Guilty or Innocent ( why it matters)

In our society, it is appropriate and just that we think of people as innocent until proven guilty.  Most of the time the accused is arrested and assumed to be guilty.   Throw in politics and everything changes.  That was seen in the Kavanaugh hearings for Supreme Court Justice.  We lose sight of the fact that Brett Kavanaugh had a very prestigious job and career before this began.  Throw in politics and the entire matter is altered beyond recognition.  During the hearings, one side was so predictably the prosecution and the other the defense team.  The Senate, where the hearing was held, was controlled by one party that is a binary opposite of the other party, in the simplistic notion of understanding a matter of guilt and innocence in purely binary terms.  Most of the best defense arguments for the accused said: "you were not present when Dr. Ford was hurt.  You don't know what happened." 

The problem was that one theory was that nothing happened at all.  Maybe Dr. Ford made up the whole thing and went before the entire nation to put forth a political agenda.  Hmm.  Then the accused made up an alleged alternate perpetrator.  Actually, that is better than ignoring the mere possibility that the victim had been hurt.  That would be disturbing to suggest that we should ignore the mere possibility that someone hurt her.  How do we fix that matter?  If we can't know then by definition we have to consider that someone hurt the victim, Dr. Ford and half the nation didn't seem concerned.  I can't say that no one cared because that would be insulting but it seemed to be that we were sending that message to her.  If a person is hurt and later politics get involved your hurt won't matter to some people.  Some might say that this is a simple binary opinion based on politics.  Things get more complicated when you recognize that a Democrat, abused his power as president and took advantage of an intern.    

Moveon and the Democrats made this a political matter and said that Bill Clinton is doing a good job for the cause of women so let's move on.  Maybe that is okay to do but not until we first consider the victims of the abuse of power.  No one's perfect and people do get hurt.  Clarence Thomas was a great choice for the first African-American Supreme Court nominee but if he hurt Anita Hill that doesn't do any favors to any gender or race.  It certainly has nothing to do with politics.  This time a president with an R after his name nominates a person to the Supreme Court and all the 'R' people defend him.  The 'D' people in the Senate go about a futile effort to interfere with the process.  A powerful 'R' person announces that this will not be allowed and that the nominee will be accepted no matter what.  Pathetic "D' people get mad and further add to the political spectacle.  Protestor women are described and dangerous mobs who want to hurt the Senators, this is the word from the "C" station people who support the current 'R' party people.  

if it were a mere matter of a man wanting to protect his innocence, in my experience, if you can't prove it then it's best to keep a low profile.  joining the highest court in the greatest nation in the world doesn't lend itself to a low profile.  Maybe an allegedly innocent man would feel that dropping out would imply he was guilty.  The alternative is giving half the nation and a portion of the entire civilization of the world a reason to think about you and whether or not you hurt a woman.  A low profile would lessen the chances that people think too much about the guilt or innocence of you.  It would be better to say "I did this but I had no idea how much it would hurt Dr. Ford.  I was foolish.  I was just a minor at the time.  I am sorry."   

Nothing even remotely close to that happened.  Politics happened.  I am sorry Dr. Blassey-Ford.  Obviously, you were hurt.