Doug:
Sometimes, the Vice President should be able to have private meetings with someone to be able to plan, and discuss issues, don't you think?
David:
Certainly. Especially when it comes to strategic planning for military actions. There are probably lots if things the President and VP would talk to various individuals and members of Congress that are reasonable discussions to have in private.
Doug:
Actually, the reason why I mention this is that Mike Pence has claimed that he follows strict rules: he would never meet with another woman alone (the so-called "Billy Graham Rule"). Doesn't that seem like it would interfere with his job, or the job of a woman who was attempting to work with him? I guess he couldn't meet with Angela Merkel over lunch? Some have seen this as an admirable stance, but to me it sounds like it just makes it difficult for women to work with him. Maybe that is his goal: keep woman out of the work place. How could he hire women for key jobs (that might involve private lunches)? He can't do it. He can't even have a female friend that he could have a lunch with.
David:
He didn't say he wouldn't meet with a woman. He said he doesn't dine with women alone, or meet with women where alcohol is being served without his wife present. Not the same thing. And his Lieutenant Governor back home in Indiana was a woman. So much for your diabolical theory that he's secretly trying to keep women down.
As a professor, if you are meeting with your female students in a private setting, or with your office door closed, you are taking an unnecessary risk. If any of those students made an accusation against you for sexual harassment or assault, I'm afraid your job, and possibly your career might be over. That's the reality of the world we live in. And due to Title IX guidelines, you'd likely have no legal due-process to protect you. My advice is to meet with all of your students in a public space, or with the door opened at all times.
Doug:
I do take care when I meet with any student. But it is not because I am scared of them or lawsuits; I want to make sure that they feel safe. Situations where all of the power is on one side can be intimidating, and there have been some in power that have taken advantage of it. But how does that relate to the Vice President not wanting to meet with a woman alone? He is not doing it for her sake... he is doing it for his sake. He can't trust himself. Maybe he would do what his colleague would do, if only he had more confidence (and a Tic-Tac) he might grab them by their private parts.
David:
But it goes both ways. You cannot get into any type of trouble, if you take precautions to make sure there is not an opportunity for any type of trouble.
In the ER, we're faced with the challenge of creating an environment where patients can tell us their most intimate information, and subject themselves to a physical examination, while at the same time making them comfortable with that process. We have to provide them with a welcoming environment, but at the same time be able to have a very honest discussion about their condition. Oftentimes, we have to provide all of that in an instant. Patients do have an expectation of that encounter and what it entails, and that helps quite a bit, but it can still be a challenge. The opportunity for the discussion or portions of the exam to be misinterpreted is huge.
I've known physicians and physician assistants who have been accused of sexual assault while performing their duties, which includes examining patients in the hospital or medical office setting. If you don't have some way to prove nothing happened, your career can be severely damaged. I never perform any aspect of an interaction with any patient without a chaperone in the room. That could be a nurse, a medical student, or a scribe, but it would almost never occur with only me and the patient.
Doug:
I meet with female colleagues all the time, and of course we don't feel like we need to do it in public. If we had to have another person there, we wouldn't be able to get our research done. We aren't talking about Mike Pence's patients... we are talking about colleagues and heads of state. Because he treats women as sex objects when he dines with them, this is sending a very objectifying message. If he were a stockboy, that might not interfere with his job (actually, maybe it would). But as an executive, and some one who must "have private meetings with someone to be able to plan, and discuss issues" this would really be problematic. Should they be able to meet? You answered "certainly" above. This seems inconsistent.
David:
Again, you are projecting your own definitions upon what he said.
Doug:
I tend to do that when I am attempting to understand what people mean.
David:
If you wanted to understand what someone means, you'd try to understand what they mean, not project your own meanings onto them.
Doug:
But you see that Alice is trying to understand what Humpty Dumpty says, and asking him about his meanings. You are not.
Pence meets with women all of the time. Half of the state office holders in Indiana were women during his tenure. There were no problems that arose during that time. No women were denied any positions or had any issues with the Governor. This is a problem that only exists in your head. Mike Pence has been in politics for decades. If there were some issue with him and women, it would have appeared before now. The fact that there are no issues with Pence and women might very well be because he doesn't put himself, or the women he works with in circumstances that might invite potential (or imagined) problems. He treats women with respect. How can that possibly be construed as a bad thing? Choosing to avoid private dinners with women is not that hard to do. I think it is terribly disconcerting that you assume he is treating women as sexual objects because he chooses to keep his professional interactions professional.
Doug:
Not being able to work with women on an even setting with men is exactly what Pence said. I'm not making anything up. He said that. He treats women differently. He can not have drinks at a meeting with a woman. With a man, yes. With a woman, no. Can he have a private dinner with a man to discuss policy? Yes! With a woman? No. He treats them differently. Diabolical? No. Making it impossible to be treated the same as a man? Yes.
David:
Dearest brother, what you fail to understand or acknowledge is that Mike Pence is a known commodity. He was a congressman for several terms and rose to Republican leadership. He served two terms as Indiana's Governor, and now he's the Vice-President of the United States. He's been in the public spotlight for decades. While governor of Indiana he was under intense scrutiny. And yet, no one has ever claimed he treated women in any way that was unseemly, or disrespectful, or failed to hire women for any positions, or prevented women from succeeding in any way. It's only now, that he's voluntarily stated that he doesn't hold private dinner meetings with women or place them and himself in compromising positions that you are somehow full of outrage. But you're accusing him of something that no one has accused him of in the decades he's been in office, and stating that his treatment of women is somehow harming them when it never has. I know that a white, Republican, Christian man treating women with respect doesn't fit your narrative. But geesh, give it a rest. His policy certainly appears to have served him and all of the women who have served along side him all of these years very well.
Doug:
"I can't have drinks with you because if I do, I might rape you. You see, I am not meeting you out of respect for you. Thank me! I respect you!" That is my narrative. I'm not "outraged." I just think that he is better suited as a busboy rather than an executive. You say that he is a "known commodity" but we are just finding out about this peculiar rule of his. My fault! I was using my definitions of words rather than yours.
David:
Ah, now Pence is a rapist. Your words are very inflammatory, biased, and totally unnecessary. He has a code that he lives by, that was only known to himself. No one has complained, as no one was affected in any visual or real way. His personal policy had no untoward effects on anyone. Period. You may believe that Humpty Dumpty is a real person, but if no one knows you have that belief, and it has no bearing on anything at all, then what does it matter?
Diverging on a slight tangent, I am curious what you think of the sexual-assault proceedings across the nation's college campuses where dozens of young men and women are having their lives ruined without any of the due process protections provided in our legal system. Someone makes a claim against you, and you are presumed guilty without being able to defend yourself, being able to provide evidence in your own defense, or even question your accuser? How to you feel about that? Is it fair? Does the rule of law stop at the gates of a university?
Doug:
Have you been watching Fox News? What have they been telling you? That the world is unfair to white men? Oh boy. Poor Bill O'Reilly? He was found guilty before the trial?
David:
That's your response? Attack television personality Bill O'Reilly? Seriously? (And using People Magazine as your source?)
Doug:
I used People Magazine for their pretty picture of Bill and Juliet. People Magazine has lots of pretty pictures of people. You doubt that O'Reilly is a serial sexual, predator, and you want better sources? Here is a Google search that has over 1,000,000 hits.
David:
How did Bill O'Reilly enter into the conversation? I have no idea how your mind made the jump from college campus inquisitions to a television personality. Talk about diversionary tactics. Do you believe Google hits equate with a guilty verdict? Maybe we should start talking about Bill Clinton and his sexual aggressions? Or, we can get back to answering questions that I thought you might have an opinion on, since you work in a University setting.
Doug:
We were talking about Mike Pence and his inability to meet with women alone. Then you got "curious" about sexual assaults on campus. But rather than focusing on sexual assault, you focused on "due process." I presume that Bill O'Reilly would agree with you that he was not afforded due process, which also includes the option to just pay for any troubles to go away.
David:
Here are some articles about the topic I asked your opinion on. It's no wonder you don't want to talk about it.
Doug:
If by "it" you mean "sexual assault", we could talk about it in this context. I presume that it is relevant here because you are afraid that Mike Pence would sexually assault a woman if he were left alone with her. I presume that is why he is afraid to be alone with a woman.
David:
My question was how do you feel about the process colleges have now put forth to deal with a real problem. Why do you feel that Pence is afraid? He keeps his interactions professional. That doesn't reflect fear. But you again digress...
Colleges have been put in a tough position by the Obama administration's Department of Education. Create a farcical pseudo-judicial system or lose federal funding. Unfortunately, the system they have created does not withstand actual judicial review:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/01/campus-due-process-in-the-courts/?utm_term=.55c79ba80243
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/22/campus_sexual_assault_and_a_modern_crucible_128508.html
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/how-american-college-campuses-have-become-anti-due-process
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445476/yet-another-college-loses-due-process-case
"Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” ~ Opinion of U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts.
Doug:
Oh, you want to talk about "due process." It is funny that you want to bring up "due process" now. Of course, we can talk about due process with any issue. But if you wanted to talk about sexual assault, then that would be understandable; there has been an increasing number of sexual assaults across campuses. Every 98 seconds an American is assaulted.
One out of every 6 American women has been the victim of a sexual assault. Campuses have a problem, but it is even worse off campus. This is a cultural problem. Our culture. Of course, protecting due process is always important. But sexual assaults are a crisis in our country, and the world. Mike Pence's solution is to just stay away from women? No. He should recognize that the solution is to treat women with the same respect that he treats men. If he did, then he should have nothing to worry about.
David:
Again, Mike Pence doesn't avoid women, or put them down, or prevent them from working wherever they want. You are completely misleading the conversation to fit a narrative that Conservative Christian, Republicans have a war on women. It isn't true. No matter how much you really, really, really want it to be true.
While sexual assault is a real problem, eliminating due process is not an answer.
Doug:
My point about Fox News is that you might get the idea that the "due process problem" is much worse than the "1 out of every 6 women assaulted problem" if you watch them. It isn't.
David:
But you refuse to even acknowledge that eliminating normal due process is a problem. Why would you put it in scare quotes, unless you truly believe that the elimination of a fair process isn't a problem? It's not a which-is-worse argument. You don't fix the real problem of sexual assaults by convicting some innocent people without trials or a fair process.
Doug:
Since we are talking about meetings what do you think about Trump's plan to prevent us from knowing who was visiting the White House? This isn't very transparent, is it?
David:
No, it isn't transparent at all. And I don't really understand why that policy would need to be changed.
Doug:
So, if someone called "Obama the least transparent president ever!" they might be wrong. Why would that policy need to change? Don't you think that the Republican administration is attempting to hide something?
David:
Transparency in government is a relatively new phenomena. Until Watergate, it really wasn't even thought of. People accepted that the government had secrets that it needed to keep, and no one really asked questions. Nixon changed all of that in a dramatic fashion. (Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see the private, nocturnal visitor logs during the JFK years.)
Doug:
JFK's logs would be interesting as political porn. There would be many young women on that list, I'm sure. But more importantly, who would be on that list that may have been working for another government? This shouldn't just be curiosity. This is important as it indicates who is meeting our representatives, and what are they attempting to influence.
David:
We uncovered the entire Bill Clinton-selling-the-Lincoln-bedroom-to-Chinese scandal because of the visitor log books.
Doug:
Exactly! We need to know who is making these visits.
David:
Obama was probably the most transparent POTUS we've had, because transparency continues to improve with each new administration.
Doug:
What?! Trump once said that "he is the least transparent President--ever..." And you claim that he was the "most". That is quite a lie Trump has told then. But the trend of transparency seems to have stopped with Trump.
David:
Please. He hasn't even been in office for 100 days yet, and you've already decided that transparency is dead? This is only the White House visitors log were talking about.
Doug:
I just pointed out that you said the exact opposite of what Trump said. Someone is wrong, bigly, and it is you or Trump.
David:
You're accusing Trump of being an exaggerator during the election? Duh.
Doug:
"Most" vs. "least." Sure, we can call that an "exaggeration," Humpty.
David:
Obama clearly had some episodes where transparency was completely lacking. He ran on the promise he would be the most transparent ever, and yet had some major failings in that department. Lois Lerner never did testify about her IRS dealings, and Congress has never seen any of the documents regarding the Fast-and-Furious program at the Justice Department. And the impression that I'm left with was all of his agencies fought tooth and nail against Freedom of Information requests during his entire tenure. The courts ruled against the administration over and over and over again, eventually even mandating a timeline for the Clinton State-Department email releases. That obstruction of transparency may have hurt Clinton as much as anything that was actually in the emails.
Doug:
So, you say that Obama was probably the most transparent President ever, and yet he could have been more transparent. And yet, Trump is heading in the wrong direction. Don't you think we need laws to force a President's transparency? This obstruction to transparency is really going to hurt Trump, if it hurt Clinton?
David:
That's probably why this issue of the visitor logs is getting so much attention. It's a small thing, but it completely bucks the trend of increasing transparency. Does it mean someone's hiding something? You can't say that, but it does beg the question, "Why are you making this change?" It gives the appearance that someone's hiding something. The issue is already hurting him, and distracting from much more important issues. We're in agreement here that it is wrong. How often are you and I in total agreement?
Doug:
Total agreement! Woot!
David:
But I think we need to be careful by creating more laws. We already have Freedom of Information laws on the books. There may be some things that need secrecy that could inadvertently be swept into some new legislation. Just having ordinary citizens like us talking about it should help to pressure elected officials to come clean.
Doug:
What happened to total agreement? I thought we were agreement that we need tough, new laws to ensure transparency?
David:
No, we agreed that changing the policy is wrong, and transparency is good. Just be happy with that much agreement....
Doug:
The meanings of these words are hard to keep track of. Does obstructing transparency mean that one is hiding something? You just said that it hurt Clinton, but now you claim that it does not mean that Trump is hiding something. Don't you think that that seems inconsistent? Obstructing transparency can only mean one thing: you are hiding something. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or a Democrat. Do you see how consistency works?
David:
Lack of transparency didn't mean that Clinton was hiding anything either. I said it leaves it open to interpretation, and the interpretation is likely to be that someone looks like they're hiding something. Although it doesn't apply here, but there may be some things that are just difficult to be fully transparent about. When Hillary set up her own server to stay off the grid, that was a move to hide things. If Trump staffers start meeting at a coffee shop across the street from the White House (as some reports have stated), that appears to be a move intended to get off the grid and avoid disclosure and reporting laws.
Doug:
So they are like Hillary? We need hearings! Lock them up! Hillary was hiding things, you say. But Trump isn't. Consistency is a real problem if you try to see difference here.
David:
Hillary appeared to be placing her records in a place that could not be recovered, and that was wrong. If Trump staffers are doing something similar, then that is also wrong. That's what I said. I don't know why you see that as somehow being inconsistent. You do a lot of mis-reading between the lines to fit your own narratives.
Doug:
I think that is just you projecting your own meaning onto my words. Right? Total agreement!
David:
It's up to individuals and groups to keep a watchful eye on our public officials and demand records when needed to maintain transparency. It's one of the things that makes democracies better than dictatorships.
Doug:
Watchful eye? I have to go to work. How about we just makes some damn laws? That is what makes democracies better than anything else.
David:
North Korea, Russia, and China have plenty of laws. I don't want to live in any of those countries.
Doug:
That is our choice? Either we have laws (and are, therefore, like North Korea) or we live free? I think you threw the baby out with the bath water. No wonder you see "due process" issues at the heart of everything... due process is only relevant when there are laws.
David:
Hey, how'd we get here. I thought we were talking about who's coming to dinner, and is there a guest list...
Sometimes, the Vice President should be able to have private meetings with someone to be able to plan, and discuss issues, don't you think?
David:
Certainly. Especially when it comes to strategic planning for military actions. There are probably lots if things the President and VP would talk to various individuals and members of Congress that are reasonable discussions to have in private.
Doug:
Actually, the reason why I mention this is that Mike Pence has claimed that he follows strict rules: he would never meet with another woman alone (the so-called "Billy Graham Rule"). Doesn't that seem like it would interfere with his job, or the job of a woman who was attempting to work with him? I guess he couldn't meet with Angela Merkel over lunch? Some have seen this as an admirable stance, but to me it sounds like it just makes it difficult for women to work with him. Maybe that is his goal: keep woman out of the work place. How could he hire women for key jobs (that might involve private lunches)? He can't do it. He can't even have a female friend that he could have a lunch with.
 |
| Billy Graham and some random woman he was having lunch with. Just kidding; he couldn't have had lunch with a random woman... that was his wife. |
David:
He didn't say he wouldn't meet with a woman. He said he doesn't dine with women alone, or meet with women where alcohol is being served without his wife present. Not the same thing. And his Lieutenant Governor back home in Indiana was a woman. So much for your diabolical theory that he's secretly trying to keep women down.
As a professor, if you are meeting with your female students in a private setting, or with your office door closed, you are taking an unnecessary risk. If any of those students made an accusation against you for sexual harassment or assault, I'm afraid your job, and possibly your career might be over. That's the reality of the world we live in. And due to Title IX guidelines, you'd likely have no legal due-process to protect you. My advice is to meet with all of your students in a public space, or with the door opened at all times.
Doug:
I do take care when I meet with any student. But it is not because I am scared of them or lawsuits; I want to make sure that they feel safe. Situations where all of the power is on one side can be intimidating, and there have been some in power that have taken advantage of it. But how does that relate to the Vice President not wanting to meet with a woman alone? He is not doing it for her sake... he is doing it for his sake. He can't trust himself. Maybe he would do what his colleague would do, if only he had more confidence (and a Tic-Tac) he might grab them by their private parts.
David:
But it goes both ways. You cannot get into any type of trouble, if you take precautions to make sure there is not an opportunity for any type of trouble.
In the ER, we're faced with the challenge of creating an environment where patients can tell us their most intimate information, and subject themselves to a physical examination, while at the same time making them comfortable with that process. We have to provide them with a welcoming environment, but at the same time be able to have a very honest discussion about their condition. Oftentimes, we have to provide all of that in an instant. Patients do have an expectation of that encounter and what it entails, and that helps quite a bit, but it can still be a challenge. The opportunity for the discussion or portions of the exam to be misinterpreted is huge.
I've known physicians and physician assistants who have been accused of sexual assault while performing their duties, which includes examining patients in the hospital or medical office setting. If you don't have some way to prove nothing happened, your career can be severely damaged. I never perform any aspect of an interaction with any patient without a chaperone in the room. That could be a nurse, a medical student, or a scribe, but it would almost never occur with only me and the patient.
Doug:
I meet with female colleagues all the time, and of course we don't feel like we need to do it in public. If we had to have another person there, we wouldn't be able to get our research done. We aren't talking about Mike Pence's patients... we are talking about colleagues and heads of state. Because he treats women as sex objects when he dines with them, this is sending a very objectifying message. If he were a stockboy, that might not interfere with his job (actually, maybe it would). But as an executive, and some one who must "have private meetings with someone to be able to plan, and discuss issues" this would really be problematic. Should they be able to meet? You answered "certainly" above. This seems inconsistent.
David:
Again, you are projecting your own definitions upon what he said.
Doug:
I tend to do that when I am attempting to understand what people mean.
David:
If you wanted to understand what someone means, you'd try to understand what they mean, not project your own meanings onto them.
Doug:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."David:
But you see that Alice is trying to understand what Humpty Dumpty says, and asking him about his meanings. You are not.
Pence meets with women all of the time. Half of the state office holders in Indiana were women during his tenure. There were no problems that arose during that time. No women were denied any positions or had any issues with the Governor. This is a problem that only exists in your head. Mike Pence has been in politics for decades. If there were some issue with him and women, it would have appeared before now. The fact that there are no issues with Pence and women might very well be because he doesn't put himself, or the women he works with in circumstances that might invite potential (or imagined) problems. He treats women with respect. How can that possibly be construed as a bad thing? Choosing to avoid private dinners with women is not that hard to do. I think it is terribly disconcerting that you assume he is treating women as sexual objects because he chooses to keep his professional interactions professional.
 |
| Indiana Gov. Pence flanked by Lt. Gov. Sue Ellsperman and staff at a meeting |
Not being able to work with women on an even setting with men is exactly what Pence said. I'm not making anything up. He said that. He treats women differently. He can not have drinks at a meeting with a woman. With a man, yes. With a woman, no. Can he have a private dinner with a man to discuss policy? Yes! With a woman? No. He treats them differently. Diabolical? No. Making it impossible to be treated the same as a man? Yes.
David:
Dearest brother, what you fail to understand or acknowledge is that Mike Pence is a known commodity. He was a congressman for several terms and rose to Republican leadership. He served two terms as Indiana's Governor, and now he's the Vice-President of the United States. He's been in the public spotlight for decades. While governor of Indiana he was under intense scrutiny. And yet, no one has ever claimed he treated women in any way that was unseemly, or disrespectful, or failed to hire women for any positions, or prevented women from succeeding in any way. It's only now, that he's voluntarily stated that he doesn't hold private dinner meetings with women or place them and himself in compromising positions that you are somehow full of outrage. But you're accusing him of something that no one has accused him of in the decades he's been in office, and stating that his treatment of women is somehow harming them when it never has. I know that a white, Republican, Christian man treating women with respect doesn't fit your narrative. But geesh, give it a rest. His policy certainly appears to have served him and all of the women who have served along side him all of these years very well.
Doug:
"I can't have drinks with you because if I do, I might rape you. You see, I am not meeting you out of respect for you. Thank me! I respect you!" That is my narrative. I'm not "outraged." I just think that he is better suited as a busboy rather than an executive. You say that he is a "known commodity" but we are just finding out about this peculiar rule of his. My fault! I was using my definitions of words rather than yours.
David:
Ah, now Pence is a rapist. Your words are very inflammatory, biased, and totally unnecessary. He has a code that he lives by, that was only known to himself. No one has complained, as no one was affected in any visual or real way. His personal policy had no untoward effects on anyone. Period. You may believe that Humpty Dumpty is a real person, but if no one knows you have that belief, and it has no bearing on anything at all, then what does it matter?
Diverging on a slight tangent, I am curious what you think of the sexual-assault proceedings across the nation's college campuses where dozens of young men and women are having their lives ruined without any of the due process protections provided in our legal system. Someone makes a claim against you, and you are presumed guilty without being able to defend yourself, being able to provide evidence in your own defense, or even question your accuser? How to you feel about that? Is it fair? Does the rule of law stop at the gates of a university?
Doug:
Have you been watching Fox News? What have they been telling you? That the world is unfair to white men? Oh boy. Poor Bill O'Reilly? He was found guilty before the trial?
 |
| Bill O'Reilly (right) may not return to a regular show. Juliet Huddy (left) is one of the many women who has been awarded money for his harassment. From: http://people.com/celebrity/fox-news-quietly-settles-sexual-harassment-suit-former-host-juliet-huddy-bill-oreilly/ |
That's your response? Attack television personality Bill O'Reilly? Seriously? (And using People Magazine as your source?)
Doug:
I used People Magazine for their pretty picture of Bill and Juliet. People Magazine has lots of pretty pictures of people. You doubt that O'Reilly is a serial sexual, predator, and you want better sources? Here is a Google search that has over 1,000,000 hits.
David:
How did Bill O'Reilly enter into the conversation? I have no idea how your mind made the jump from college campus inquisitions to a television personality. Talk about diversionary tactics. Do you believe Google hits equate with a guilty verdict? Maybe we should start talking about Bill Clinton and his sexual aggressions? Or, we can get back to answering questions that I thought you might have an opinion on, since you work in a University setting.
Doug:
We were talking about Mike Pence and his inability to meet with women alone. Then you got "curious" about sexual assaults on campus. But rather than focusing on sexual assault, you focused on "due process." I presume that Bill O'Reilly would agree with you that he was not afforded due process, which also includes the option to just pay for any troubles to go away.
David:
Here are some articles about the topic I asked your opinion on. It's no wonder you don't want to talk about it.
Doug:
If by "it" you mean "sexual assault", we could talk about it in this context. I presume that it is relevant here because you are afraid that Mike Pence would sexually assault a woman if he were left alone with her. I presume that is why he is afraid to be alone with a woman.
David:
My question was how do you feel about the process colleges have now put forth to deal with a real problem. Why do you feel that Pence is afraid? He keeps his interactions professional. That doesn't reflect fear. But you again digress...
Colleges have been put in a tough position by the Obama administration's Department of Education. Create a farcical pseudo-judicial system or lose federal funding. Unfortunately, the system they have created does not withstand actual judicial review:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/01/campus-due-process-in-the-courts/?utm_term=.55c79ba80243
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/22/campus_sexual_assault_and_a_modern_crucible_128508.html
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/how-american-college-campuses-have-become-anti-due-process
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445476/yet-another-college-loses-due-process-case
"Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” ~ Opinion of U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts.
Doug:
Oh, you want to talk about "due process." It is funny that you want to bring up "due process" now. Of course, we can talk about due process with any issue. But if you wanted to talk about sexual assault, then that would be understandable; there has been an increasing number of sexual assaults across campuses. Every 98 seconds an American is assaulted.
One out of every 6 American women has been the victim of a sexual assault. Campuses have a problem, but it is even worse off campus. This is a cultural problem. Our culture. Of course, protecting due process is always important. But sexual assaults are a crisis in our country, and the world. Mike Pence's solution is to just stay away from women? No. He should recognize that the solution is to treat women with the same respect that he treats men. If he did, then he should have nothing to worry about.
David:
Again, Mike Pence doesn't avoid women, or put them down, or prevent them from working wherever they want. You are completely misleading the conversation to fit a narrative that Conservative Christian, Republicans have a war on women. It isn't true. No matter how much you really, really, really want it to be true.
While sexual assault is a real problem, eliminating due process is not an answer.
Doug:
My point about Fox News is that you might get the idea that the "due process problem" is much worse than the "1 out of every 6 women assaulted problem" if you watch them. It isn't.
David:
But you refuse to even acknowledge that eliminating normal due process is a problem. Why would you put it in scare quotes, unless you truly believe that the elimination of a fair process isn't a problem? It's not a which-is-worse argument. You don't fix the real problem of sexual assaults by convicting some innocent people without trials or a fair process.
Doug:
Since we are talking about meetings what do you think about Trump's plan to prevent us from knowing who was visiting the White House? This isn't very transparent, is it?
David:
No, it isn't transparent at all. And I don't really understand why that policy would need to be changed.
Doug:
So, if someone called "Obama the least transparent president ever!" they might be wrong. Why would that policy need to change? Don't you think that the Republican administration is attempting to hide something?
David:
Transparency in government is a relatively new phenomena. Until Watergate, it really wasn't even thought of. People accepted that the government had secrets that it needed to keep, and no one really asked questions. Nixon changed all of that in a dramatic fashion. (Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see the private, nocturnal visitor logs during the JFK years.)
Doug:
JFK's logs would be interesting as political porn. There would be many young women on that list, I'm sure. But more importantly, who would be on that list that may have been working for another government? This shouldn't just be curiosity. This is important as it indicates who is meeting our representatives, and what are they attempting to influence.
David:
We uncovered the entire Bill Clinton-selling-the-Lincoln-bedroom-to-Chinese scandal because of the visitor log books.
Doug:
Exactly! We need to know who is making these visits.
David:
Obama was probably the most transparent POTUS we've had, because transparency continues to improve with each new administration.
Doug:
What?! Trump once said that "he is the least transparent President--ever..." And you claim that he was the "most". That is quite a lie Trump has told then. But the trend of transparency seems to have stopped with Trump.
David:
Please. He hasn't even been in office for 100 days yet, and you've already decided that transparency is dead? This is only the White House visitors log were talking about.
Doug:
I just pointed out that you said the exact opposite of what Trump said. Someone is wrong, bigly, and it is you or Trump.
David:
You're accusing Trump of being an exaggerator during the election? Duh.
Doug:
"Most" vs. "least." Sure, we can call that an "exaggeration," Humpty.
David:
Obama clearly had some episodes where transparency was completely lacking. He ran on the promise he would be the most transparent ever, and yet had some major failings in that department. Lois Lerner never did testify about her IRS dealings, and Congress has never seen any of the documents regarding the Fast-and-Furious program at the Justice Department. And the impression that I'm left with was all of his agencies fought tooth and nail against Freedom of Information requests during his entire tenure. The courts ruled against the administration over and over and over again, eventually even mandating a timeline for the Clinton State-Department email releases. That obstruction of transparency may have hurt Clinton as much as anything that was actually in the emails.
Doug:
So, you say that Obama was probably the most transparent President ever, and yet he could have been more transparent. And yet, Trump is heading in the wrong direction. Don't you think we need laws to force a President's transparency? This obstruction to transparency is really going to hurt Trump, if it hurt Clinton?
David:
That's probably why this issue of the visitor logs is getting so much attention. It's a small thing, but it completely bucks the trend of increasing transparency. Does it mean someone's hiding something? You can't say that, but it does beg the question, "Why are you making this change?" It gives the appearance that someone's hiding something. The issue is already hurting him, and distracting from much more important issues. We're in agreement here that it is wrong. How often are you and I in total agreement?
Doug:
Total agreement! Woot!
David:
But I think we need to be careful by creating more laws. We already have Freedom of Information laws on the books. There may be some things that need secrecy that could inadvertently be swept into some new legislation. Just having ordinary citizens like us talking about it should help to pressure elected officials to come clean.
Doug:
What happened to total agreement? I thought we were agreement that we need tough, new laws to ensure transparency?
David:
No, we agreed that changing the policy is wrong, and transparency is good. Just be happy with that much agreement....
Doug:
The meanings of these words are hard to keep track of. Does obstructing transparency mean that one is hiding something? You just said that it hurt Clinton, but now you claim that it does not mean that Trump is hiding something. Don't you think that that seems inconsistent? Obstructing transparency can only mean one thing: you are hiding something. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or a Democrat. Do you see how consistency works?
David:
Lack of transparency didn't mean that Clinton was hiding anything either. I said it leaves it open to interpretation, and the interpretation is likely to be that someone looks like they're hiding something. Although it doesn't apply here, but there may be some things that are just difficult to be fully transparent about. When Hillary set up her own server to stay off the grid, that was a move to hide things. If Trump staffers start meeting at a coffee shop across the street from the White House (as some reports have stated), that appears to be a move intended to get off the grid and avoid disclosure and reporting laws.
Doug:
So they are like Hillary? We need hearings! Lock them up! Hillary was hiding things, you say. But Trump isn't. Consistency is a real problem if you try to see difference here.
David:
Hillary appeared to be placing her records in a place that could not be recovered, and that was wrong. If Trump staffers are doing something similar, then that is also wrong. That's what I said. I don't know why you see that as somehow being inconsistent. You do a lot of mis-reading between the lines to fit your own narratives.
Doug:
I think that is just you projecting your own meaning onto my words. Right? Total agreement!
David:
It's up to individuals and groups to keep a watchful eye on our public officials and demand records when needed to maintain transparency. It's one of the things that makes democracies better than dictatorships.
Doug:
Watchful eye? I have to go to work. How about we just makes some damn laws? That is what makes democracies better than anything else.
David:
North Korea, Russia, and China have plenty of laws. I don't want to live in any of those countries.
Doug:
That is our choice? Either we have laws (and are, therefore, like North Korea) or we live free? I think you threw the baby out with the bath water. No wonder you see "due process" issues at the heart of everything... due process is only relevant when there are laws.
David:
Hey, how'd we get here. I thought we were talking about who's coming to dinner, and is there a guest list...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!