Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Welcome to Rantopolis
I was busy today. I kept working even when I encountered the kind of crap that usually drives me up a tree. Instead of letting myself stew in static fury, though, I tried to make little notes to myself, which I then filled out into full-fledged rants. And in the interest of getting the furies out of my head, I’ll share them with you!
The first one was prompted by this sex harassment case which was won by default - the harasser never even bothered to answer the complaint, much less to appear in court. A judgment was entered against him and then he filed bankruptcy to try to avoid his responsibility to pay. And here’s the thing that kills me: HE GOT AWAY WITH IT. The court looked to a rule that said that debts caused by willful or malicious conduct were not discharged in bankruptcy - they don’t go away, you still have to pay them. The court then looked to a case where a doctor was able to discharge a malpractice debt, because his actions hadn’t been willful or malicious. The part that amazes me is that the court then ruled that exposing oneself, making demeaning and harassing comments, and forcing unwanted physical contact are not willful or malicious behavior - or, more accurately, that the behavior was not willfully or maliciously intended to cause harm. He was just having fun, and the damage he did was an unintended consequence for which he was entitled to evade responsibility.
This is nothing less than an abortion of justice. Harassment is willful and malicious by definition. You could argue that this is an “intent” crime, that it’s “wanting” to do it that makes it wrong - like a consipiracy charge or “intended murder” or any of those thought-based charges - but once the victim complains, the effect is known and any claim of “ignorance” is utterly vitiated. He didn’t even bother to contest the charges on a direct trial - which means that the matter was res judicata ("the thing has been adjudicated") already. The charges were effectively conceded below by his utter failure to deny them, under the principle that one is generally expected to deny accusations that, if not denied, would in and of themselves stain the accused with infamy. After his failure to defend himself against these allegations in a direct trial, how is he now allowed to raise them anew in bankruptcy? It is nothing more than a fraud on the court by a man who manipulates people and systems alike for his own benefit. And now the victim has “lost interest” in the case; she refused to testify at his bankruptcy hearing (which is probably evidence that she’s “moved on” and doesn’t want this prick to control her life and emotions anymore). The judge there wasn’t willing to use the old trial transcript and testimony in place of live testimony, so the harasser’s denials - offered for the first time before the bankruptcy judge - were not controverted and received the court’s deference.
Which is why so many courts receive so little of mine.
*****
My next rant had to do with the president’s response to the Swift Boat Veterans’ ad criticizing John Kerry’s war record and leadership. I’ve heard the president, his advisors and his staff all recite repeatedly that the problem is the existence of these “527 organizations” through which citizens band together to promulgate some political message. They have nothing to say about the content, but want the Kerry campaign to join them in condemning these out-of-control private groups. “Let’s not talk about the message, but about the medium. These groups are bad, regardless of what they’re saying. And if they’re saying baldfaced lies, that’s not the problem. Their very existence is the problem.” That’s the GOP message I’ve heard, anyway.
I finally figured out what I hate about that response: it’s fundamentally undemocractic. Participation in political discourse is a critical democratic right, without which the right to vote itself is significantly weakened . That’s what these organizations are doing - making statements they consider important in the most important election in a very long time. (And yes I’m completely ignoring the issue of partisanship and relation-back to the candidate. Let’s take them at their word that the SBVs are not part of the “Bush Machine.” Right.) The republican problem with these groups now is that the democrats are using them with equal effectiveness, neutralizing republican strengths and opening the right up to attack. My problem is not with the idea that people are engaging in political speech, but that Bush will not articulate a position with regard to the content of the Swift Boat ad. Americans should take pride in a citizenship that supports open and vigorous political debate. But the candidates then have a responsibility to respond to the voice of the people as well as to that of their opponents, and Bush owes the country a statement of position on the content of that ad. Are they lying on your behalf, Mr. President? Then say so. Or say that you believe them and think Kerry’s a liar. But don’t try to take the power of the pen out of our hands Mr. President - even if it’s only being used to sign a check, it’s more power than you can handle.
*****
Finally, I read a budget about a program to deal with schools that are inaccessible to handicapped students, and I had to write this out before I could see straight again:
* So you say this campus is ADA-compliant?
* Our facilities are completely accessible; it’s not even a question here.
* Great, glad to hear it. Let’s take a tour to confirm it, okay?
* It’s hardly necessary but if you insist…
* Sure let’s just get my translator.
* We’re both speaking english here. Why do you need a translator?
* Well, we’re both speaking english - but are we both speaking the same language? Let me bring something in—okay, here’s your wheelchair. Great, now, sit here and let me make sure you’re comfortable.
* What the hell is this?
* This is my translator. You tell me accessiblity is a non-issue here. I wonder if that means that you’ve dealt with it so effectively that you don’t need to worry about it anymore, or that you have never given it any thought whatsoever. This translator will help me understand you more clearly on this subject. Now sit down and wheel me to the bathroom so I can see how you get in the door there.
* This is ridiculous. How do you expect me to get around here in this thing? I can’t even get out of this office!
* I guess I’ve got my answer then. “It’s not even a question” means “I can’t be bothered to consider it.” You’re out of compliance. And you’re ignorant too.
Well I feel a lot better now. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
