Good post Graham. Our problem in America today is that our systems are broken. A Representative Republic only works if all parties agree to uphold the Constitution and the Law. Our Constitution defines three co-equal branches of Government. What we currently have in one unelected, unappointed co-conspirator smashing his way into the former Governmental Agencies and taking them over undeterred. This has occurred because the other duly elected co-conspirator is A. lazy, B. stupid and C. suffering from either old age dementia or Alzheimner's dementia. Because the Democratic party of which I was a card carrying member did nothing to control the take over of the Supreme Court and partial take over of the appellate circuit courts by judges who refuse to uphold the Constitution as written or the longstanding rule of law.
Aside from all that, members of legislature from both parties were far more interested in getting rich quick as were too many members of or society in general.
Meanwhile our central news agencies also decided greed was good and pandered to the rich and famous instead of simply reporting the news.
Now we are reaping the fruits of our bad seeding.
We still have a chance to redeem our good qualities, but only if we act fast and with surety. Since I am now old and decrepit I'm reduced to bitching and cheering from the sidelines and being grateful that however bad it gets, I won't be around to witness the depths of depravity.
Thank you, Fay, and it's good to hear from you again!
"I'm reduced to bitching and cheering." I read every word that is written in these comments, and I think about every word, as well - if people take the time and trouble to write them, then I will take the time to consider them; and these are true, for me as for you. And these are two things that you and I do do, and if we do nothing else, we can do that: lend our voices to the chorus of protest, against what we oppose, and cheers for that which we endorse. Bravo.
Europe is headed right in a different manner to how the United States of America has headed right. We're being dragged right by Germany, by Austria, by Italy. By the very nations that dragged us right a century ago. We, too, left ourselves to be ruled by common understandings that are not commonly understood any more.
But if we firmly bolt into place the institutions that we, the left, want, then do we not rule by duress, the same duress that is now being exerted against us? I have never been one to want to rule others. I've always sought to persuade others to come to a consensus with me through rational argument and reasoning. And if we could not arrive at a common understanding, then, alas, we would need to part ways. But parting ways is less attractive when those who will not come to consensus themselves seek to rule by duress.
The problem is now to know at whom to bitch, and who to cheer on. And people must look within themselves to know which they will do for whom. And once they know, then let us at least bitch and cheer together, to our last breath if need be.
Very nice article. The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. The entitled are unfortunately presumed more innocent than the rest of us making a mockery of all that is good.
I guess what I meant by sacrosanct is that is something that we should hold a such, something we should always strive to achieve, something that is valuable like Freedom of Speech. We have seen an erosion of these values on college campuses where authorities have gone to the side of believing women 100 percent if they allege that they have been sexually assaulted. This removes presumption of innocence. While the court leaves much to be desired for women in such cases, I don’t believe we should abandon the principle. Also, in the time of social media many men have had their lives ruined by accusations without proof online. Modern life has made life complicated.
I believe Coombs is guilty but he still has to have his day in court and he may be found innocent because he can afford the best of attorneys as in the case of OJ.
Thank you, Craig. The "presumption of innocence" is three little words. It is akin to "all are equal before the law". Or "one man, one vote", or "justice is blind".
The German constitution contains a very simple principle, expressed in three words: "Bundesrecht bricht Landesrecht." It's article 31. It's not IN article 31, it IS article 31. A three-word article. It means (English can never be so succinct) "Federal law prevails over state law." And, what's more, it is inviolable: it is not subject to interpretation, because there is no argument about what is federal and what is state law.
But "one man, one vote" is violable, when the rights of men to vote get qualified, or when the inability to vote is not circumvented by the ability to vote by post. "All are equal before the law" is claptrap pure, because they quite simply aren't, as Mr Trump himself shows. And "presumption of innocence", as I say in the second sentence, is open to question. Do you think Combs is innocent (he will plead that in May)? Do you think he will be tried fairly by his peers, the jury? Or should we save ourselves the expense and the circus of a trial and pack him off to prison now? Will his trial do naught but pay lip service to that principle?
So, although I agree with you, I wonder what it even means to say "the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct", because nothing is sacrosanct that is susceptible to the machinations of those who hold high the principle they vaunt as sacrosanct.
Principles are hard enough to abide by; sacrosanct principles pose especial challenges for our sense of rectitude. But they give us a lot to think about.
Also the me too advocates dismiss the innocent men as collateral damage in their efforts to right the wrongs they see in society? What do you think of that?
I agree. I was brought up to protect women and I am not advocating in any way silencing women. The bandwagon effect is dangerous a la “The Satanic Panic,” where an innocent family were incarcerated for 14 years.
But, it's like a street protest: many are there to lend their voice to call out injustice, and some use the march as cover to engage in rioting or criminal damage. Is the protest to blame for those who abuse it to create mischief? Is it not right that people should speak out? Who bears responsibility if their cause gets hijacked by those who create mayhem?
The town of Barrow in England was rocked a few years ago by a plethora of accusations by one resident, who destroyed the lives of many innocent men. She was sent to prison for her acts, but her version of events prevailed for a long time (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/eleanor-williams-jailed-lying-rapes-trafficking). #MeToo was a means for her to gain attention and sympathy for herself, even if she was #MeNot.
Good post Graham. Our problem in America today is that our systems are broken. A Representative Republic only works if all parties agree to uphold the Constitution and the Law. Our Constitution defines three co-equal branches of Government. What we currently have in one unelected, unappointed co-conspirator smashing his way into the former Governmental Agencies and taking them over undeterred. This has occurred because the other duly elected co-conspirator is A. lazy, B. stupid and C. suffering from either old age dementia or Alzheimner's dementia. Because the Democratic party of which I was a card carrying member did nothing to control the take over of the Supreme Court and partial take over of the appellate circuit courts by judges who refuse to uphold the Constitution as written or the longstanding rule of law.
Aside from all that, members of legislature from both parties were far more interested in getting rich quick as were too many members of or society in general.
Meanwhile our central news agencies also decided greed was good and pandered to the rich and famous instead of simply reporting the news.
Now we are reaping the fruits of our bad seeding.
We still have a chance to redeem our good qualities, but only if we act fast and with surety. Since I am now old and decrepit I'm reduced to bitching and cheering from the sidelines and being grateful that however bad it gets, I won't be around to witness the depths of depravity.
Thank you, Fay, and it's good to hear from you again!
"I'm reduced to bitching and cheering." I read every word that is written in these comments, and I think about every word, as well - if people take the time and trouble to write them, then I will take the time to consider them; and these are true, for me as for you. And these are two things that you and I do do, and if we do nothing else, we can do that: lend our voices to the chorus of protest, against what we oppose, and cheers for that which we endorse. Bravo.
Europe is headed right in a different manner to how the United States of America has headed right. We're being dragged right by Germany, by Austria, by Italy. By the very nations that dragged us right a century ago. We, too, left ourselves to be ruled by common understandings that are not commonly understood any more.
But if we firmly bolt into place the institutions that we, the left, want, then do we not rule by duress, the same duress that is now being exerted against us? I have never been one to want to rule others. I've always sought to persuade others to come to a consensus with me through rational argument and reasoning. And if we could not arrive at a common understanding, then, alas, we would need to part ways. But parting ways is less attractive when those who will not come to consensus themselves seek to rule by duress.
The problem is now to know at whom to bitch, and who to cheer on. And people must look within themselves to know which they will do for whom. And once they know, then let us at least bitch and cheer together, to our last breath if need be.
Very nice article. The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. The entitled are unfortunately presumed more innocent than the rest of us making a mockery of all that is good.
I guess what I meant by sacrosanct is that is something that we should hold a such, something we should always strive to achieve, something that is valuable like Freedom of Speech. We have seen an erosion of these values on college campuses where authorities have gone to the side of believing women 100 percent if they allege that they have been sexually assaulted. This removes presumption of innocence. While the court leaves much to be desired for women in such cases, I don’t believe we should abandon the principle. Also, in the time of social media many men have had their lives ruined by accusations without proof online. Modern life has made life complicated.
I believe Coombs is guilty but he still has to have his day in court and he may be found innocent because he can afford the best of attorneys as in the case of OJ.
Yes, OJ. Oh dear. :-)
Thank you, Craig. The "presumption of innocence" is three little words. It is akin to "all are equal before the law". Or "one man, one vote", or "justice is blind".
The German constitution contains a very simple principle, expressed in three words: "Bundesrecht bricht Landesrecht." It's article 31. It's not IN article 31, it IS article 31. A three-word article. It means (English can never be so succinct) "Federal law prevails over state law." And, what's more, it is inviolable: it is not subject to interpretation, because there is no argument about what is federal and what is state law.
But "one man, one vote" is violable, when the rights of men to vote get qualified, or when the inability to vote is not circumvented by the ability to vote by post. "All are equal before the law" is claptrap pure, because they quite simply aren't, as Mr Trump himself shows. And "presumption of innocence", as I say in the second sentence, is open to question. Do you think Combs is innocent (he will plead that in May)? Do you think he will be tried fairly by his peers, the jury? Or should we save ourselves the expense and the circus of a trial and pack him off to prison now? Will his trial do naught but pay lip service to that principle?
So, although I agree with you, I wonder what it even means to say "the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct", because nothing is sacrosanct that is susceptible to the machinations of those who hold high the principle they vaunt as sacrosanct.
Principles are hard enough to abide by; sacrosanct principles pose especial challenges for our sense of rectitude. But they give us a lot to think about.
Also the me too advocates dismiss the innocent men as collateral damage in their efforts to right the wrongs they see in society? What do you think of that?
I agree. I was brought up to protect women and I am not advocating in any way silencing women. The bandwagon effect is dangerous a la “The Satanic Panic,” where an innocent family were incarcerated for 14 years.
Elsewhere I have recently written about bandwagons (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/an-inspector-calls).
#MeToo unquestionably gave those who'd been wronged the courage to speak out. I've just read a report about ships' crews abandoned in foreign ports by the owners of their vessels, who are desperate but frightened to speak out, for fear of being blacklisted (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/losing-hope-with-every-day-that-passes-torment-of-the-ships-crews-abandoned-at-sea). They will only speak to journalists if their names are hidden.
But, it's like a street protest: many are there to lend their voice to call out injustice, and some use the march as cover to engage in rioting or criminal damage. Is the protest to blame for those who abuse it to create mischief? Is it not right that people should speak out? Who bears responsibility if their cause gets hijacked by those who create mayhem?
The town of Barrow in England was rocked a few years ago by a plethora of accusations by one resident, who destroyed the lives of many innocent men. She was sent to prison for her acts, but her version of events prevailed for a long time (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/eleanor-williams-jailed-lying-rapes-trafficking). #MeToo was a means for her to gain attention and sympathy for herself, even if she was #MeNot.