your career, your life. Nothing needs to be proven.
What needs to happen? There are only two options. One, lawmakers on the state or federal level need to pass legislation that provides anyone accused of "sexual misbehavior" a means of due process: it isn't enough just to accuse. The accusations must be validated or proven, even if we don't hold the burden of proof to to "proof beyond reasonable doubt." There should at least be the burden of proof "by a preponderance of evidence" standard. Of course, that won't happen because women, as a class, enjoy super-protected status in our society. Politicians fear them more than anyone or anything else. The elite media cater to them more than anyone or anything else.
A troubling proponent of this trend is the lack of definition of what constitutes "sexual harassment" or "improper conduct." In the federal law, as well as in most state statutes, the crime is specified and defined. Before a man can be convicted of sexual harassment, he must be guilty of a, b, or c. But in the extra-legal, non-judiciary process of punishing men outside the courtroom, there are no standards. Guilt is whatever you want it to be. It's whatever a woman thinks it should be. And there is absolutely no defense. Most men don't even bother to hire an attorney. As Keillor said, "I'm just not interested in fighting this."
What is most troubling about this trend is the assumption of guilt for anything that makes a woman feel uncomfortable. If a man asks a woman for a date and she declines, it is sexual harassment. If a man compliments a woman, it is improper behavior. There doesn't need to be a pattern, an overt act--it can be anything the woman says it is. And she will always be taken at face value, regardless of the facts, the proof, the pattern....it doesn't matter. We have created a whole new precedent in American quasi-jurisprudence, an extra-judicial method of indicting, condemning and punishing men without a trial.
The second possibility would be for the accused men to mount lawsuits against (a) their accusers or (b) their employer who fired them without any due process or fairness. Without any chance to prove that the charges may not have been true or valid. Here again, this would probably not be practical because the courts have also bought into the "we must protect these delicate, mistreated creatures at all costs."
It is open season on men. If you want to change the power structure, you now have an easy method: accuse a man of sexual misconduct in the workplace. It always works and it is never subjected to any real scrutiny. When is the last time you heard of a man being accused after which the man was found to be innocent? It never happens. Men are 100 percent guilty, every time, regardless of the lack of proof. The assumption is "You are guilty because you are a man and because you have been accused."
No man is safe. And it's not just congressmen, TV anchors and nationally prominent men. It's men in the office where you work, it's pastors in local churches, it's doctors, plumbers and teachers. If a woman in your workplace wants you out, and you are a man, she now has a 100 percent effective method of eliminating you! Of course, women never use this device with ulterior motives.
I would not suggest that all of the men accused are innocent. It's just that they don't enjoy the assumption of innocence until there is some degree of validation.
We
have created a whole new precedent in American quasi-jurisprudence, an
extra-judicial method of indicting, condemning and punishing men without a trial and with the only evidence being an unsubstantiated accusation: THE ASSUMPTION OF GUILT, against which men have absolutely no defense.
No man in America is safe.
As politicians began to realize that the world was running out of water, they introduced legislation that would limit toilets to using no more than 1.3 liters of water per flush.
Jimmy Carter had the honor of signing this commandment. The new water-saving toilet will forever be known as the "Jimmy John."
The final Confederate charge at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863 was delegated to troops under Gen. George Pickett. One of the brigade commanders was Maj. Gen. Lewis Armistead.
Armistead had been born in North Carolina but raised in Virginia. He considered himself a Virginian.
Armistead's five uncles had fought in the War of 1812. One of them, Major George Armistead, was commander of Fort William McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore. It was during this battle that Francis Scoot Key wrote "The Star Spangled Banner," which became the national anthem.
On July 3, 1863, at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, Lewis Armistead took his position in front of his brigade, forming for the attack on the Union center on Cemetery Ridge. For two hours his men had endured nearly constant bombardment from Union cannon. They had mostly stretched themselves on the ground in the woods and waited for the order to move forward. General James Longstreet, in command of the attack, seemed unwilling to give the order.
Finally, the order came and Armistead held his had above his head and shouted to his 5,000 men: "For your homes, for your wives, for our sweethearts....for Virginia!" And the voices behind him thundered, "For Virginia!"
Armistead's brigade moved toward the center of the Union line, toward a small copse of trees which was his objective. His brigade endured brutal shelling from the Union cannon. Coming closer to the center of the enemy's line, his men then underwent savage rifle fire, leaving large holes in his lines. His men reached out their arms, much as they would do on the parade ground, and dressed their lines--closing up the gaps made by the fallen dead and wounded--and moved forward up the hill.
Reaching the stone wall where the Union line had formed, Gen. Armistead removed his black hat, placed it on the top of his sword and waved it above his head as a rallying point. "Follow me!" he yelled and stepped over the wall, reaching what historians call "the high water mark of the Confederacy."
Just after crossing the wall, Armistead was shot three times. He received wounds just below the knee and in his arm. Union Capain Henry Bingham assisted Armistead and received his personal effects, including a Bible. Armistead asked that the Bible be presented to the wife of his old friend, Union Major General Winfield Scott Hancock.
General Armistead's wounds were not thought to be mortal. He was taken to a Union field hospital at a nearby farm and attended by a Union surgeon. Two days later, however, Armistead died, probably of infection.
He was buried at the St. Paul Cemetery in Baltimore, next to his uncle, Lt. General George Armistead, the former commander of Fort William McHenry during the War of 1812.
Yes, of course, the War Between the States was about slavery, among other things.
The larger issue was sectionalism. The United States by 1860 was divided into 3 distinct sections: the industrial North, the agrarian South, and the expanding West.
SECTIONALISM: Each section of the nation had very different lifestyles, economies, political viewpoints and needs. The economic system of the agricultural South depended on slavery. The North's economy no longer did.
THE TARIFF: The North, which exported goods, wanted a protective tariff on imported goods to protect its manufacturing or industrial base from foreign competition. The South, which depended largely on imported goods, hated the tariff. As far back as 1828, the Congress passed a high tariff to protect goods manufactured by Northern industries. The South hated it so much they called it "the Tariff of Abominations." This conflict continued until the civil war broke out in 1861.
STATE'S RIGHTS: The argument was really the political argument that could not be solved. The southern states had always, since before the Constitution was ratified, believed that each state was sovereign and entitled ultimately to set its own political course. The South viewed the Union as a subordinate thing--agreed upon voluntarily in Philadelphia by the various sovereign states, which could, when necessary nullify unwarranted acts of the national government at will. The North, by contrast, felt that the Union was sacred, ultimate, the final authority in the nation. These opposing viewpoints came so severe that they could only be decided at terrible places like Gettysburg and Antietam.
Thus, the 3 major issues that caused the War were:
1. Sectionalism
2. The Tarrif
3. Conflict over state sovereignty vs. national soverignty
These were the three sticks of dynamite in the powder keg. The West was the catalyst that prevented delay in finding a peaceful solution. New territories were being settled and were applying for statehood. The balance between free states and slave states was carefully maintained until 1850. Then Kansas and Nebraska exploded into what really became the real "civil war," as slaveholders and opponents of slavery fought and killed each other there. So Kansas and Nebraska lit the fuse.
The event that blew the lid off was the unlikely election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln was a dark horse Republican candidate without a chance of winning the presidency. Except for two things. The Democrats chose Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois as their candidate and Douglas was unacceptable to the southern states. So southern delegates walked out of the Democratic convention and selected John C. Beckenridge to run as a "Southern Democrat." Thus, the Democrats had their vote divided two ways. Finally, there was a fourth candidate, John Bell of Tennessee, who voiced no clear stand on the urgent issues of his day, declaring himself only to be "for the constitution and the union."
Come election day 1860, the electoral vote was splintered like a barn door. Douglas won 12 electoral votes, Breckenridge got 72, Bell 39, and Lincoln 180. The popular vote was just as scattered: Lincoln had 39.8 percent. Breckenridge had 18.1 percent. Douglas had only 29.5%, while Bell received 12.6%. The most divided election in American history.
And Lincoln won without carrying a single southern state. If you look at the election on a map, there is a line running along the southern boundaries of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Lincoln did not carry a single state south of that line.
When it was announced that Lincoln was the new president, the South exploded. Legislatures were called into special sessions and southern states began to secede. This was, I believe, irrational and suicidal; nevertheless, this is what they did.
So, was the war about slavery? Yes, of course it was. And it was also about state's rights, the tarrif, balance of power in the new western states--all the clouds forming under the horizon of intense sectionalism.
I would contend that the causes of the war were different from the course of the war. After Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South and "put down the rebellion," the course of the war became to protect the homeland. Each southern state's objective became, not the preservation of slavery, but keeping the invading federal armies out of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia....
Go to any battle line in the Confederate army and ask the common soldier, "Why are you fighting?" I doubt you would get anyone to say, "Why, I'm fighting to preserve slavery." No, sir. Here is what you would get: "I'm fighting for my home." Or, "I'm fighting for my state." Or, "I'm fighting to protect my rights." Perhaps, "I'm fighting to preserve our way of life." Or, as one Alabamian put it when a Union soldier asked him why he was fighting: "I'm fightin' because you are down here."
Listen to General Lewis Armistead, one of Pickett's Brigade Commanders at Gettysburg. In the minutes before the fateful charge Armistead shouted to the 5,000 Virginians in his command: "For your homes, for your wives, for your sweethearts....For Virginia!" And the chorus swelled behind him in reply, "For Virginia!"
No one answered "For slavery!"
Virginia's House of Delegates (legislature) has again violated the First Amendment by refusing to allow the Sons of Confederate Veterans to have a state license plate.
For years, the non-profit, tax exempt educational and historical group has had custom license plates sold in the Old Dominion. Then, after fierce debate, the House of Delegates said, no more. They have refused to allow these plates.
This comes after a federal judge had earlier ruled that if you allow one group to have custom license plates, you must allow all groups to have one. For example, you can't allow public school teachers to have a plate but deny one to NRA members. You can't allow a plate for the NAACP but deny one to the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).
Constitutional attorney John Whitehead, the founder of the Rutherford Institute, makes this point very clearly on his website. Here is the link for those who want to read Mr. Whitehead's piece:
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/censoring_the_confederate_flag_is_unconstitutional
Whitehead makes the point that it is controversial or unpopular speech that needs constitutional protection. And that you cannot censor speech just because it is unpopular or controversial. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time and again.
But, in the typical over-reaction to all things that could be considered controversial or racist or "insensitive," the Virginia lawmaking body decided to lash out at the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The federal courts, of course, will step in and put them in their place.
But it just shows you how crazy and hyper-sensitive our PC world has become.
"WHITE HOLIDAY"
I'm dreaming of a white holiday
With every hol-i-day card I write.
Where the tree tops glisten
And children listen to hear sleigh bells in the snow.
I'm dreaming of a white holiday
With every holiday card I write
May your days be merry and bright--
And may all your hol-i-days be white.
______
Seems we're at the breaking apart stage of our society where you can't even mention Christmas in public any more. Everything is a 'holiday.' Holiday cards, holiday trees, holiday greetings, holiday turkeys....and the ultra-radical "winter holiday" celebrated by the government ("public") schools.
I admit it's gotten better in the last 5 years. It got really crazy about 5 years ago with department stores trying to sell "holiday trees" and "holiday greeting cards." Store greeters were instructed to avoid the traditional "Merry Christmas" in favor of the bland and stupid "happy holiday."
My reply was always, "Which holiday are you referring to?"
Then, I'd give a good hearty "Merry Christmas!" loud enough for everyone nearby to hear. December 25 on my calendar still reads "Christmas" and it is a federal holiday (though we don't know for how much longer if the radicals have their way).
So when someone wishes you a "white holiday," remember that most holidays are not going to be white. I've never seen a white Fourth of July where I live!
Thankfully, I'm seeing more traditional Christmas cards in stores than I saw a few years ago. Many department stores now have "Christmas sales." Even if you detest the ultra-commericalization of the season, it's better than "Winter sales" or "white holiday sales."
So from all of us here at the Center for Useless Social Statistics (CUSS) - MERRY CHRISTMAS!
TOP 10 REASONS WHY MILEY CRIES:
10) She is a spoiled brat.
(9) She is a sexist who hates men with power.
(8) She really identified with Hillary.
(7) She kinda digs the brown pants suits!
(6) She's a non-conformist or rebel.
(5) Her Hollywood friends told her to.
(4) She's a little goofy to start with.
(3) She always gets her way (almost).
(2) Not getting her way makes her spinny headed.
(1) Hillary had promised her a cabinet position.
