With the inquisition of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s adolescence and high school yearbook a precedent, a serious question arises:

Has the #MeToo movement ushered in an era in which the childhood foibles people appointed or elected to significant public office will be investigated?

A friend who is the graduate of another famous, elite preparatory school wrote to me, and I quote it with permission:

The campus of Georgetown Prep resembles other elite private schools (source: Wikipedia)

I just received an email from the XXXX School’s current headmaster, sent to all alumni, intending to open up a conversation about times that situations have been “unsafe” between students and inviting people to report. This is a dangerous game, and I hope he knows what he’s wading in too. Extending #MeToo back in time to people’s high school interactions raises the specter of a sort of mutually-assured destruction….

I don’t believe Brett Kavanaugh did the things of which he’s accused. I do believe that similar things absolutely occurred among his cohort, up to and including the sort of things that Swetnick alleged. I know because I went to a similar high school and those were the sorts of rumors that were bandied about every Monday. There were always girls crying about the things that had occurred at weekend parties (to which I was never invited, having been a sort of self-selected outcast), and of course they went back to those same parties the next week.

It’s hard to tease out who was a perpetrator and who was a victim from such a scenario. Most of the very well-off kids I went to school with, many of whom probably subjected each other to all sorts of casual and sometimes vicious cruelties, are now successful, prominent, and hold reams of kompromat on each other, should airing such grievances out now be considered acceptable.

Now imagine the situation that faces the DC elite, many of whom went to these schools (and have kids at those schools today), and I think you can see why this is likely not to go too much further. Entirely too many people are potentially tainted — but the vast majority have also, well, moved on. It also doesn’t help that parents were usually looking the other way, or enabling the sort of alcohol-fueled behavior that caused people to do bad things. From my experience with the set at [XXXX School] who were always implicated in these sorts of rumors, their parents were usually the ones buying the booze. And some of those parents were no less than 9 sheets to the wind any time I saw them, too.

I want people to behave better. I hope that people reflect on what this window into high school behavior has shown them, and realize that participation in boozing and teenage sex, with all its attendant complications, is optional.

Sadly, I don’t think the correct lessons will be drawn, but the mututally assured destruction my friend mentions will influence behavior. 

With the inquisition of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s adolescence and high school yearbook a precedent, a serious question arises:

Has the #MeToo movement ushered in an era in which the childhood foibles people appointed or elected to significant public office will be investigated?

A friend who is the graduate of another famous, elite preparatory school wrote to me, and I quote it with permission:

The campus of Georgetown Prep resembles other elite private schools (source: Wikipedia)

I just received an email from the XXXX School’s current headmaster, sent to all alumni, intending to open up a conversation about times that situations have been “unsafe” between students and inviting people to report. This is a dangerous game, and I hope he knows what he’s wading in too. Extending #MeToo back in time to people’s high school interactions raises the specter of a sort of mutually-assured destruction….

I don’t believe Brett Kavanaugh did the things of which he’s accused. I do believe that similar things absolutely occurred among his cohort, up to and including the sort of things that Swetnick alleged. I know because I went to a similar high school and those were the sorts of rumors that were bandied about every Monday. There were always girls crying about the things that had occurred at weekend parties (to which I was never invited, having been a sort of self-selected outcast), and of course they went back to those same parties the next week.

It’s hard to tease out who was a perpetrator and who was a victim from such a scenario. Most of the very well-off kids I went to school with, many of whom probably subjected each other to all sorts of casual and sometimes vicious cruelties, are now successful, prominent, and hold reams of kompromat on each other, should airing such grievances out now be considered acceptable.

Now imagine the situation that faces the DC elite, many of whom went to these schools (and have kids at those schools today), and I think you can see why this is likely not to go too much further. Entirely too many people are potentially tainted — but the vast majority have also, well, moved on. It also doesn’t help that parents were usually looking the other way, or enabling the sort of alcohol-fueled behavior that caused people to do bad things. From my experience with the set at [XXXX School] who were always implicated in these sorts of rumors, their parents were usually the ones buying the booze. And some of those parents were no less than 9 sheets to the wind any time I saw them, too.

I want people to behave better. I hope that people reflect on what this window into high school behavior has shown them, and realize that participation in boozing and teenage sex, with all its attendant complications, is optional.

Sadly, I don’t think the correct lessons will be drawn, but the mututally assured destruction my friend mentions will influence behavior. 

Without a minute to spare, Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, jumped on the new NAFTA or U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement to ensure that Canada is not left at the station.

According to Politico:

The new pact, which is being called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is a major step toward completing one of Trump’s signature campaign promises and gives the president a concrete policy win to tout on the campaign trail this fall.  It also sets the stage for what is sure to be a high-stakes fight to get the agreement passed by Congress before it can become law.

It was another triumph for President Trump, who sought to revamp the 1994 trade agreement in the name of making it “fairer” for the U.S.

This, for Justin Trudeau, has got to sting, given his animosity with the U.S. president.  The shout-fest back in June at the G-7 summit in Quebec pretty well set the tone, and most recently, there was an argument about whether President Trump had refused to meet with the Canadian prime minister or asked for the meeting in the first place.  The two don’t get along.

But the problems went well beyond that.  Canada had a lot of tariffs still within the NAFTA treaty that didn’t sit well with the U.S., such as its tariffs on milk products, which constrained U.S. farmers and shut them out of any benefit from the trade pact.

Canada, which has a European-style system and sensibility, tended to be recalcitrant about changing anything, protecting as it could its cottage industries.  Trade negotiators have always told me it’s the developed countries that have the toughest time changing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. forged ahead with a new pact with Mexico, believed to be more favorable to U.S. manufacturing interests.  With Mexico’s presidency set to go to a leftist, the deadline was Sept. 30, so President Enrique Peña-Nieto could sign off before his successor could take over.

Mexico was all raring to go, and so should have been Canada.

But Canada didn’t quite take the Trump desire to alter the pact as seriously as Mexico did.  Mexico knows that its economy is within a hair’s breadth of going south.  Canada, not so much – well, until the shadow of the Trump train dawned on the Canadians and started to pull out.

Now Trudeau has jumped onboard despite everything, recognizing just how important U.S. trade without tariffs is to his country’s ultra-integrated economy.  Canada would have otherwise been left in the dust. 

Of course, he’s calling it a victory, but we all know what happened.

Score another one for the Trump train.  This one’s another victory for the U.S.

Without a minute to spare, Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, jumped on the new NAFTA or U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement to ensure that Canada is not left at the station.

According to Politico:

The new pact, which is being called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is a major step toward completing one of Trump’s signature campaign promises and gives the president a concrete policy win to tout on the campaign trail this fall.  It also sets the stage for what is sure to be a high-stakes fight to get the agreement passed by Congress before it can become law.

It was another triumph for President Trump, who sought to revamp the 1994 trade agreement in the name of making it “fairer” for the U.S.

This, for Justin Trudeau, has got to sting, given his animosity with the U.S. president.  The shout-fest back in June at the G-7 summit in Quebec pretty well set the tone, and most recently, there was an argument about whether President Trump had refused to meet with the Canadian prime minister or asked for the meeting in the first place.  The two don’t get along.

But the problems went well beyond that.  Canada had a lot of tariffs still within the NAFTA treaty that didn’t sit well with the U.S., such as its tariffs on milk products, which constrained U.S. farmers and shut them out of any benefit from the trade pact.

Canada, which has a European-style system and sensibility, tended to be recalcitrant about changing anything, protecting as it could its cottage industries.  Trade negotiators have always told me it’s the developed countries that have the toughest time changing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. forged ahead with a new pact with Mexico, believed to be more favorable to U.S. manufacturing interests.  With Mexico’s presidency set to go to a leftist, the deadline was Sept. 30, so President Enrique Peña-Nieto could sign off before his successor could take over.

Mexico was all raring to go, and so should have been Canada.

But Canada didn’t quite take the Trump desire to alter the pact as seriously as Mexico did.  Mexico knows that its economy is within a hair’s breadth of going south.  Canada, not so much – well, until the shadow of the Trump train dawned on the Canadians and started to pull out.

Now Trudeau has jumped onboard despite everything, recognizing just how important U.S. trade without tariffs is to his country’s ultra-integrated economy.  Canada would have otherwise been left in the dust. 

Of course, he’s calling it a victory, but we all know what happened.

Score another one for the Trump train.  This one’s another victory for the U.S.

Feminists have jumped on the Kavanaugh confirmation bandwagon in order to advocate the conviction of all men for the sexual assaults committed by a few men.  Senators Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono “are saying because women have been assaulted, you can’t vote for any man who has been accused,” explains author and TV commentator Bill O’Reilly.  ”So therefore anybody can raise an accusation to disqualify anyone from an appointed position or even running for office.”  That is the very definition of a witch hunt.

Is it important whether accusations of men by women are truthful?  It doesn’t matter, says Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.  ”Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard,” says Hirono, “but they need to be believed.”  Hirono expects all of the “enlightened men in our country” to rise up and say, “We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford.”  Poor, poor Dr. Ford.

Poor, poor United States of America when due process and respect for the truth go flying out the window.  We have always believed that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  We have always believed that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  The left wants to change all that when it is not convenient, as in the case of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.  We can thank the Democrats for perverting our judicial system in support of their political objectives.  The politically correct thing to do is (a) believe Ford by virtue of her sex and (b) place the burden on Kavanaugh to prove he didn’t do it.  Otherwise, say the Democrats, we could have a justice who might rule against progressive ideas like curtailing freedom of speech or replacing free markets with socialism.

Ford testified that her life has been ruined by the impact of a sexual assault.  It took real courage for her to come forward, argue the Democrats, exposing herself to the further indignity of media scrutiny and death threats.  So should we call Ford a “heroine” and “courageous” and a “very fine woman”?  If we do, we ignore her iniquitous behavior – she made a deliberate unsubstantiated accusation of another human being.  Ford’s assault does not give her the right to destroy the life of an innocent person.

Attacking a man like Judge Kavanaugh without evidence constitutes a reprehensible act.  Ford must assume responsibility for that.  If you believe she was telling the truth, that is a subjective opinion and does not change the fact that there is no evidence other than her statement that “he did it.”  Our system of justice allows no substitute for evidence.  The Democrats ask, what message are we sending to assault victims if we confirm Kavanaugh?  What message are we sending about the justice system if we don’t confirm him?

Prof. Ford may have been assaulted by someone, but without evidentiary proof that Judge Kavanaugh was that someone, the accusation should not have made it to the Senate committee.  It should have been vetted and put to sleep for lack of evidence.  Ford’s allegation that “he did it” is not evidence.  The accusation has been rebutted by the people she claims were there – including her own friend – and by Kavanaugh’s diary.  He swears he never attended the party where she was assaulted.

Was she lying?  Was he lying?  It doesn’t matter.  Did it happen to her or not?  That doesn’t matter, either.  What matters is, can she corroborate her accusation against Kavanaugh?  The question for the senators who will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, says Bill O’Reilly, is: “Was there anything you saw or heard that disqualifies Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court?”  The objective answer, O’Reilly insists, is no.

I watched Ford deliver her statement.  She appears to be a disturbed woman – 52 years old and a psychology professor but sounds as though she were 12.  Was her story an implanted memory created during her therapy sessions?  She spoke from a prepared script that read like a novel.  Was she coached on the content of the script?  Was she coached to behave like a victim?  Who paid for her lawyers?  For the polygraph test?  She doesn’t know!  My gut feeling, based on all of the above together with Kavanaugh’s thorough testimony, is that I don’t believe her.  But, as I said, it doesn’t matter.

What matters is that Ford is hiding behind her victimization in order to ruin Kavanaugh’s life without a single piece of evidence that he is the one who assaulted her 36 years ago.  She must be aware of this, unless she is not in her right mind.  Call her a heroine?  Put her on a pedestal?  Not me.  I’d sooner put her in prison for bearing false witness.

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.

Feminists have jumped on the Kavanaugh confirmation bandwagon in order to advocate the conviction of all men for the sexual assaults committed by a few men.  Senators Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono “are saying because women have been assaulted, you can’t vote for any man who has been accused,” explains author and TV commentator Bill O’Reilly.  ”So therefore anybody can raise an accusation to disqualify anyone from an appointed position or even running for office.”  That is the very definition of a witch hunt.

Is it important whether accusations of men by women are truthful?  It doesn’t matter, says Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.  ”Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard,” says Hirono, “but they need to be believed.”  Hirono expects all of the “enlightened men in our country” to rise up and say, “We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford.”  Poor, poor Dr. Ford.

Poor, poor United States of America when due process and respect for the truth go flying out the window.  We have always believed that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  We have always believed that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  The left wants to change all that when it is not convenient, as in the case of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.  We can thank the Democrats for perverting our judicial system in support of their political objectives.  The politically correct thing to do is (a) believe Ford by virtue of her sex and (b) place the burden on Kavanaugh to prove he didn’t do it.  Otherwise, say the Democrats, we could have a justice who might rule against progressive ideas like curtailing freedom of speech or replacing free markets with socialism.

Ford testified that her life has been ruined by the impact of a sexual assault.  It took real courage for her to come forward, argue the Democrats, exposing herself to the further indignity of media scrutiny and death threats.  So should we call Ford a “heroine” and “courageous” and a “very fine woman”?  If we do, we ignore her iniquitous behavior – she made a deliberate unsubstantiated accusation of another human being.  Ford’s assault does not give her the right to destroy the life of an innocent person.

Attacking a man like Judge Kavanaugh without evidence constitutes a reprehensible act.  Ford must assume responsibility for that.  If you believe she was telling the truth, that is a subjective opinion and does not change the fact that there is no evidence other than her statement that “he did it.”  Our system of justice allows no substitute for evidence.  The Democrats ask, what message are we sending to assault victims if we confirm Kavanaugh?  What message are we sending about the justice system if we don’t confirm him?

Prof. Ford may have been assaulted by someone, but without evidentiary proof that Judge Kavanaugh was that someone, the accusation should not have made it to the Senate committee.  It should have been vetted and put to sleep for lack of evidence.  Ford’s allegation that “he did it” is not evidence.  The accusation has been rebutted by the people she claims were there – including her own friend – and by Kavanaugh’s diary.  He swears he never attended the party where she was assaulted.

Was she lying?  Was he lying?  It doesn’t matter.  Did it happen to her or not?  That doesn’t matter, either.  What matters is, can she corroborate her accusation against Kavanaugh?  The question for the senators who will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, says Bill O’Reilly, is: “Was there anything you saw or heard that disqualifies Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court?”  The objective answer, O’Reilly insists, is no.

I watched Ford deliver her statement.  She appears to be a disturbed woman – 52 years old and a psychology professor but sounds as though she were 12.  Was her story an implanted memory created during her therapy sessions?  She spoke from a prepared script that read like a novel.  Was she coached on the content of the script?  Was she coached to behave like a victim?  Who paid for her lawyers?  For the polygraph test?  She doesn’t know!  My gut feeling, based on all of the above together with Kavanaugh’s thorough testimony, is that I don’t believe her.  But, as I said, it doesn’t matter.

What matters is that Ford is hiding behind her victimization in order to ruin Kavanaugh’s life without a single piece of evidence that he is the one who assaulted her 36 years ago.  She must be aware of this, unless she is not in her right mind.  Call her a heroine?  Put her on a pedestal?  Not me.  I’d sooner put her in prison for bearing false witness.

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.

No doubt, Trump-haters will portray this move by China as minor and meaningless, for they cannot admit any success on the part of the 45th president of the United States.  And so far, details are lacking, but this bulletin from Reuters reports that a “wide range of products” are to benefit from Chinese tariff cuts:

China will cut import tariffs on textile products and metals, including steel products, to 8.4 percent from 11.5 percent, effective Nov. 1, the finance ministry said on Sunday. …

Earlier in July, China reduced import tariffs on a range of consumer items including apparel, cosmetics, home appliances, and fitness products to fulfil pledges to further open China’s consumer market.

Import tariffs on wood and paper products, minerals and gemstones will be cut to 5.4 percent from 6.6 percent, the ministry also said in its statement.

Average import tariffs on over fifteen hundred products will be lowered to 7.8 percent from 10.5 percent, the ministry said.

Container ships may now have more cargo to haul to China (Image via NOAA).

To be sure, China’s high tariffs on manufactured automobiles and many other products remain in place.  But these are not merely symbolic.  China is pushing this for P.R. reasons, but the overall impact is represented by this figure:

The overall tariff level will be reduced to 7.5 percent in 2018 from 9.8 percent in 2017 as a result, the cabinet has said.

That cut is a 23.5% percent cut in the average tariff level.

No doubt, Trump-haters will portray this move by China as minor and meaningless, for they cannot admit any success on the part of the 45th president of the United States.  And so far, details are lacking, but this bulletin from Reuters reports that a “wide range of products” are to benefit from Chinese tariff cuts:

China will cut import tariffs on textile products and metals, including steel products, to 8.4 percent from 11.5 percent, effective Nov. 1, the finance ministry said on Sunday. …

Earlier in July, China reduced import tariffs on a range of consumer items including apparel, cosmetics, home appliances, and fitness products to fulfil pledges to further open China’s consumer market.

Import tariffs on wood and paper products, minerals and gemstones will be cut to 5.4 percent from 6.6 percent, the ministry also said in its statement.

Average import tariffs on over fifteen hundred products will be lowered to 7.8 percent from 10.5 percent, the ministry said.

Container ships may now have more cargo to haul to China (Image via NOAA).

To be sure, China’s high tariffs on manufactured automobiles and many other products remain in place.  But these are not merely symbolic.  China is pushing this for P.R. reasons, but the overall impact is represented by this figure:

The overall tariff level will be reduced to 7.5 percent in 2018 from 9.8 percent in 2017 as a result, the cabinet has said.

That cut is a 23.5% percent cut in the average tariff level.