Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Identity politics as divide and conquer

Clintonism is about playing the "identity politics" as a bulwark against any class or populist upheaval
that might threaten neoliberalism. 

 

News Identity politics as diversion of attention from social inequality Recommended Links Class Struggle In The USA Bait and Switch  Divide and conquer strategy
Hillary Clinton faux feminism Bill Clinton, the founder of "Vichy left" Divide and conquer strategy Predator state  Deception as an art form Neoliberal Propaganda: Journalism In the Service of the
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair The Deep State The Iron Law of Oligarchy Elite Theory Leo Strauss and the Neocons  
Obama: a yet another Neocon Mayberry Machiavellians John Dilulio letter Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism "F*ck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Fifth Column of Neoliberal Globalization
Neoliberalism as a New form of Corporatism The ability and willingness to employ savage methods Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Color revolutions   IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Powerful Few
American Exceptionalism Corporatism Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton      
Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living  From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss Big Uncle is Watching You   Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Identity politics refers to attempts to split working people and middle class in such a way that it no longer represented a threat to neoliberlim in the USA or other country. It is a variant of Divide and conquer strategy

Identity politics artificially amplifies aspects of their identity  that are different then their social status.  Examples include race, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, culture, language.

The term identity politics came into being during the latter part of the 20th century, during the Civil Rights Era, but the first king of identity politics and associated "bat and switch" of voters was Bill Clinton. He was followed by Barak Obma with him important "bat and switch" maneuvers (aka "change we can believe in").

While the term is popularly used when referring to national identity, Hillary Clinton was adept of playing gender to divide voters.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. discussed early attempt to use identity politics to split and marginalize working class and middle class in his book The Disuniting of America. Schlesinger, a strong supporter of liberal conceptions of civil rights, argues that a liberal democracy requires a common basis for culture and society to function.

In his view, basing politics on group marginalization fractures the civil polity. Schlesinger believes that nationalist and rasicl movements such as "movement for civil rights"  should aim "toward integration of marginalized groups into the mainstream culture, rather than...perpetuating that marginalization through affirmations of difference".[13]

Recently identity politics was aptly played in LGBT sphere. Such issues as gay marriage and bathroom access served as powerful destruction from more important social issue for almost 20 years. Brendan O'Neill has contrasted the politics of gay liberation and identity politics by saying "... [Peter] Tatchell also had, back in the day, was a commitment to the politics of liberation, which encouraged gays to come out and live and engage. Now, we have the politics of identity, which invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the world—from any questioning."[14] Left-wing author Owen Jones rightly claims that identity politics is directed mainly toward marginalization of the working class and as such represent a dirty political trick used now by neolibrals to stay in power: 

In the 1950s and 1960s, left-wing intellectuals who were both inspired and informed by a powerful labour movement wrote hundreds of books and articles on working-class issues. Such work would help shape the views of politicians at the very top of the Labour Party. Today, progressive intellectuals are far more interested in issues of identity. ... Of course, the struggles for the emancipation of women, gays, and ethnic minorities are exceptionally important causes. New Labour has co-opted them, passing genuinely progressive legislation on gay equality and women's rights, for example. But it is an agenda that has happily co-existed with the sidelining of the working class in politics, allowing New Labour to protect its radical flank while pressing ahead with Thatcherite policies.

— Owen Jones, Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class[15]

Emphasizing and promoting groups based on shared identity, other than class (e.g., religious identity, gender, etc ), can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues, such as class conflict in capitalist societies.

Such arguments have been expressed by a number of writers, such as Eric Hobsbawm,[16] Todd Gitlin,[17] Michael Tomasky, Richard Rorty, Sean Wilentz, Robert W. McChesney, Bart Landry, and Jim Sleeper.[18] Hobsbawm, in particular, has criticized nationalisms, and the principle of national self-determination adopted internationally after World War I, since national governments are often merely an expression of a ruling class or power, and their proliferation was a source of the wars of the 20th century. Hence Hobsbawm argues that identity politics, such as queer nationalism, Islamism, Cornish nationalism or Ulster Loyalism are just other versions of bourgeois nationalism.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 16, 2018] Social Justice Warriors Aren't Funny

Notable quotes:
"... The Green Room with Paul Provenza ..."
Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

There's an older episode of The Green Room with Paul Provenza when the late Patrice O'Neal, arguably one of the best stand-up comics in recent history, gets serious for a moment, saying: "I love being able to say anything I want. I had to learn how to stop caring about people not laughing. Because the idea of comedy, really, is not everybody should be laughing. It should be about 50 people laughing and 50 people horrified. There should be people who get it and people who don't get it."

O'Neal gets right to the chaotic, trickster heart of comedy with that statement. Comedy at its best balances humor against shock–not necessarily vulgarity, mind you, but a sort of unsettling surprise. It's a topsy-turvy glimpse at an uncanny, upside-down world, which, if the joke lands, provides a bulwark against torpor and complacency. Great comedy inhabits the absurdity of the world. It makes itself into a vantage point from which everything seems delightfully ridiculous, including (often especially) the comedians themselves. We wouldn't need comedy in a world that wasn't absurd. Perhaps that's why Dante only included humor in his Inferno . There is no absurdity in paradise.

Unfortunately, Hannah Gadsby's Nanette , a comedy special recently released on Netflix, only embraces the non-laughter half of O'Neal's dictum. It's the very epitome of self-serious, brittle, didactic, SJW "comedy." It's not funny. And worse, it's not meant to be.

Gadsby, a queer Australian comedian, uses her "stand-up special" as a way to destroy the very medium she pretends to be professionally engaged in. Her basic argument is that, since comedy is by its very nature self-deprecating (true), people who define themselves as members of an oppressed minority shouldn't engage in comedy because they're only participating in the violence already being done to them by society at large.


Arthur Sido October 16, 2018 at 8:21 am

We have allowed "social justice" types, a tiny fringe minority of unhappy and often unstable people, rewrite the rules of our entire civilization and culture.
David J. White , says: October 16, 2018 at 10:19 am
All the way back to Aristophanes comedy has often included a political component or an effort to "educate" audiences or at least make them think about things. But the actual comedy part is essential. Otherwise it's just a lecture.
JimDandy , says: October 16, 2018 at 2:23 pm
We might just be witnessing the death of Art. As the SJW furies brutally and effectively enforce The Narrative in literary fiction, film, TV, comedy, etc. they destroy the potential for creative genius in these mediums and kill off most of the audience. It was already hard enough for those arts to compete with new media forms. The SJW's hostile takeover of Art just makes the triumph of Real Life As Entertainment all the more complete.

Whereas twenty years ago I might be spending my free time reading a novel and attempting to write a short story, today I'm reading articles on The American Conservative and posting this comment.

[Oct 16, 2018] The "Grievance Studies" hoax exposes postmodernist charlatans by Eric London

Notable quotes:
"... Gender, Place and Culture ..."
"... the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth. ..."
"... 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else." ..."
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
Oct 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

On October 2, Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian published an article titled "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship," incorporating the results of a year-long effort to publish hoax articles, deliberately comprised of bunk facts and irrational and reactionary conclusions, in academic journals associated with gender, racial and identity studies.

The results expose the intellectual bankruptcy of identity politics and postmodernist philosophy. Their proponents, who dominate university humanities departments worldwide, are charlatans who have published or given favorable "revise and resubmit" comments to the most absurd and vulgar pseudo-scientific arguments.

These include: a purported 1,000-hour study of dog "humping" patterns at dog parks that concludes by calling for human males to be "trained" like dogs to prevent rape culture; a long-form poem produced through a teenage angst poetry generator about women holding spiritual-sexual "moon meetings" in a secret "womb room" and praying to a "vulva shrine;" a proposal to develop feminist robots, trained to think irrationally, to control humanity and subjugate white men; and additional articles relating to male masturbation. Another proposal, which was praised by reviewers in a paper that was ultimately rejected, encouraged teachers to place white students in chains to be shamed for their "white privilege."

There is an element of humor in the fact that such drivel could win accolades from academics and journals. The "dog park" article was even selected as one of the most influential contributions in the history of the Gender, Place and Culture journal!

But the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth.

Most chillingly, the authors also submitted a re-write of a chapter from Hitler's Mein Kampf , with language altered to reference female identity and feminism. The paper, titled "Our struggle is my struggle: solidarity feminism as an intersectional reply to neoliberal and choice feminism," was accepted for publication and greeted with favorable reviews.

"I am extremely sympathetic to this article's argument and its political positioning," one academic wrote. Another said, "I am very sympathetic to the core arguments of the paper."

In the wake of their public disclosure, Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have come under attack by the proponents of postmodernism and identity politics, who claim the hoax is a right-wing attack on "social justice" disciplines.

Typical is the argument of Daniel Engber, who wrote in Slate : "How timely, too, that this secret project should be published in the midst of the Kavanaugh imbroglio -- a time when the anger and the horror of male anxiety is so resplendent in the news. 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else."

In reality, the hoax has exposed the fact that it is the proponents of identity politics who are advancing views parallel to the far right. While they are enraged with those who voice concern about the elimination of due process and the presumption of innocence for the targets of the #MeToo campaign, they are unbothered by the fact that the writings of Adolf Hitler are published and praised in feminist academic circles.

Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian are self-described liberals who are concerned that the present identity hysteria is "pushing the culture war to ever more toxic and existential polarization," by fanning the flames of the far right. As a result, identitarians are "affecting activism on behalf of women and racial and sexual minorities in a way which is counterproductive to equality aims by feeding into right-wing reactionary opposition to those equality objectives."

In contrast, the authors' aim is to "give people -- especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice -- a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, 'No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.'"

The hoax's authors are correct to link the identity politics proponents' hostility to equality with their opposition to rationalism, scientific analysis and the progressive gains of the Enlightenment. But the roots of this right-wing, irrationalist, anti-egalitarian degeneration are to be found in the economic structure of capitalist society.

The academic architects of postmodernism and identity politics occupy well-paid positions in academia, often with salaries upwards of $100,000–$300,000 or more. As a social layer, the theoreticians of what the World Socialist Web Site refers to as the "pseudo-left" are in the wealthiest 10 percent of American society. Their political and philosophical views express their social interests.

The obsession with "privilege," sex, and racial and gender identity is a mechanism by which members and groups within this layer fight among themselves for income, social status and positions of privilege, using degrees of "oppression" to one up each other in the fight for tenure track jobs, positions on corporate or non-profit boards, or election to public office. A chief purpose of the #MeToo campaign, for example, is to replace male executives and male politicians with women, while ignoring the social needs of the vast majority of working class women.

The weaponization of identity politics is directed down the social ladder as well. By advancing the lie that white workers benefit from "white privilege," for example, the proponents of identity politics argue: the spoils of Wall Street should not go to meeting the social needs of the working class, including white workers, who face record rates of alcoholism, poverty, opioid addiction, police violence and other indices of social misery. Instead, the world's resources should go to me . It is this visceral class hatred that serves as the basis for absurd and reactionary arguments like those advanced in the hoax papers.

Nor have the politics of racial identity improved the material conditions for the vast majority of minority workers. Inequality within racial minorities has increased alongside the introduction of affirmative action programs and the increasing dominance of identity politics in academia and bourgeois politics. In 2016, the top 1 percent of Latinos owned 45 percent of all Latino wealth, while the top 1 percent of African-Americans owned 40.5 percent and the richest whites owned 36.5 percent of white wealth.

The influence of postmodernism in academia exploded in the aftermath of the mass protests of the 1960s and early 1970s. Based explicitly on a rejection of the revolutionary role of the working class and opposition to the "meta narrative" of socialist revolution, it is not accidental that identity politics and postmodernism have now been adopted as official ideological mechanisms of bourgeois rule.

In recent decades, a massive identity politics industry has been erected, with billions of dollars available from corporate funds and trusts for journals, non-profits, publications, fellowships and political groups advancing racial or gender politics. Identity politics has come to form a central component of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy. Imperialist wars are justified on the grounds that the US is intervening to protect women, LGBT people and other minorities.

The growing movement of the working class, broadening strikes across industries and widespread interest in socialism on college campuses pose an existential threat to the domination of postmodernism. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have struck a well-timed blow against this reactionary obstacle to the development of scientific socialist consciousness.

Eric London

[Oct 16, 2018] An Ivy League School For SJW Service

Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

grumpy realist October 15, 2018 at 2:56 pm

This is the liberal arts equivalent of what happened in Soviet Russia with its "revealed truth" ideas.

I suspect it will die at some point as the revolutionaries turn on each other. It will also die off with further exposure to reality. You can deconstruct the use of gender in the German language as much as you want and scream loudly about the use of "der, die, das" and so forth. But you know what? People are going to continue using them.

(In fact, if I wanted to blow up the whole silly mess from the inside, that's what I would do. Start a movement to "get rid of gender" in the gendered languages and turn all po-mo arguments into total jokes.)

GuyGisbourne , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Identity politics has jumped the shark. SJW's are a minority who wish to perpetuate identity politics as an end all, be all substitute for the hard work of framing actual policy. The whole undertaking is flailing -- and backlash to PC culture had much to do with how Trump got elected. So let the Ivy League schools continue down the path toward irrelevance.
connecticut farmer , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:04 pm
Although the ID of the university was withheld, while I was reading this piece–and at the risk of being unnecessarily coy–there was one word used which jumped off the screen, so I think I have a pretty good idea which school it is. Then again, does it really matter? This kind of soft-core bolshevism has, to one degree or another, infected all of the Ivies as well as most, if not all, of the Forbes Top 50.

I have no idea who this gentleman is about whom Rod is writing but it is clear that he is quite intelligent and is trying to bring something of value to the table. If he has reached the end of his tether and feels the necessity to bail, then it'll be the university's loss, not his.

Positivethinker , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:09 pm
If you are a conservative – student/staff/faculty in an ivy league university. Be careful what you say
Your thoughts are not welcome. And everybody knows that.
Old West , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:11 pm
Back in Soviet times, scientific positions were frequently filled with incompetent but politically connected people. STEM can be corrupted–although the resultant failings are much more clearly noticeable.

Back in the Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" (the book, not the movie, where this was scrubbed out), what sets off Marko Ramius was that his wife died in a botched surgery performed by an incompetent doctor who was in his job because of his political connections. Clancy based this event on numerous stories reported by Soviets of the time.

[Oct 15, 2018] At a Workshop Last Week, a CERN Scientist Said 'Physics Was Invented and Built by Men -- Not By Invitation'; CERN Has Suspended the Scientist

Notable quotes:
"... [Google Drive link] ..."
"... It's better to just keep your mouth shut sometimes, even if your teeth grind, and your lips go blue, and you get cobwebs in your mouth. ..."
"... Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to do a conference about gender roles in society? ..."
"... Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender preference. ..."
"... He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people. ..."
"... Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now. As far as whether it's appropriate - he's reacting to a huge political movement that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this. ..."
"... The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished. ..."
"... I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com]. An archive just in case. [archive.is] And enjoy the witch hunt in action. [twitter.com] ..."
"... It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women. Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did the modern version of burning books. ..."
Oct 15, 2018 | science.slashdot.org

(bbc.com) 606 ilguido writes:

At a workshop organized by CERN, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation", BBC reported Monday . Strumia's presentation [Google Drive link] that supports the idea that "physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside" has already received a lot of criticism, with one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that had long been discredited."

In a statement on Sunday, CERN said , "It is unfortunate that one of the 38 presentations, by a scientist from one of the collaborating universities, risks overshadowing the important message and achievements of the event. CERN, like many members of the community, considers that the presentation, with its attacks on individuals, was unacceptable in any professional context and was contrary to the CERN Code of Conduct. It, therefore, decided to remove the slides from the online repository."

On Monday, CERN said it has suspended the scientist from any activity at CERN with immediate effect, pending investigation into last week's event.


Thud457 ( 234763 ) writes:

Timewave divide by zero 2018 A.D. ( Score: 2 )

I've just gotta know has the world always been this batshit crazy and I've just been to self-absorbed to notice?

alvinrod ( 889928 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Yes to both. However, the exact way in which the world was batshit crazy has varied greatly. At one point, suggesting that the earth wasn't the center of the universe was enough to be burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Before then, questioning the nature of anything and pissing off the powers that be might well have gotten you literally burned at the stake.

iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Batshit crazy goes in cycles. Last peak was during WW1/2 and this one is hopefully less destructive. Blame it this time around on the social media that makes everyone's private thoughts available for inspection by everyone else.

bobstreo ( 1320787 ) writes:
Sorry, I cannot do a presentation ( Score: 2 , Insightful)

It's better to just keep your mouth shut sometimes, even if your teeth grind, and your lips go blue, and you get cobwebs in your mouth.

gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

Truth is not welcome in politics of any kind. It invariably makes a lot of the politicians look really bad.

Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:37PM ( #57404756 )
Follow the Scientific Method ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that had long been discredited."

If it really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it. Strumia has provided evidence to support his claims, and evidence is needed to dismiss those claims.

sjbe ( 173966 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40PM ( #57404796 )
Correct ( Score: 3 , Insightful)
physics is not sexist against women

This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many physicists however are definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem.

WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:08PM ( #57405022 )
Re:Real problem ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered to look for even 20 seconds on Google. Sexism is quite real and it is distressingly common in the field of physics and many other branches of science. It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.

His presentation provided data to support his position. In contrast you are offering nothing. You didn't even bother to read his presentation. Had you have bothered to do so you would have noticed the sentence cited in the headline occurs under the heading "discrimination against women". BTW the very next slide includes the heading "discrimination against men".

gweihir ( 88907 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:08PM ( #57405606 )
Re:Real problem ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

I know a few female PhDs in engineering subjects. When asked, all of them said that gender discrimination was not an issue in their studies or their research, except for the very rare "conservative old professor" that was easily avoided. Gender discrimination in the hard sciences is at worst a myth and at best irrelevant. The rare cases were it happens get blown all out of proportion to fuel an utterly sexist and misandrist movement.

rsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
I don't think the trouble is gender discrimination ( Score: 3 )

it's "Locker room talk" and a generally unfriendly work environment.

The nerds I know have very, very little tact. The few who do know what tact is have to try really, really hard to avoid saying incredibly off color crap. There are entire books about dead baby jokes and enough jokes about dead hookers and pedophiles to fill several books over. Being a nerd and spending a lifetime around other nerds I can tell you they'll cheerfully spout these gags along with harmless Monty Python jokes and be completel

arth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.

You're begging the question. He may well be a sexist - I don't know, but you can't justify the claim using the claim itself as evidence.

Etcetera ( 14711 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
physics is not sexist against women

This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many physicists however are definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem. You might have missed the new hotness in intersectionality: the redefinition of -isms and -ists to refer to outcomes, not intent.

If an insufficient number of XYZ are not present, then "the system" (not specific people) is XYZ-ist and must be corrected. And if you are not XYZ, then you are a receiving a benefit of an XYZ-ist system and are thus XYZ-ist yourself. (Note: Denying your inherent XYZ-ist nature shall be taken as strong additional evidence that you are XYZ-ist.)

QED.

cyberchondriac ( 456626 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:40PM ( #57405328 ) Journal
Re:good riddance. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Perhaps you missed the part that one of the official subjects of the conference was gender in the field. It was relevant to the discussion. See AC's post about 4 or 5 below with the part in bold.

GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:44PM ( #57405378 )
Re:good riddance. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to do a conference about gender roles in society?

Physicists are free to discuss gender between themselves, and sociologists are free to talk about quantum physics, but to organize a conference in a reputable scientific institution, one would expect experts in their fields.

gosand ( 234100 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:14PM ( #57405072 )
Re:good riddance. ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
Way too many conferences already have one guy, or girl, who decides to bring a pot of shit to stir instead of any actual contribution to the conference.

Disagreeing with the status quo is not "bring[ing] a pot of shit to stir". Strumia provided evidence to support his claims. If he is wrong, then provide evidence that he is wrong. Evidence huh? Did you actually read his presentation? Seriously, there is a link to it right there in the summary. Go through the whole thing. Evidence indeed. If I didn't know it came from a professor (with an obvious axe to grind) I would have guessed it was done by a 9th grader. (with an axe to grind)

jythie ( 914043 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

At best a lot of his 'evidence' pretty much comes down to 'it isn't sexism, women really are just worse, otherwise they would be doing better in physics because we only care about merit!'

BrookHarty ( 9119 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:45PM ( #57404850 ) Journal
He talked about the taboo subject, gender. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Looking at the pdf presentation in the OP's link, he went somewhere that some people do not want to be discussed, Gender differences and gender preferences.

Instead of refuting his argument, it's easier to call him a sexist bigot and just discredit him that way.

Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender preference.

He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people.

cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:46PM ( #57404856 )
truth spoken ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now. As far as whether it's appropriate - he's reacting to a huge political movement that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this.

In fact I'd say it's almost inevitable that highly analytical minds are going to react against this identity politics at some point. It's more surprising how rare it is to see reactions.

rsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
It's not a political movement, it's economic ( Score: 3 )

Physicists are expensive. Get women into physics and they become significantly less so. It's the same across all STEM fields. It's got nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with wages. As an added bonus men and women are fighting among themselves over gender issues, making a nice skism in the working class.

byteherder ( 722785 ) writes:
So Sad ( Score: 2 )

He is wrong, "physics was invented and built by physicists ." But he was right, "it's not by invitation". It is not a social club. You don't get a invitation in the mail. You join by achievement, by accomplishment. All this gender talk is a distraction from real physics.

jythie ( 914043 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Anyone who thinks physics, esp historically, was not a social club has never worked in the field. Who you know, who you worked with, who will vouch for you, all critical things in the field. Very invitation only.

drinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes: < martin.espinoza@gmail.com > on Monday October 01, 2018 @05:31PM ( #57407218 ) Homepage Journal
Re:So Sad ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
You don't get a invitation in the mail. You join by achievement, by accomplishment. All this gender talk is a distraction from real physics.

Well, no. You join by recognition of achievement, which came more readily for men than for women throughout most of history.

argStyopa ( 232550 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:08PM ( #57405024 ) Journal
He's not wrong, but is just being a dick about it ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

The primary assertions:

Interesting Ted talk by a feminist activist who was making a documentary about 'men who hate women' and came to realize that in some ways men are marginalized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - the point that resonates with this thread is where she said "you can look around and say that every single person was born of a woman, and nobody will doubt or criticize that.... but if you say look around and nearly every single building you see was built pretty much by men and you get immediately attacked"

That said, in no particular order:
- there's no reason women can't participate in physics going forward. None.
- there's a HUGE amount of base sexism in the field today
- it's never been a pure meritocracy anyway
- there IS a cultural/social pressure from people who have this silly notion that half the participants in every field must be female. This is frankly stupid, and should be resisted. However, acting like an ass and flinging shit at a conference like this is simply not productive in the larger scope.

If you have SPECIFIC instances where A was promoted over B because A had a vagina and B had clearly better work, then let's talk.

To me it seems he's actually just butthurt because HE didn't get a promotion he wanted, and has been seething about it for a while.

alvinrod ( 889928 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

You may want to look at the slides linked in the summary. The phrase "Physics invented and built by men, it's not by invitation." occurs on a slide (titled "Discrimination against women") seemingly pointing out sexist notions against women in physics. He's not making that claim himself, but pointing to such a claim as an example of sexism.

Maybe you should be strummed out for not doing any basic research as well.

Cito ( 1725214 ) writes:
Fired for telling the truth? ( Score: 2 )

That's Strange

DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:19PM ( #57405112 )
The Overton Window Pushback ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished.

What these idiots fail to realize is that it is OK to stop with progressive ideas once you reach a certain point. The people who used to push equality of the sexes have now transitioned into female subjugation of men at the expense of everything else. As someone who totally signed on for equality, this is NOT ok.

If you are a physicist, board member etc, were placed into that position by merit, and happen to be a woman good for you! We should be at a point in history where we don't look at sex as a determining factor but ignore it in favor of a list of successful options.

But no, we aren't and can't focus on more important things because these loud nitwits have a hammer and see everything as a nail.

FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:46PM ( #57405394 )
Hope he sues the BBC for the article title ( Score: 3 , Interesting)

They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's slander in the UK.

DRJlaw ( 946416 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's slander in the UK.

He literally said it as one of two sentences on slide 17, and they linked to his entire slide presentation in the article. Pretty sure that that's not slander. Feel free to describe how it is "out of context," however. I'm sure that this will be good...

shaitand ( 626655 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:30PM ( #57404706 ) Journal
Re:And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

Sexism fired him, I don't see anything sexist in his presented material. On the contrary, he is attacking a persistent agenda distracting from physics and that lacks sound logical support.

Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:35PM ( #57404744 )
Re: And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected.... imagine that.

Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected

If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled "High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from you

Presence Eternal ( 56763 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40PM ( #57404800 )
I admit I'm curious ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

One of the slides amounted to: "No one is seeking gender equality in jobs that get you killed." Is that true? I suspect the military and law enforcement may be an exceptions since there's a lot of social prestige, but I don't hate myself enough to read jezebel.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

You don't even need to look at jobs that get you killed. No one is seeking gender equality in jobs that women dominate.

Women dominate teaching below the college level, veterinarian jobs, and nursing, just to name a few. Yet there are no efforts to increase the number of men in those fields. You also never see a push for more women construction workers or farm workers or garbage collectors. It's only well-paying jobs where a high percentage of men is a problem. Low paying jobs? No one cares. Jobs where women

WhoEvrIwant2b ( 1165497 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:12PM ( #57405060 )
Re:I admit I'm curious ( Score: 5 , Informative)

As someone that works at an Ivy league veterinary school I just have to point out that there are actually programs to help men enter the field due to the current imbalance. There are also similar programs for men in nursing. They vary from everything including better work balance, family time off and mentoring.

sjames ( 1099 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:42PM ( #57405938 ) Homepage Journal
Re:I admit I'm curious ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

When is the last time you have heard of a protest that women are just as good at picking up garbage or mining coal as men. Or that a woman can dig a ditch just as well as a man? Where are the complaints that women are just as good at cleaning out sewers as men?

There may well be discrimination in those fields, and there may be individual women who fave a just complaint about it, but if so, they aren't getting a lot of support from other feminists.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Insightful)

I think only the one slide got him fired. Maybe the way he presented as well, I haven't seen that. The quote about physics' invention is very easy to misread, I can't blame CERN for reacting to that slide. Everything else... he's just attempting to analyze the issue. Nothing wrong with that.

shaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015.

Etcetera ( 14711 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:32PM ( #57405250 ) Homepage
Re:And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
His being a dumb ass got him fired. Why do idiots like this feel entitled to bring up their backwards politics at non-political events?

If I'm working a job and presenting for my company and I go off on a rant about something political guess what will happen to me?

If you guess I probably will get fired you win. I'm tired of all these over privileged cry babies feeling like they have a right to throw out their politics on company time.

It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made. And if you haven't noticed, the trend by the SJW crowd is to insert politics at ALL events, because "there is no such thing as a non-political event", and "being able to ignore politics is a white male privilege" and if you disagree, you're a bigot.

I'd be all for keeping these events non-political. Too bad one side has already decided that bridge must be crossed.

cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made.

Yes, precisely. For an example more close to home for most of us, consider pretty much every non-political online discussion forum ever.

If someone posts something that's political but trendy, that's fine. But if somebody reacts to it, posts the opposite point of view or even just tries to be balanced or put it in perspective, he'll get taken to the woodshed for "being political", "flaming", etc.

Mashiki ( 184564 ) writes: < mashiki@@@gmail...com > on Monday October 01, 2018 @12:42PM ( #57404820 ) Homepage
Re:And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com]. An archive just in case. [archive.is] And enjoy the witch hunt in action. [twitter.com]

This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN [google.com] and may be incomplete. It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember, SJW's really aren't the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for the best, trying to make the world a better place by stomping on your face.

ISayWeOnlyToBePolite ( 721679 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Informative)

Mashiki wrote:

It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com]. An archive just in case. [archive.is] And enjoy the witch hunt in action. [twitter.com]

This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN [google.com] and may be incomplete. It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember, SJW's really aren't the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for the best, trying to make the world a better place by stomping on your face.

The twitter post you're calling "piece of shit" is @jesswade:

"When people in positions of power in academia behave like this and retain their status they don't only push one generation of underrepresented groups out of science, but train others that it's ok to propagate this ideology for years to come."

The "witch hunt in action" link shows a collage of Kavanaugh headlines by the poster @BeastOfWood with lines like "white male entitlement", and "white male supremacy" marked, it's not evident to me how the poster or the collage is relevant. The last link is just the same slides as posted in the summary.

Mashiki ( 184564 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
This is how Mashiki's mind works. He gets triggered easily because he believes in a vast conspiracy of feminists trying to destroy the world with Cultural Marxism, and so whenever anyone says anything he disagrees with in the slightest he assumes they are part of it and the embodiment of pure evil.

So why don't you prove me wrong. Go out, publicly, in front of the media and take ads out in the paper with the two following subjects: "The wage gap is a myth." "No, the US rate of sexual assaults is not higher then the Congo."

I'll wait. Enjoy the public lynch mob by the way.

Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:31PM ( #57404712 )
Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

The greatest minds were never immune. Read up on the biographies of Newton, Tesla, etc. Humans have always been flawed. That was the single greatest achievement of the Scientific Method: making progress in the great game in spite of its flawed players.

sycodon ( 149926 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:40PM ( #57405350 )
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Yep.

Maybe the folks at CERN should have done the Scientific thing and refuted his paper using facts.
The statement, "physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside" shouldn't be that hard to refute, no? Then they make a presentation the next time and shame that guy into a career at Starbucks.

But they didn't that, did they. All they did was spout platitudes designed to placate the SJW crowd.

Miser ( 36591 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

100% this.

If you're a scientist, instead of shutting someone up to mollify the SJW's, bust his ass up with FACTS. Then, it's a win-win, double smackdown for Strumia if he is proven wrong, again, with FACTS.

pseudofrog ( 570061 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:43PM ( #57405942 )
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Informative)

Are any of you folks whining about SJWs actually reading his presentation and CERN's statement? On slide 15, he makes a dumbass little chart to whine about someone he calls a "commisar" hiring a woman instead of him. You can't pull shit like that at any conference in any field, and that's exactly what CERN's statement points out.

If you want to prop him up as a martyr for the red-pill crowd, that's your choice. But I wouldn't recommend picking a guy who torpedoed his reputation with a shit-tier analysis of gender issues because a woman got a job instead of him.

OYAHHH ( 322809 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @03:55PM ( #57406526 ) Homepage
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Personally I don't think you or I are in any position to evaluate his claims of reverse bias in hiring. Unless we knew ALL of the details he account might be 100 percent accurate. Or perhaps not.

peppepz ( 1311345 ) writes:
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 3 , Informative)

Yes, because talking about "cultural marxism" in front of a slide with a silly alt-right cartoon is science and fact. He denounces "victimocracy" before declaring himself a martyr in the very next slide.

shilly ( 142940 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

A lack of insight coupled with shamelessness is the defining characteristic of the bitter modern misogynist.

Merk42 ( 1906718 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @03:04PM ( #57406142 )
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Funny)
But they didn't that, did they. All they did was spout platitudes designed to placate the SJW crowd.

In the current uber-politically-correct world, placating the SJW crowd is pretty much the only thing that matters anymore. Don't do that and you are automatically a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and other sassy words that end in "ist" and "phobe."

Like scient ist ???

bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) writes:
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 3 )

The very existence of Gender Studies is predicated on the idea that Gender Studies "experts" need the right to give unsolicited Gender Studies talks at events related to everything that isn't Gender Studies. You're the fucking government. Go away.

arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
Yes, he was talking about genders and science, but his talk wasn't scientific. Where's his data?

His talk was almost entirely analysis of data. Lots of it. He's a physicist, that's what he does. Sorry if this interferes with your SJW agenda.

A telling quote from the BBC article:

"There were young women and men exchanging ideas and their experiences on how to encourage more women into the subject and to combat discrimination in their careers. Then this man gets up, saying all this horrible stuff."

He said all these horrible things! Facts, data, analysis, all disagreeing with our established dogma! It was horrible! If we weren't so busy chanting "lalalalala we're not listening" then we'd almost be forced to rethink our ideas! Oh the SJW-ity!

Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:32PM ( #57404722 )
Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Instead you'd rather these great minds ignore the truth and bow down to political correctness and pretend that everything that is not true really is? All in the name of making marginalized people feel better about themselves... That is absurd.

Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:06PM ( #57405582 )
Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

A woman I know recently applied to a PhD position. She already had a master's in the topic, from a school pretty strong in the subject area, doing some pretty difficult work, plus a fair amount of science communication & outreach on the side, and was looking to go further. She got rejected from a well funded position (with several openings), and later, she made the mistake of looking at the student roster to see who had gotten in. All male, seemingly straight out of undergrad, none of whom had a master's. She was kind of pissed, because while she couldn't prove that was a result of sexism, it sure looks like it, you know? And that's ridiculous, we shouldn't be dismissing anyone based on their sex, but this is definitely happening in science and academia.

Funny thing though, while that story is true, I lied about the sexes. I swapped them. Still feel the same way?

I have a hard time dismissing claims that there is political bias against men when I can see it happen. And before some moron accuses me of being sexist, I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of very competent female scientists out there, there are. And I'm not saying that there isn't real sexism against women in science, there is, I've seen it, and anyone who denies that or covers for it is part of the problem. That doesn't change the fact that screwing over men is also happening, and that it is not the way to go about fixing anything.

WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40PM ( #57404792 )
Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Informative)
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious

I would say "willful ignorance" is not having even bothered to read the presentation.

nonsense, and all the other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with, but as-is I'm not even so sure the human species will manage to survive to see the year 2100, when even the greatest minds among us aren't immune to all the above.

LOL you are being played by outraged fueled media simply to make money.

Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Flamebait)
tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious nonsense

That might be true.. if I had anything to do with 'outrage(d) fueled media', which I don't. It's my observation of the human species, formulated over all the decades of my life. That's okay, I don't expect most people to be honest enough with themselves to admit what I'm saying is true, the truth hurts too much for most people, and to be quite honest it hurts me deeply because I know I'm fundamentally no better, even if I try to be. Admitting I'm right is admitting you're just a caveman with high-tech toys;

BlueStrat ( 756137 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
It's an interesting talk but I absolutely can't understand why a physicist would hold such a talk at a physics conference at CERN.

Simple. Because it is negatively affecting a physics conference at CERN, not some random gender-studies organization's conference.

Why is CERN engaging in Post-Modern anti-Enlightenment political correctness when it should only be concerned with *scientific* correctness? Post Modernism is anathema to science. Science is a Meritocracy or else you're not engaged in science but rather politics.

Strat

registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:54PM ( #57404922 )
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

I would like to see us evolve beyond punishing people for stating views with which one may disagree.

dbialac ( 320955 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:43PM ( #57405948 )
Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

We had. It's part of the basis of having the first amendment in the US. We're regressing, though.

Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious nonsense, and all the other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with.

Human bigotry in it's many forms won't end until the last of humanity does. I don't believe it can be done and I don't believe there is one person on this planet that doesn't harbour at least a little bigotry in one form or another. That doesn't mean we should ignore it and say it's inevitable- we need to limit it as much as possible... but it will never end.

Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:44PM ( #57405380 )
Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Informative)

The relevant slide is number 17 titled "Discrimination against women."

The text:

Physics invented and built by men, it's not by invitation.

Curie etc. welcomed after showing what they can do, got Nobels...

It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women. Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did the modern version of burning books.

kbonin ( 58917 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:11PM ( #57405626 ) Homepage
Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

He broke one of the cardinal rules about slide decks on controversial subjects - make sure no sentence may be pulled out of context and used against you. Some interesting analysis and infographics in the paper. His conclusions are probably what pissed the most people off - that people screaming about how unfair STEM fields are to females may play a significant role in discouraging females from the field, which in my small sample survey (of STEM females) was strongly agreed with. But that puts part of the blame back on SJWs who are more interested in virtue signaling than being constructive, so of course he must pay. SNAFU...

pseudofrog ( 570061 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Informative)

Nope, the relevant slide is actually number 15, where he attacks a named "commisar" who hired a woman instead of him. He made a dumbass little chart and everything. It's kind of hilarious. CERN's statement points out that such personal attacks are unacceptable. It's just plain not okay pull shit like this.

Mr307 ( 49185 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Insightful)

Unless i'm missing some irony here: False dichotomy, we can all simultaneously reject the grossly absurdly evil machinations of post modern identity politics and one of is main weapons political correctness, and reject all those things you mentioned. No one would be happier because one of the first of many casualties of that way of thinking is the loss of free will.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

Never mind that women having the right to property and self determination is something that only happened over the last century or so. In other words, they weren't invited to the "invention" of physics.

mikael ( 484 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Many of these biggest minds were actually labelled as "problem students" by the mainstream schools and teachers of the day. They had to be home-schooled by tutors. Other times, home schooling by tutors was the only way of getting an education. Either way, that kind of intensive teaching going at the speed of one student rather than the average speed of a class would have accelerated their learning.

arth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

He was not wrong in that "Physics was invented and built by men". By and large, this is undoubtedly true, with a few outliers. That observation in itself is valid science. What would have been wrong if he had said that this needs to continue.

Science and physics should be blind. Whether you're a man, woman, hermaphrodite, black, white, green or invisible is irrelevant for producing theorems and testable hypotheses, and moving science forward.

Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
Ever stopped to wonder why? ( Score: 3 , Insightful)
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men

True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes, things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in physics or indeed any science.

This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way that you fix idiotic thinkin

mlyle ( 148697 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Yah-- everyone needs to have the opportunity. But it may not be "fair" in numbers afterwards. Testosterone seems to cause *increased variability* in outcomes. Women appear to be slightly smarter on average than men (depending on the metric you choose), but men have a greater variability in intelligence and performance. That is, men are over-represented at the very dumb and brilliant ends of the spectrum.

Equal opportunity may still result in an excess of men at the very top of many professions... (And again

butchersong ( 1222796 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

Eh, fascination with systems and ideas are traits that skew to males. This will lead to imbalances in scientific disciplines.... Attempts to artificially adjust these for equity will only lead to injustices against more qualified individuals. I don't understand how people can continue to pretend that biological differences between the sexes stop at the brain. There are really great female physicists but not of an equal number to males. Unless you have some sort of agenda this shouldn't be seen as bad t

WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
the inflection MEN or MAN? I can't tell from the context.

It's "men" under a slide with heading "discrimination against women". The very next slide has heading "discrimination against men".

People publishing media accounts of this crap with intentionally misleading exerts simply to stoke public outrage in order to rack up views for profit are the ones we should all be "outraged" at and demanding resignations from.

rossdee ( 243626 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

I am sure that Marie Curie's Nobel Prize was in Chemistry.

GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

She had one in physics (1903) shared with her husband. When I read the headline my first thought was "A certain Madame Curie would like to have a word with this guy..."

gweihir ( 88907 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:01PM ( #57405546 )
Re:Mme Curie ? ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

A single instance does not make a statistic. The great women on STEM do exist, but they are few. Far too few for this to be a measurement error.

Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:02PM ( #57404972 )
Re:Fool! ( Score: 5 , Informative)
Does he not even recognize that ideas and discoveries by women were almost unanimously dismissed and women even prohibited from participating in scientific fields or hell, any academic field until recently?

It's very disappointing that some scientists fail to realize how drastically the world has changed in the last 100 years.

There were probably a lot of discoveries by women that were posted secretly under a man's name with the credit given to a male relative or a male employer. Look how many female novelists in the old days used to post under male pseudonyms... and that was for something as harmless as a novel.

arth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
Look how many female novelists in the old days used to post under male pseudonyms... and that was for something as harmless as a novel.

For that, the pendulum has swung back pretty radically. Near 80% of new novels are now written by women.

arth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
It is no coincidence, then, that 85% of new novels are absolute shit.

That has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with Sturgeon's Law [wikipedia.org].

[Oct 15, 2018] Identity Politics and the Ruling Class

Notable quotes:
"... Fairness Doctrine. ..."
"... Telecommunications Act ..."
"... Crazy Rich Asians ..."
"... sufficiently-attractive collective program for the future' ..."
"... identity politics ..."
"... It comes as no shock that the powerful hate identity politics ..."
"... Invertebrate Spain ..."
Oct 15, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

October 12, 2018 Identity Politics and the Ruling Class by James Munson Reagan ditched the Fairness Doctrine. Now his youth complain they're shunned by the politically-correct media. Clinton's Telecommunications Act let mergers trample the free press. Now it pains his wing that we read rants and conspiracy, instead of news.

So much that Hillary employed teams of fact-checkers in 2016, figuring we couldn't trust our own minds to parse reality from clown-babble. Then–contrarily–she blamed her loss on hopeless cases. If one or the other were true, democracy would be a lost cause, and perhaps that's crossed her mind since losing, despite a majority of votes. But it can't explain why close to half of us had the common sense to not vote for either hopeless party.

Yet, to hear either speak, tribal privileges are fracturing America. Not the top .001%'s privilege to half the wealth, nor the military's to the bulk of our taxes. Rather, half of the poor's designation, versus the other half's. Somehow, minorities -the lowest rung in terms of media ownership- bully the mainstream press, and rednecks -the next-lowest- bully the rest. (Hourly-waged Russians command any overlap.) And since, according to the Right (and much of the Left), 'political-correctness' stifles all other manner of free speech, elites are powerless to restore order to their own, private empires, or prevent the hordes tearing us up over what bathroom to use.

Really? Have we lost our pussy-grabbing Executive and Judiciary branches to the wanton touch of #MeToo? Can our founding, 'self-evident truths' not outwit pc's chauvinism? On the other hand, how is it 'deplorables' are blind to exploding class inequality, yet so attuned to the nuances of race, gender, and their nomenclature?

'Identity-politics' explain everything recently, from Trump and Kavanaugh, to Crazy Rich Asians . Francis Fukuyama has a new book out (I've read only part), regarding its tension with liberalism–group versus individual rights, etc., tepidly joining him to more-hawkish mouth-pieces like Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro (and some Left doom-sayers) who warn its steam-rolling our democracy. Their over-arching fear is that identity politics suppress rational–though not always politically-correct–thought, giving extremists on both sides the floor, who don't mind confronting 'identity' on racist (and sexist, etc) terms. Ergo, more than an analytical device or a school of (not always congruent) ideas, a movement. A juggernaut, if you read and believe the hype.

But if so, whose? Saying 'first respect my uniqueness, then treat me as equal' provides snares that 'first treat me as equal, then respect my uniqueness' does not. The Left has a long history with -and can tie most of its successes- to the latter. The labor movement, for instance, united presumed-cultural rivals and coordinated dozens of languages. Ergo, the Left , by definition -the many against the privileged few- would have to be amnesiac, or -more likely- not the Left, to think a plan that tries to establish the differences first would better serve their goals.

Perhaps the cultural wins (like marriage equality) and sizable, politico-economic losses (demise of Unions, etc.) of the past few decades have inspired reorientation. There's evidence, so long as we define the 'Left' as ruling, Neoliberal Democrats. Certainly their Wall Street financiers can accept women CEOs and gay marriage more-readily than Union wages and universal healthcare. (After all, the point of capitalism is to pocket the most one can without sparking an insurrection.) BUT an elite-run party -paid for by Wall Street–doesn't constitute a Left. Nor is it able to absorb popular will. Proven, since they lose most of their elections.

Also, that leftists would demand censorship when most everyone of them believe the Right is in control, and when they're silenced within their own party, seems farce. Again there's evidence, college students sometimes dis-invite conservative speakers, and we figure, as Reagan did, they're taught to (so he hiked tuition). But I doubt censorship exists as agenda, nor even as sentiment on any grand scale. Think, whenever something explodes multiple parties besides the bomber take credit. Where are the professors claiming this attack? If 18% are communists (as the American Enterprise Institute warns), what sort of communist links class to 'identity', not labor?

The other 'fear' is that over-zealous freshman are taking control, like in the Princeton and Evergreen incidents. Perhaps but it contradicts the wisdom of Occupy!, which refused the collaborative financial, political, educative, and other aligned powers from pigeon-holling their complaints. -Wisdom that we credit to the young of the movement.

There's also a notion that dis-investment has engendered a new 'tribalism'. But even though 'color-blindness', for example, has excused softening equal-opportunity legislation (welfare reform, voting law, etc.), which baits 'identity', as minorities are often dis-empowered under the ruse of equality, color-blindness came out of the neoliberal play-book and expanded Leftward from think-tanks on the Right. In other words, while it's hard to gauge its impact, it marks a very separate program from the Left-academia or 'bottom-up' narratives.

Furthermore, most every poll finds 'economic inequality', not racial, gender, or other inequalities to be the #1 problem with America. So, while it's not unreasonable that our decline in wealth and status might see us retreat toward other than liberal identities (Fukuyama's point), unless someone's peddling those narratives, one plainly sees more leverage in class-solidarity.

As for the Right, what should be 'self-evident' is that complaining minority recognition is unfair to the majority rests on the same argument it decries; that your privilege impedes my privilege (instead of the reverse). Evident, at least to a Harvard-educated lawyer like Ben Shapiro. Yet you find all that fallacious, 'populist' reaction in his books. Do they speak to him or he to them? Does he speak for them?

Of course, identity politics aren't new. The Spanish liberal-philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset wrestled with it a century ago, when his homeland's empire was crumbling, and came up with a lot better answers (though it didn't save Spain from its fascist clown). Spain even had, in his words, 'a common past, language, and race, yet had split into mainly-regional factions because it had failed to invent a sufficiently-attractive collective program for the future' . [i]

Isn't he right? Rather than hell-bent on forcing this or that culture on the rest of us, aren't the 'extreme' Left, Right, and clusters of us in between are just figuring out that, increasingly, being 'American' means losing ground to the .001% and their top brass? The opening passage to the Combahee River Collective's manifesto says as much: ' focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics . We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else's oppression.'

Last week Gary Younge revived that notion in a piece titled ' It comes as no shock that the powerful hate identity politics ' [ii] , reminding that without 'women', 'blacks', and other self-referential vanguards we wouldn't have democracy, anyway. It's an important point, and I agree, but is his over-arching theme–that the powerful hate it–also true?

Whether 'identity-politics' raise tensions or awareness among the crowd might be a secondary matter. First is whom they neglect. For all the media's naval-gazing, the system, itself gets rare attention. Mind, all political strategies shoulder contradictions. But it's odd that cultural issues (not to say there's no overlap) would hold the foreground right when fraudulent wars, torture, bank crime, rigged elections, police violence, tax-breaks for the rich, willful habitat destruction, and a widely-evident and growing gap between rich and poor and state and population have laid the political, economic, and judicial systems bare. Matters such as environmental or foreign policy are largely out of public reach, except with massive, boots on the ground confrontation. In which case, atomizing class politics seems counter-intuitive to the extreme.

Unless it's not us preaching it. It bears saying, in an oligarchy, oligarchs speak in order to make their actions less–not more–clear. That's what a shill like Ben Shapiro (Hillary does the work herself on the Left) laments when his talks get ignored (or Ocasio-Cortes ignores him). Shapiro's a cause-celeb for saying identity politics threatens our democracy, because it censors Right voices. Yet it appears complaining gets him more, not less, airtime. In fact, I've heard too little substance in his' speeches (or Hillary's of late) to warrant an interview, otherwise. Thus I suspect its the opposite of censorship; hyping the market, that threatens our democracy. Threatens for real, like the Telecom Act, not just prescriptively, like 'Russo-bots' and 'terrorism'.

Notes.

[i] Invertebrate Spain , 1921, p.37

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics Join the debate on Facebook

[Oct 11, 2018] Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous eras; today it seems like 'believing' takes precedence over equality and that women deserve special treatment; #MeToo isn't about speaking out on sexual abuse in general, it's about publically naming, accusing convicting men of sexual abuse sans law enforcement, any legal due process.

Oct 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

get real October 10, 2018 at 10:47 pm

Wow. This is an extremely one-sided, black-and-white view of a complex issue. I don't understand how you could prepare to write on this subject and not realize that the #BelieveWomen was, for MANY NOT ALL women, a call to NOT DISBELIEVE the woman right off the bat. The immediate disbelief and victim blaming and shaming which has been standard treatment of victims for a very long time is the primary reason that sexual crimes are not reported.

Sure, give the man the "innocent until proven guilty" but do the same for the woman too. Don't start in with the "what was she wearing" and the rest. Don't make drinking be an excuse for him and a reason for condemnation for her. In the many discussions I had on this subject with other women, what the vast majority wanted was a full and complete investigation. They didn't get it.

And you don't get it either. You are welcome to your opinions but you don't get to put the words and beliefs into other people's mouths and minds as though you somehow know it all. You are dead wrong about what I think and believe and about the vast majority of the women with whom I have discussed this either in person or via text online.

It is easy to write against a straw man that isn't true. Try writing against a real argument instead of simplifying the other person's position to the point that it is ridiculous.

Jennifer , says: October 11, 2018 at 8:54 am
This conundrum is what convinced me to abandon the Democrats, registering as an Independent for the first time: "It holds them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock back on women's rights. Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous eras; today it seems like 'believing' takes precedence over equality."

I am married to a man who has been loyal, works long hours to support our family, and happens to be a white. I am raising a young man and young woman, and my experience has been that, although they differ vastly in temperament and aptitude, they a both valuable to society. The sexism and racism of the Leftist Democrats goes against my conscience and experience.

mrscracker , says: October 11, 2018 at 9:39 am
get real ,
I think the issue with #MeToo isn't about speaking out on sexual abuse in general, it's about publically naming, accusing & convicting men of sexual abuse sans law enforcement, & any legal due process. That's character defamation & slander, not justice.

If women have legitimate grievances they need to go about addressing them the way every other type of victim does through law enforcement & the courts. Women are adults & should behave with maturity & prudence. Not expecting special considerations just because of gender.

Currently, men accused of sexual crimes are named in the media but their accusers are not. Even when found innocent, that notoriety will haunt the accused men for the rest of their lives. That seems like a double standard to me.

There absolutely were obstacles for some sexual abuse victims in the past & it could be difficult to find justice. We had a case like that in our community & it took years to get a prosecution & conviction. But we've swung way too far in the other direction. Now men are presumed guilty until proven innocent & they & their families are publically shamed, hounded, & humiliated.

Women don't need to drag down men in order to find equality.

[Oct 11, 2018] When Feminism Turns on Women

Toxic feminism is very dangerous
Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
Oct 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In justifying her decision , Collins went to great pains to stress her support for all victims of sexual assault and for Ford in particular. "Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect," she said. "The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue." But, she concluded, "In evaluating any given claim of misconduct we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be."

Collins is absolutely correct to defend these important principles. The mantra of #MeToo and the Kavanaugh hearings has been "I believe." But the idea that women should be believed without question or evidence presents them as naive innocents who never lie or misremember. It holds them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock back on women's rights. Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous eras; today it seems like "believing" takes precedence over equality.

For her cool-headed defense of long-held legal principles, Collins stands accused of betrayal. She "betrayed the interests of the women and sexual-assault survivors she professed to support" according to Lisa Ryan at The Cut . Diane Russell , an activist for the Democrats, was more specific: she argued that Collins voted to "betray Maine women and Maine survivors" by ignoring their stories. "There is a special place in hell for women who cover for rapists," Russell continued. Presumably she has privileged insight into exactly what happened between Ford and Kavanaugh 36 years ago that allows her to circumvent trials and juries and find Kavanaugh summarily guilty all by herself.

Bizarrely, some activists seem to have more loathing for Collins than Kavanaugh. Lawyer and "social entrepreneur" Kat Calvin tweeted: "Never let Collins have a moment of peace in public again." This has since been shared well over 33,000 times. The hatred for Collins has even given rise to a crowd-funder to get her replaced as senator from Maine. A cool $2 million was raised before Collins made her speech; the site crashed as she was speaking.

Feminist commentators and activists are clearly furious that Collins could " vote against believing women ." They are nonplussed that she could express support for victims of sexual assault and yet back Kavanaugh. The only explanation for Collins' volte-face is, we're told, hypocrisy . But it's perfectly possible to feel sympathy and endeavor to support women who claim to have been sexually assaulted while at the same time maintaining the important presumption of innocent until proven guilty. There is no logical reason why women should be unconditionally believed any more than men. Feminists might not like it but, as Collins argued, evidence and proof are the basis of justice.

Yet rather than trying to understand the reason for Collins' vote, activists have only extended the net of hatred further. Over at the New York Times , Alexis Grenell moves deftly from disdain for Collins to fury at "all the women in the Republican conference" before eventually focusing her anger on the category of "white women." White women, Grenell opines, "will defend their privilege to the death." In the eyes of Grenell, women think and act according to the dictates of their race. There is a "blood pact between white men and white women," she tells us, though how this ties in with Ford's whiteness is anyone's guess. Apparently, all white women are "gender traitors" who have "made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job."

Fourth-Wave Feminism: Why No One Escapes The Kavanaugh Kangaroo Court is Revictimizing Victims

So there we have it. The show trial of Kavanaugh shows us exactly where feminism is heading in the #MeToo era. Women are not to be considered rational beings equal to men before the law but as emotional creatures who deserve special treatment. Women's political views are, apparently, determined by their race. And it's legitimate now to make explicitly sexist and racist arguments in the pages of respectable national newspapers -- as long as "white women" are the target.

Today's feminism divides the world into "good" women and "bad" women. Good women suffer, empathize, and believe other women without question or criticism. Bad women, on the other hand, raise awkward questions about evidence and principles of justice. As Grenell demands to know, come November, "Which one of these two women are you?"

Joanna Williams is the author of Women vs. Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars .

[Oct 11, 2018] The Woke Elite Have No Clothes by Rod Dreher

Notable quotes:
"... The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something seriously wrong with you. ..."
"... in their own lives ..."
Oct 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Another dissatisfied Social Justice Warrior, at Trump's inauguration ( ODN screengrab ) Here's a genuinely fascinating essay in The Atlantic , by Yascha Mounk, who writes about research showing that overwhelming majorities of Americans hate political correctness.

It starts like this:

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned -- pun very much intended -- by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white "allies" do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, " Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape ," most Americans don't fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest -- including a general aversion to PC culture.

You don't say. More:

If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don't belong to either extreme constitute an "exhausted majority." Their members "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation."

Hmm. If one out of four people believe something, are they really "far" out of the American mainstream? In the report, "Traditional Liberals" and "Passive Liberals" make up 26 percent of the population. Aren't they part of the mainstream too? Or am I reading this wrong? Here's a graphic from the "Hidden Tribes" report that shows how they sort us:

How do the authors define these groups? Here:

Anyway, the story goes on to say that r ace and youth are not indicators of openness to PC. Black Americans are the minority group most accepting of PC, but even then, 75 percent of them think it's a problem. More:

If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

Political tribe -- as defined by the authors -- is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

Here's the heart of it:

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

This, a thousand times:

As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:

The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Seriously, read the whole thing. It's encouraging news.

So, guess who runs most of the institutions in this country: academia, media, entertainment, corporations? Educated, rich white liberals (and minorities who come out of those institutions, and who agree with their PC ideology). They have created a social space in which they lord their ideology over everybody else, and have intimidated everyone into going along with it, out of fear of harsh consequences, and stigma, for dissenters.

Mounk points out that it's not that majorities believe racism and bigotry aren't things to be concerned about. They do! It's that they believe that PC is the wrong way to address those problems.

If you have the time, read the whole "Hidden Tribes" report on which Mounk bases his essay. They reveal something that has actually been brought out by Pew Research studies in the past: that US political conversation is entirely driven by the extremes, while most people in the middle are more open to compromise. It's not that most of these people are moderates, are centrists. It's that they aren't driven by a strong sense of tribalism.

The authors call these "hidden tribes" because they are defined not by race, sex, and the usual tribal markers, but rather by a shared agreement on how the world works, whether they're aware of it or not. Where individuals come down on these points generally determines where they'll come down on hot button political and cultural issues (e.g., immigration, feminism):

You shouldn't assume that most Americans share the same basic values. As the report indicates, there are substantive differences among us. It's simply not accurate to blame tension over these divisions on extremists of the right or the left who exaggerate them. Though the differences are real, what seems to set the majority-middle apart is their general unwillingness to push those differences to the breaking point.

I want to point out one aspect of the analysis that means a lot to me, as a religious conservative. It's on page 81 of the report. Here's a graph recording answers to the question, "How important is religious faith to you?"

Religion is important to almost two-thirds of Americans. The only tribe in which a majority finds it unimportant are Progressive Activists. According to the study:

Strong identification with religious belief appears to be a strong tribal marker for the Devoted and Traditional Conservatives, and an absence of religious belief appears to be a marker for Progressive Activists.

Guess which tribe runs the culture-making institutions in our society (e.g., major media, universities, entertainment)?

I am reminded of something one of you readers, a conservative academic, wrote to me once: that you feel safe because your department is run by traditional liberals, who don't agree with you, but who value free and open exchange of ideas. You are very worried about what happens when those people -- who are Baby Boomers -- retire, because the generational cohort behind them are hardcore left-wing ideologues who do not share the traditional liberal view.

This just in from Reuters:

Hollywood has been at the forefront of the political resistance to President Donald Trump, using awards shows, social media and donations to promote progressive positions on issues from immigration to gun control.

Now, the entertainment industry is using its star power and creativity to support down-ballot candidates in the Nov. 6 elections. Down-ballot races are typically state and local positions that are listed on voting ballots below national posts.

This approach is part of the way Hollywood is rewriting its script for political action following Trump's shock election in 2016.

I can't blame anyone for advocating for their political beliefs in the public square. But these are among the most privileged people on the planet. They are Progressive Activists -- and they are massively out of touch with the rest of the country, though they have massively more cultural power to define the narrative than their adversaries.

Here's another interesting factoid from the report:

Progressive Activists are unique in seeing the world as a much less dangerous place than other Americans. For other tribes, the differences are much smaller. On average, 14 percent of Americans view the world as generally safe and nonthreatening, while among Progressive Activists almost three times as many people hold this view (40 percent). This figure is especially striking in light of Progressive Activists' deep pessimism about the direction of the country (98 percent say it is going in the wrong direction) and their emotions toward the country (45 percent say they currently feel "very" scared about the country's direction).

Think of the psychology of this! How can they feel that the world is "generally safe and nonthreatening" while at the same time be "very" scared about the direction of the US? The answer, I think, is that in their own lives , they feel secure. And why not? Remember this from Yascha Mounk's essay on this study:

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree.

Economically, educationally, and racially, Progressive Activists are the most elite group in the country.

Look at this amazing factoid:

First, notice that one out of three African Americans think that people are too sensitive about race, the same percentage of Traditional Liberals who do. A solid majority of Hispanic Americans believe that, and nearly three out of four Asian Americans believe that. Sixty percent of Americans overall agree with this viewpoint. Who rejects it overwhelmingly? Progressive Activists -- the rich, educated white people who control academia and media.

Note well that majorities are not saying that racism isn't a problem (81 percent agree that we have serious problems with racism), only that there is too much emphasis on it. Do you get that? They're saying that racism is a serious issue, but it has been disproportionately emphasized relative to other serious issues. On bread-and-butter issues like college admissions, Progressive Activists are far, far removed from everybody else, even Traditional Liberals:

The numbers are similar on gender issues. Progressive Activists are radically far apart from the views of most Americans. No wonder the media can't understand why everybody doesn't agree with them that Brett Kavanaugh is a sexist monster.

Finally, the last chapter of the study focuses on what its authors call the "Exhausted Majority" -- Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged and Moderates:

The four segments in the Exhausted Majority have many differences, but they share four main attributes:

– They are more ideologically flexible

– They support finding political compromise

– They are fatigued by US politics today

– They feel forgotten in political debate

Importantly, the Traditional Conservatives do not belong to the Exhausted Majority, while the Traditional Liberals do. The key difference lies in their mood towards the country's politics. While the Exhausted Majority express disillusionment, frustration, and anger at the current state of US politics, Traditional Conservatives are far more likely to express confidence, excitement and optimism. As such, the Traditional Conservatives hold a meaningfully different emotional disposition towards the country that aligns them more with the Devoted Conservatives.

That's really interesting. Having read the detailed descriptions of the various tribes, I fall more into the Traditional Conservative camp, but I am much more pessimistic about the country's politics than TCs in this study. What accounts for that? Is it:

a) I spend a lot of time looking at the cultural fundamentals and trends, especially regarding religion, and believe that the optimism of Traditional Conservatives is irrational; or

b) I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing the mainstream media, including social media, and therefore overestimate the power and influence of Progressive Activists

I'd say the answer is probably 80 percent a) and 20 percent b). I believe my fellow Traditional Conservatives (like the Devoted Conservatives to our right) believe that things are more stable than they actually are.

Anyway, if you have the time, I encourage you to read the entire report. It's basic point is that neither extreme of left and right speak for the majority of Americans, though their stridency, and the nature of media to emphasize conflict, conditions most of us to think that things are far more polarized than they actually are.

For me, the best news in the entire report is learning how sick and tired most Americans are of political correctness. It's not that most people believe there aren't serious problems in the country having to do with race, sex, immigration, and so forth. It's that people are tired of the Progressive Speech Police stalking around like Saudi imams with sticks in hand, whacking anyone who fails to observe strict pieties. As Yascha Mounk says in his piece about the report:

The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.

Yes. And -- drums please -- that has a lot to do with how we got Trump.

[Oct 10, 2018] Casualty Lists From the Kavanaugh Battle by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website October 9, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT

Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down: The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right because she is a woman!

I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95 percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.

For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically corrupt politicians in the US.

Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT

So where are we going now?

This country is on a shit slide to hell. No turning back ..to many god damn idiots in this country.

What people in this country better understand is Trump is part of the Deep State and he means harm to all non elites.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT
@utu You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.

I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other "foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's shepherding and fleecing of the people.

Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team Blue.

Puppet show.

Jon Baptist , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:38 pm GMT
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
36 ulster , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
@verylongaccountname

It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.

Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they have not.

prefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.

I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.

The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.

They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet, Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let this happen in America.

They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.

The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be.


Si1ver1ock , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT

@prefer anon I agree. These parties get hijacked by the worst sort. The Neocons are still riding high in the Republican party.
SolontoCroesus , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

You wanted a fight? You are going to get one and just like the Nazis and confederates we will thrash you

Hold up a sec, pal.

Your lot has painted a target on Russia, claiming Russians collusioned with Trump. Right?

But it was Russians who "thrashed" the Nazis.

Goes without saying you hate the Nazis and extend that epithet to include Germans. Right?

But German mercenaries provided a great deal of the fighting force that "thrashed" the confederates.

Looks like you've made enemies of most of the fighting force you are counting on to thrash the GOP, pal.

Ooops.

Svigor , says: October 9, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Ludwig Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will continue.
Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
@Jon Baptist

Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling.

Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity 'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either). Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia, China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.

prefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Si1ver1ock @S1ver1ock

They are in the Democrat party too. In fact, their only allegiance is to Israel. The

Neocons are anti-USA – same as the communists in antifa and the mobs of idiots in the Damnedcrat party.

Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
@utu Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an over-estimation.).

This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less than 1% of the population we're talking about.

This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.

Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution that it is

This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and Obama is.

Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense. Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.

Hyperion , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:45 pm GMT
@Realist Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground economically or stayed static no improvement.
SamAdams , says: October 10, 2018 at 2:20 am GMT
@Jon Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left' circus will be We The People.

Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population. The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo jumbo.

Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.

[Oct 09, 2018] How the malicious smear game works

Notable quotes:
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Because that is precisely how the smear game works.

The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them.

If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against Corbyn , who unfortunately fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand. No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.

Carroll Price says: October 1, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT @Dorian I agree. The me-too crown demanding Brett Kavanagh's head on a platter should have been shown the door rather than given a worldwide stage from which to spew their hateful venom.

[Oct 09, 2018] Who Doesn't Love Identity Politics by C.J. Hopkins

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.

Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.

Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.

The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they (i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity, and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.

The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual democracy, of, by, and for the people, which is, basically, the ruling classes' worst nightmare. The best way to avoid this scenario is to keep the working classes ignorant and confused, and at each other's throats over things like pronouns, white privilege, gender appropriate bathrooms, and the complexion and genitalia of the virtually interchangeable puppets the ruling classes allow them to vote for.

The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self-worth on their superiority to the unwashed masses, enjoy spending time with the ruling classes, and reaping the many benefits of serving them and, while most of them wouldn't personally disembowel your kids and sell their organs to some dope-addled Saudi trillionaire scion, they would look the other way while the ruling classes did, and then invent some sort of convoluted rationalization of why it was necessary, in order to preserve democracy and freedom (or was some sort of innocent but unfortunate "blunder," which will never, ever, happen again).

The fake Left loves identity politics because they allow them to pretend to be "revolutionary" and spout all manner of "militant" gibberish while posing absolutely zero threat to the ruling classes they claim to be fighting. Publishing fake Left "samizdats" (your donations to which are tax-deductible), sanctimoniously denouncing racism on Twitter, milking whatever identity politics scandal is making headlines that day, and otherwise sounding like a slightly edgier version of National Public Radio, are all popular elements of the fake Left repertoire.

Marching along permitted parade routes, assembling in designated "free speech areas," and listening to speeches by fake Left celebrities and assorted Democratic Party luminaries, are also well-loved fake Left activities. For those who feel the need to be even more militant, pressuring universities to cancel events where potentially "violent" and "oppressive" speech acts (or physical gestures) might occur, toppling offensive historical monuments, ratting out people to social media censors, or masking up and beating the crap out of "street Nazis" are among the available options. All of these activities, by herding potential troublemakers into fake Left ghettos and wasting their time, both on- and off-line, help to ensure that the ruling classes, their political puppets, the corporate media, Hollywood, and the rest of the culture industry can keep most people ignorant and confused.

Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.

According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel, but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media, Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias? Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!

See, the thing is, there is no essential difference between your identity politics-brainwashed liberal and your Swastika-tattooed white supremacist. Both are looking at the world through the lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or some other type of "identity." They are looking through this "identity" lens (whichever one it happens to be) because either they have been conditioned to do so (most likely from the time they were children) or they have made a conscious choice to do so (after recognizing, and affirming or rejecting, whatever conditioning they received as children).

Quantum physicists, Sufi fakirs, and certain other esoterics understand what most of us don't, namely, that there is no such thing as "the Truth," or "Reality," apart from our perception of it. The world, or "reality," or whatever you want to call it, is more than happy to transform itself into any imaginable shape and form, based on the lens you are looking at it through. It's like a trickster in that regard. Look at "reality" through a racist lens, and everything will make sense according to that logic. Look at it through a social justice lens, or a Judeo-Christian lens, or a Muslim lens, or a scientific or a Scientologist lens, or a historical materialist or capitalist lens (it really makes no difference at all) and abracadabra! A new world is born!

Sadly, most of us never reach the stage in our personal (spiritual?) development where we are able to make a conscious choice about which lens we want to view the world through. Mostly, we stick with the lens we were originally issued by our families and societies. Then we spend the rest of our fleeting lives desperately insisting that our perspective is "the Truth," and that other perspectives are either "lies" or "errors." The fact that we do this is unsurprising, as the ruling classes (of whatever society we happened to be born and socialized into) are intensely invested in issuing everyone a "Weltanschauung lens" that corresponds to whatever narrative they are telling themselves about why they deserve to be the ruling classes and we deserve to exist to serve them, fight their wars, pay interest on their loans, not to mention rent to live on the Earth, which they have claimed as their own and divided up amongst themselves to exploit and ruin, which they justify with "laws" they invented, which they enforce with armies, police, and prisons, which they teach us as children to believe is "just the way life is" but I digress.

So, who doesn't love identity politics? Well, I don't love identity politics. But then I tend to view political events in the context of enormous, complex systems operating beyond the level of the individuals and other entities such systems comprise. Thus I've kind of been keeping an eye on the restructuring of the planet by global capitalism that started in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., when global capitalism (not the U.S.A.) became the first globally hegemonic system in the history of aspiring hegemonic systems.

Now, this system (i.e., capitalism, not the U.S.A), being globally hegemonic, has no external enemies, so what it's been doing since it became hegemonic is aggressively destabilizing and restructuring the planet according to its systemic needs (most notably in the Middle East, but also throughout the rest of the world), both militarily and ideologically. Along the way, it has encountered some internal resistance, first, from the Islamic "terrorists," more recently, from the so-called "nationalists" and "populists," none of whom seem terribly thrilled about being destabilized, restructured, privatized, and debt-enslaved by global capitalism, not to mention relinquishing what remains of their national sovereignty, and their cultures, and so on.

I've been writing about this for over two years , so I am not going to rehash it all in detail here (this essay is already rather long). The short version is, what we are currently experiencing (i.e., Brexit, Trump, Italy, Hungary, et cetera, the whole "populist" or "nationalist" phenomenon) is resistance (an insurgency, if you will) to hegemonic global capitalism, which is, essentially, a values-decoding machine, which eliminates "traditional" (i.e., despotic) values (e.g., religious, cultural, familial, societal, aesthetic, and other such non-market values) and replaces them with a single value, exchange value, rendering everything a commodity.

The fact that I happen to be opposed to some of those "traditional" values (i.e., racism, anti-Semitism, oppression of women, homosexuals, and so on) does not change my perception of the historical moment, or the sociopolitical, sociocultural, and economic forces shaping that moment. God help me, I believe it might be more useful to attempt to understand those forces than to go around pointing and shrieking at anyone who doesn't conform to my personal views like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers .

But that's the lens I choose to look through. Maybe I've got it all assbackwards. Maybe what is really going on is that Russia "influenced" everyone into voting for Brexit and Donald Trump, and hypnotized them all with those Facebook ads into hating women, people of color, transsexuals, and the Jews, of course, and all that other "populist" stuff, because the Russians hate us for our freedom, and are hell-bent on destroying democracy and establishing some kind of neo-fascist, misogynist, pseudo-Atwoodian dystopia. Or, I don't know, maybe the other side is right, and it really is all a conspiracy of Jews transsexual, immigrant Jews of color, who want to force us all to have late-term abortions and circumcise our kids, or something.

I wish I could help you sort all that out, but I'm just a lowly political satirist, and not an expert on identity politics or anything. I'm afraid you'll have to pick a lens through which to interpret "reality" yourself. But then, you already have, haven't you or are you still looking through the one that was issued to you?

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Oct 08, 2018] The Left-Wing Rage Machine by Rod Dreher

Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Along those lines, a female reader of this blog left this comment on a thread about Alexis Grenell's shocking New York Times op-ed denouncing "white women" for worrying that their sons, brothers, and fathers might be falsely accused of rape. Grenell, who is a white woman, lambasted them over what she calls a "blood pact between white men and white women." My reader commented

Many white women have, in fact, made a kind of "blood pact" with white men: we call it "family" in saner times. The expectation that abstract loyalty to any random person who shares one's gender should override one's loyalty to their actual fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons (as well as their actual mothers, sisters, and daughters) is profoundly sad.

With more and more fatherless homes and very small families, I wonder how many women go through life with no tight, enduring, loving, secure bonds with a father, husband, brother, or son. Family is where these bonds that transcend individual identity can form. But if your marriage can be dissolved for no reason, even the most primary bonds are insecure. Without that, it's just tribe vs. tribe.

It is worth considering that many of these hysterical activists really do despise the family, and are eager to see families turn on each other over politics. Consider this tweet, from the senior art critic at New York magazine:

me frameborder=

Come gather round people wherever you roam & shun any republican family member you have. Until this president is gone. You don't need to tell that family member that you are shunning them. Just stand up for your country very close to home. Make it hurt for both of you. Rise. Rise

-- Jerry Saltz (@jerrysaltz) October 7, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Anyone -- left-wing or right-wing -- who would turn their back on a family member over the family member's politics is a disgrace. I have family members and good friends with whom I disagree strongly on politics. Anybody who tries to come between us can go to hell.


Pete from Baltimore October 8, 2018 at 1:57 pm

This may seem trivial to some. But I canthelp but notice that whenever there is a photo of one of these kind of protests,at least 1/4 to a third of the protesters are taking "Selfies" of themselves

Maybe its because im 50 years old. .Maybe im an old fogie . But it really strikes me how immature and narcissistic most of these protesters seem .

Its like the NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to yesterday. I may disagree with much of what Paul Krugman writes.But at least he writes like an adult . The NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to reads like it was written by a 16 year old high school student

Pete from Baltimore , says: October 8, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Ive long thought that those surrounded by those that they agree with , tend to not be good at debating. For instance, a liberal that lives in a conservative part of Mississippi, is probably good at debating.Whereas a liberal tht lives in Berkley CA probably has never had to learn how to acutaly debate someone

The same goes for conservatives. Mostof the conservatives that I have met in Baltimore tend to be good at debating.Because they need to be.They cant simply state a conservative position and just sit back while everyone around them agrees with them

I think that the problem with liberalism nowdays is that a liberal is far more likely to be surrounded by liberal media and liberal pop culture. To be in a "bubble" a conservative has to restrict themselves to only watching FoxNews and reading the WSJ.And they pretty much have to tune out almost all modern American pop culture.And if they go to college, they have to go to Liberty University

All a liberal has to do in order to be in a bubble is to watch mainstream media and read mainstream newspapers[like the NYT] and they just have to go to their local college and watch and listen to mainstream pop culture

It didn't used to be this way.When I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, igrew up in extremely liberal areas. And the liberals that I knew were very good at discussing politics. Nowdays the liberals that I know[and there are many in Baltimore] just repeat and giggle about, some joke that Samantha Bee told about Republicans. The older liberals that I know are able to discuss politics.But the younger liberals really cant seem to discuss things in any kind of adult manner. Since they really seem to have never heard any disagreeing viewpoints

Stephen J. , says: October 8, 2018 at 2:05 pm
An example perhaps at link below.
-- -- -- -- --
The Party of Screaming Women
Robert Stacy McCain
October 8, 2018, 12:39 am
https://spectator.org/the-party-of-screaming-women/

[Oct 08, 2018] What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Notable quotes:
"... Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. ..."
"... This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem." ..."
"... We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Dr. Buddy Tubside , Oct 8, 2018 3:41:22 AM | link

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.

Harvard University's Yascha Mounk writing for The Atlantic:

"Over the past 12 months, three scholars -- James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian -- wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable


Sokal Squared doesn't just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals.

This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the "privilege" of white students.

Exhorting college professors to enact forms of "experiential reparations," the paper suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even BINDING THEM TO THE FLOOR IN CHAINS

If students protest, educators are told to "take considerable care not to validate privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege."

In an article for Areo magazine, the authors of the hoax explain their motivation: "Something has gone wrong in the university -- especially in certain fields within the humanities.

Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview.

This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem."

We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.

As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields "grievance studies" in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.

We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research.

Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations.''

To read more, see Areo magazine + "academic grievance studies and the corruption of scholarship"

[Oct 08, 2018] It Was All Made Up, It Was Fabricated Trump Says Kavanaugh Victim Of Democrat Hoax

Oct 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

President Trump said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of a Democrat Hoax, and that allegations of sexual assault levied by multiple women were "all made up" and "fabricated."

In comments made to reporters on the White House driveway, Trump addressed rumors that the Democrats will investigate and attempt to impeach Kavanaugh if they regain control over the House or Senate during midterms.

"So, I've been hearing that now they're thinking about impeaching a brilliant jurist -- a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax that was set up by the Democrats using the Democrats' lawyers -- and now they want to impeach him," said Trump.

The President then suggested that the attacks on Kavanaugh will bring conservatives to the polls for midterms:

"I think it's an insult to the American public," said Trump. "The things they said about him -- I don't even think he ever heard of the words. It was all made-up. It was fabricated. And it's a disgrace. And I think it's going to really show you something come November sixth."

[Oct 08, 2018] Civil War Two Looms As Deep State Circles The Wagons by James Kunstler

Notable quotes:
"... It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com

What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get nailed..."

Aftermath As Prologue

"I believe her!"

Really? Why should anyone believe her?

Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad imitation of Truman Capote.

I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines is going to blow wide open.

It turns out that the Deep State is a small world.

Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury?

What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.

It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and that she worked in the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York under Preet Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer? Could Dr. Ford have spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs. Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean's lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia investigations before resigning in February this year -- in fact, he sat in on the notorious "unsworn" interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!

Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford's previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week -- as reported by the The Wall Street Journal -- that she "felt pressured" by Monica McLean and her representatives to change her story -- that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault, or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think that's called suborning perjury.

None of this is trivial and the matter can't possibly rest there. Too much of it has been unraveled by what remains of the news media. And meanwhile, of course, there is at least one grand jury listening to testimony from the whole cast-of-characters behind the botched Hillary investigation and Robert Mueller's ever more dubious-looking Russian collusion inquiry: the aforementioned Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, et. al. I have a feeling that these matters are now approaching critical mass with the parallel unraveling of the Christine Blasey Ford "story."

The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled: Liberals, This is War . Like I've been saying: Civil War Two.


Dickweed Wang , just now link

Blasey-Ford happens to work at Palo Alto University, which is the west coast HQ for the left wing feminist movement in the US. Here's a good video by a woman professor from Canada that blows the lid off the entire conspiracy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL6k5yOAFM

OccamsCrazor , 1 minute ago link

the DEMS, THE CIA, and THE DOJ in particular are up to their rotten stinking eyesballs in this collusion crap...

Chupacabra-322 , 4 minutes ago link

Civil War pits brother against brother...

dirty fingernails , 37 seconds ago link

Nope, the people are so fragmented and full of disinfo and propaganda that they actually think the other peons are the real problem. While we peons slaughter each other for having different opinions on the privileged predator class spokespeople, they hop into the private planes and disappear.

Unbelievabubble , 5 minutes ago link

Gotta love The Kunst. A great distillation of the state of things. This is getting serious folks.

ATTILA THE WIMP , 17 minutes ago link

I actually fought in a civil war, the one in the former Yugoslavia. They are like wildfires that can not be controlled but must burn until the fuel is consumed...

[Oct 08, 2018] The common folk never had control of the Federal Government.

Notable quotes:
"... At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter. ..."
"... So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites ..."
"... The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise. ..."
"... This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt" ..."
"... In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pft , Oct 8, 2018 12:11:11 AM | 43 k

The constitution was a creation of the elite at the time, the property class. Its mission was to prevent the common folk from having control. Democracy=mob rule= Bad.

The common folk only had the ability to elect representatives in the house, who in turn would elect Senators. Electors voted for President and they were appointed by a means chosen by the state legislature , which only in modern times has come to mean by the popular vote of the common folk. Starting from 1913 it was decided to let the common folk vote for Senator and give the commonfolk the illusion of Democracy confident they could be controlled with propaganda and taxes (also adopted in 1913 with the Fed)

At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter.

Bernays science of propaganda took off during WWI, Since MOED's made up the most educated class (relative to minorities and women) up to the 70's this was a big deal for almost 60 years , although not today when miseducation is equal among the different races, sexes and ethnicities.

So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites

So how do the common folk get control over the federal government? That is a pipe dream and will never happen. The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise.

Thats just my opinion

Guerrero , Oct 8, 2018 1:03:57 AM | link

Pft has a point. If there was ever a time for the people to take the republic into its hands, it may have been just after the Civil War when the Dems were discredited and the Repubs had a total control of Congress.

This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt"

All manner of political office-seekers devoted themselves to getting on the government gravy train, somehow. The selling of political offices was notorious and the newspaper editors of the time were ashamed of this.

Then there was the Whiskey Ring. The New York Customs House was a major source of corruption lucre. Then there was vote selling in blocks of as many as 10,000 and the cost of paying those who could do this. Then there were the kickbacks from the awards of railroad concessions which included large parcels of land. If there ever was a Golden Age of the United States it must have been when Franklin Roosevelt was President.

ben , Oct 8, 2018 1:13:04 AM | link

karlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"

The only thing us "common folk" can do is work within our personal sphere of influence, and engage who you can, when you can, and support with any $ you can spare, to support the sites and any local radio stations that broadcast independent thought. ( if you can find any). Pacifica radio, KPFK in LA is a good example. KPFA in the bay area.

Other than another economic crash, I don't believe anything can rouse the pathetic bovine public. Bread and circuses work...

Grieved , Oct 8, 2018 1:13:32 AM | link
@38 Pft

The division of representative power and stake in the political process back at the birth of the US Constitution was as you say it was. But this wasn't because any existing power had been taken away from anyone. It was simply the state of play back then.

Since that time, we common people have developed a more egalitarian sense of how the representation should be apportioned. We include former slaves, all ethnic groups and both genders. We exclude animals thus far, although we do have some - very modest - protections in place.

I think it has been the rise of the socialist impulse among workers that has expanded this egalitarian view, with trade unions and anti-imperialist revolutions and national struggles. But I'm not a scholar or a historian so I can't add details to my impression.

My point is that since the Framers met, there has been a progressive elevation of our requirements of representative government. I think some of this also came from the Constitution itself, with its embedded Bill of Rights.

I can't say if this expansion has continued to this day or not. History may show there was a pinnacle that we have now passed, and entered a decline. I don't know - it's hard to say how we score the Internet in this balance. It's always hard to score the present age along its timeline. And the future is never here yet, in the present, and can only ever be guessed.

In my view, the dream of popular control of representative government remains entirely possible. I call it an aspiration rather than a pipe dream, and one worth taking up and handing on through the generations. Current global society may survive in relatively unbroken line for millennia to come. There's simply no percentage in calling failure at this time.

It may be that better government comes to the United States from the example of the world nations, over the decades and centuries to come. Maybe the demonstration effect will work on us even when we cannot work on ourselves. We are not the only society of poor people who want a fair life.

In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness.

In my opinion.

dh-mtl , Oct 8, 2018 2:34:39 AM | link
Grieved @42 said:

"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness."

Here, here! I fully agree with you.

In my opinion, representative government was stronger in the U.S. from the 1930's to the 1970's and Europe after WW2. And as a result the western world achieved unprecedented prosperity. Since 1980, the U.S. government has been captured by trans-national elites, who, since the 1990's have also captured much of the political power in the EU.

Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result of this dictatorship.

Prosperity, and peace, will only return when the dictators are removed and representative government is returned.

Krollchem , Oct 8, 2018 2:42:16 AM | link
dh-mtl@44

"Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result of this dictatorship."

Exactly!! I feel like the Swedish knight Antonius Block in the movie the 7th Seal. There does not seem any way out of this evil game by the death dealing rulers.

Anton Worter , Oct 8, 2018 3:06:04 AM | link
@24

Love it. But you fad3d at the end. It was Gingrich, not Rodham, who was behind Contract on America, and GHWBush's Fed Bank group wrote the legislation that would have been Bush's second term 'kinder, gentler' Gramm-Leach-Bliley bayonet up the azs of the American Dream, as passed by a majority of Congress, and by that point Tripp and Lewinski had already pull-dated Wild Bill. God, can you imagine being married to that hag Rodham? The purple people-eating lizards of Georgetown and Alexandria. Uurk.

Anton Worter , Oct 8, 2018 3:34:05 AM | link
40

¿Que tal?

I'm reading a great FDR book, 'Roosevelt and Hopkins', a signed 1st Ed copy by Robert Sherwood, and the only book extant from my late father's excellent political and war library, after his trophy wife dumped the rest of his library off at Goodwill, lol. They could have paid for her next booblift, ha, ha, ha.

Anyway, FDR, in my mind, only passed the populist laws that he did because he needed cannon fodder in good fighting shape for Rothschild's Wars ("3/4ths of WW2 conscripts were medically unfit for duty," the book reports), and because Rothschild's and Queens Bank of London needed the whole sh*taco bailed out afterward, by creating SS wage-withholding 'Trust Fund' (sic) the Fed then tapped into, and creating Lend-Lease which let Rothschilds float credit-debt to even a higher level and across the globe. Has it all been paid off by Germany and Japan yet?

Even Lincoln, jeez, Civil War was never about slavery, it was about finance and taxation and the illegitimate Federal supremacy over the Republic of States, not unlike the EU today. Lincoln only freed the slaves to use them as cannon fodder and as a fifth column.

All of these politicians were purple people-eating lizards, except maybe the Kennedy's, and they got ground and pounded like Conor McGregor, meh?

Guerrero | Oct 8, 2018 10:22:34 AM | 61

@BM | Oct 8, 2018 10:03:12 AM | 60

"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness."

Compare to: Sentiments of the Nation:

12º That as the good Law is superior to every man, those dictated by our Congress must be such, that they force constancy and patriotism, moderate opulence and indigence; and in such a way increase the wages of the poor, improve their habits, moving away from ignorance, rapine and theft.

13º That the general laws include everyone, without exception of privileged bodies; and that these are only in the use of the ministry..

14º That in order to dictate a Law, the Meeting of Sages is made, in the possible number, so that it may proceed with more success and exonerate of some charges that may result.

15. That slavery be banished forever, and the distinction of castes, leaving all the same, and only distinguish one American from another by vice and virtue.

16º That our Ports be open to friendly foreign nations, but that they do not enter the nation, no matter how friendly they may be, and there will only be Ports designated for that purpose, prohibiting disembarkation in all others, indicating ten percent.

17º That each one be kept his property, and respect in his House as in a sacred asylum, pointing out penalties to the offenders.

18º That the new legislation does not admit torture.

19º That the Constitutional Law establishes the celebration of December 12th in all Peoples, dedicated to the Patroness of our Liberty, Most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, entrusting to all Peoples the monthly devotion.

20º That the foreign troops, or of another Kingdom, do not step on our soil, and if it were in aid, they will not without the Supreme Junta approval.

21º That expeditions are not made outside the limits of the Kingdom, especially overseas, that they are not of this kind yet rather to spread the faith to our brothers and sisters of the land inside.

22º That the infinity of tributes, breasts and impositions that overwhelm us be removed, and each individual be pointed out a five percent of seeds and other effects or other equally light weight, that does not oppress so much, as the alcabala, the Tobacconist, the Tribute and others; because with this slight contribution, and the good administration of the confiscated goods of the enemy, will be able to take the weight of the War, and pay the fees of employees.

Temple of the Virgen of the Ascencion
Chilpancingo, September 14, 1813.
José Mª Morelos.

23º That also be solemnized on September 16, every year, as the Anniversary day on which the Voice of Independence was raised, and our Holy Freedom began, because on that day it was in which the lips of the Nation were deployed to claim their rights with Sword in hand to be heard: always remembering the merit of the great Hero Mr. Don Miguel Hidalgo and his companion Don Ignacio Allende.

Answers on November 21, 1813. And therefore, these are abolished, always being subject to the opinion of S. [u] A. [alteza] S. [very eminent]

[Oct 08, 2018] It has been ALLEGED that Christine Blasey Ford is a psychologist in the CIA's undergraduate internship program at Stanford. I checked her Stanford profiles and it was scrubbed clean but in place .

Notable quotes:
"... Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state. ..."
"... It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC. ..."
"... All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dltravers , Oct 7, 2018 1:12:39 PM | link

The Kavanaugh circus was a sad spectacle. His wife was Bush's personal secretary. The Democrats used the grievance culture because that is all they have. Focusing on abortion and grievances keeps the public stirred up and diverts attention from some other very serious very troubling issues that they are cashing out on.

It has been ALLEGED that Christine Blasey Ford is a psychologist in the CIA's undergraduate internship program at Stanford. I checked her Stanford profiles and it was scrubbed clean but in place .

Snopes has worked hard to discredit the allegations that came out on some websites that are a bit crazy but the information is interesting. She MAY well have been the intake psychologist for this program. Then again, maybe not. She was doing work at Stanford and the scope of that work is not fully known.

Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=6846922&privcapId=4395750&previousCapId=30029621&previousTitle=American%2520DG%2520Energy%2520Inc.

It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC.

While this information came out on some crazy websites SOME of it can be confirmed. Who else is going to publish this? CNN?

All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump.


james , Oct 7, 2018 1:21:55 PM | link

@4 dltravers.. i think your theory has a lot of merit.. "The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump." whatever is going on in the usa, it seems to be coming apart at the seams..
karlof1 , Oct 7, 2018 2:19:27 PM | link
dltravers @4--

Yes, CIA backed HRC since WJC was their boy from the time he attended the school of foreign service at Georgetown where he was recruited, which is how he got his law degree and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. The CIA has either had its own people as POTUS or controlled them via other means since late November 1963. Trump isn't one of them, thus the virulent opposition and collaboration to undermine his office. Now it looks like he's under control, but with Trump you never can tell.

Greece , Oct 7, 2018 6:45:29 PM | link
Just talking to myself mostly...
If CIA backed HRC, and US Military backed Trump, and of course the israeli's, (read The Mossad) also backed Trump, then it means that US Military and The Mossad go hand in hand in Global Theater Operations, since they didn't (apparently) trusted CIA enough? Or is it that what we see here is actually just The Mossad doing some moar extortion operations so they get stuff from the CIA or also the Military transferred over to israeli control?
The Brazil elections if the rightwingers (read fascists) win I bet will be a rainfall for israel, since, there you go, full country in upheaval, letaves you with great opportunities to go sell your 5G and your smart dust and let the government keep every dissident in check, without having to relly on third parties (Google/Apple/Microsoft - the bad guys full of chinese chips.) that won't play with you along (israel). So they get to have their first own little country (80 million?) to play with their new tech, and if you count that rgentina is now back at the IMF, you just add the coiuntries now, from North to South: USA + Brazil + Argentina, that's almost the entire Americas (minus Mexico and Canada, (but I gues uncle Trump will make Mexican's comes to their senses with the Wall right?) That's not bad of a "Market" of a lil country with merely 7 million people like Israel and it's "start up" companies, right? No wonder Mossad doesn't like CIA now. They (retired vets?) took out too much of their (could be) market share, right?

Am I right or am I right as they say in Texas?

[Oct 08, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The mask slips off Appointing judges is just as political as electing them

Oct 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The mask slips off: Appointing judges is just as political as electing them Kavanaugh_rove

By Robert Willmann

On Friday, 5 October, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to end unlimited debate and the possibility of a filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, through a vote on "cloture", the gimmick allowing Senators to do a filibuster or stop one, without actually having to stand up and filibuster.

Shortly after Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy announced on 27 June 2018 that he would be leaving the court, we discussed here on SST the fact that former president Obama, former Democratic Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, current minority "leader" Charles Schumer, and Senate Democrats muscled through a new "interpretation" of the Senate rules that allowed a vote on cloture to require only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, for federal district trial court and court of appeals judges, and other presidential appointees; but for supreme court nominees, 60 votes were still required at that time [1]. This allowed the Obama administration to push through nominees easier.

But when Donald Trump was elected president, the vacancy on the supreme court after the death of Antonin Scalia remained. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch. A cloture vote was demanded to end debate on Gorsuch and to proceed to a final up or down vote. But the vote was not successful and did not get the required 60 votes. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, then followed up on what he said when the Democrats changed the filibuster rule: "You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think". He did what Harry Reid had done, and with the slight Republican majority, reinterpreted the Senate filibuster rule to remove the 60-vote requirement for supreme court nominees. The Democrats could hardly effectively protest, as they had unclean hands from their own prior actions. A second cloture vote was taken on Gorsuch, and it passed, since only a simple majority was required. On the subsequent final vote, he was confirmed. Had Obama et. al. not been greedy and arrogant, the monkey would have been on the back of the Republicans about changing the filibuster rule, and I think it is likely that McConnell would not have changed it. The dynamic in confirming supreme court justices appointed by Trump would have been dramatically different.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was made, the Democrats again did not think past the end of their noses, and tried to block him through a three act play with an accusation of sexual misconduct made by Christine Blasey Ford. Two more accusations then conveniently showed up, along with obviously coached "protesters". But with no real supporting evidence, the entire approach began publicly to implode on itself, and behind the scenes, enough votes were put together to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment.

[Oct 08, 2018] We Are All Deplorables Now by Patrick J. Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... "'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'" ..."
"... 'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'" ..."
"... Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Four days after he described Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as a "very credible witness," President Donald Trump could no longer contain his feelings or constrain his instincts.

With the fate of his Supreme Court nominee in the balance, Trump let his "Make America Great Again" rally attendees in Mississippi know what he really thought of Ford's testimony.

"'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'"

'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'"

By now the Mississippi MAGA crowd was cheering and laughing.

Trump went on: "'What neighborhood was it in?' 'I don't know.' 'Where's the house?' 'I don't know.' 'Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?' 'I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember.'"

Since that day three years ago when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to talk of "rapists" crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, few Trump remarks have ignited greater outrage.

Commentators have declared themselves horrified and sickened that a president would so mock the testimony of a victim of sexual assault.

The Republican senators who will likely cast the decisive votes on Kavanaugh's confirmation -- Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- they all decried Trump's mimicry.

Yet, in tossing out the "Catechism of Political Correctness" and treating the character assassination of Kavanaugh as what it was, a rotten conspiracy to destroy and defeat his nominee, Trump's instincts were correct, even if they were politically incorrect.

This was not a "job interview" for Kavanaugh.

In a job interview, half the members of the hiring committee are not so instantly hostile to an applicant that they will conspire to criminalize and crush him to the point of wounding his family and ruining his reputation.

When Sen. Lindsey Graham charged the Democratic minority with such collusion, he was dead on. This was a neo-Bolshevik show trial where the defendant was presumed guilty and due process meant digging up dirt from his school days to smear and break him.

Our cultural elites have declared Trump a poltroon for daring to mock Ford's story of what happened 36 years ago. Yet, these same elites reacted with delight at Matt Damon's "SNL" depiction of Kavanaugh's angry and agonized appearance, just 48 hours before.

Is it not hypocritical to laugh uproariously at a comedic depiction of Kavanaugh's anguish, while demanding quiet respect for the highly suspect and uncorroborated story of Ford?

Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats.

In our widening and deepening cultural-civil war, the Kavanaugh nomination will be seen as a landmark battle. And Trump's instincts, to treat his Democratic assailants as ideological enemies, with whom he is in mortal struggle, will be seen as correct.

Consider. In the last half-century, which Supreme Court nominees were the most maligned and savaged?

Were they not Nixon nominee Clement Haynsworth, chief judge of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Reagan nominee Robert Bork, Bush 1 nominee Clarence Thomas, and Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the last three all judges on the nation's second-highest court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals?

Is it a coincidence that all four were Republican appointees, all four were judicial conservatives, and all four were gutted on the grounds of philosophy or character?

Is it a coincidence that Nixon in Watergate, Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, and now Trump in Russiagate, were all targets of partisan campaigns to impeach and remove them from office?

Consider what happened to decent Gerald Ford who came into the oval office in 1974, preaching "the politics of compromise and consensus."

To bring the country together after Watergate, Ford pardoned President Nixon. For that act of magnanimity, he was torn to pieces by a Beltway elite that had been denied its anticipated pleasure of seeing Nixon prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison.

Trump is president because he gets it. He understands what this Beltway elite are all about -- the discrediting of his victory as a product of criminal collusion with Russia and his resignation or removal in disgrace. And the "base" that comes to these rallies to cheer him on, they get it, too.

Since Reagan's time, there are few conservatives who have not been called one or more of the names in Hillary Clinton's litany of devils, her "basket of deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, irredeemable.

The battle over Kavanaugh's nomination, and the disparagement of the Republicans who have stood strongest by the judge, seems to have awakened even the most congenial to the new political reality.

We are all deplorables now.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the recent book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

[Oct 08, 2018] What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this piece, has been given a pass by all sides

Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Clyde Schechter October 6, 2018 a t 11:49 am

What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this piece, has been given a pass by all sides. She had the Ford accusations in hand for weeks, but sat on them. She could have passed them on to the FBI much earlier, and there would have been adequate time for a thorough, professional, credible investigation of the accusations. Perhaps that investigation would have been as inconclusive as the one that was ultimately done. But it would have been done in an unhurried, and dignified manner. Nobody need have been publicly humiliated. Nobody need have been dragged into Congress to testify reluctantly, in public, about a painful episode in her life. And, more importantly, the investigation, having been done in the normal course of background investigation, would have had credibility–nobody would have called it a whitewash. And the resulting confirmation, or not, of Kavanaugh would have ultimately been accepted by most people as legitimate.

Feinstein had the ability to make that happen, but she chose instead to sit on this until the last minute when, surely she knew, it would unleash a sh**storm.

Her excuse that she was protecting Ford's privacy holds no water at all. A regular FBI investigation could have been conducted discretely: they know how to keep things confidential when they want to. Moreover, take a look at Feinstein's abysmal voting record on surveillance: she doesn't respect anybody's privacy, ever.

Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I'm certainly voting for her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.

Pete from Baltimore , says: October 6, 2018 at 12:01 pm
I think that from the very beginning this Court Nomination has been about the midterm election. The Democrats never really expected to be bale to stop Kavvanaugh.But they figured that they could use anger against him in order to get out their "base" in November

In the end, both parties will probably get their "Base" out to vote.But there is going to be a lot of wrecked human lives left behind because of this sad,sordid battle

[Oct 08, 2018] From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. Kavanaugh had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom the Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. but was blocked by the Republicans.

Oct 08, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 10.07.18 at 2:59 am ( 9 )

Two quotes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/susan-collins-speech-brett-kavanaugh.html

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.

This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.


The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.

-Sen. Susan Collins

Supreme
Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh clears crucial hurdle to confirmation
By Eric London, World Socialist Web Site; 6 October 2018

With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the confirmation process.

From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has abandoned as a political issue.

In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:

"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times wrote.

The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the Republicans.

Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion written by the other only once.

In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.

nikbez 10.07.18 at 3:22 am ( 10 )
ph 10.07.18 at 1:20 am (5)

Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate to recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism and worse.

Exactly.

Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no longer can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying to compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.

Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA population, including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of living. They see exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.

That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously supported Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no political party that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.

"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal elite.

As Slavoj Žižek aptly said " To paraphrase Stalin: They are both worse." ( http://inthesetimes.com/features/zizek_clinton_trump_lesser_evil.html _

Nick Caldwell 10.07.18 at 5:05 am ( 14 )
"ph" is one of the more subtle Concern Trolls I've seen, I'll give them that.

Reactionaries need to be more afraid that their relentlessly tightening grip on every single lever of power will lead inexorably to the most bloodthirsty correction in human history. It's not something anyone would wish for, but what's the realistic alternative? American elites are just too stupid to enact the kind of sophisticated authoritarian controls that might stave off total collapse.

[Oct 07, 2018] There Was No Debate When We Needed One by Paul Craig Roberts

As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to disqualify him. Instead they used the fake grievance culture against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood (vid, recommended).
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
Oct 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.

Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine.

A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered.

There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch powers and the protection of US civil liberty. Important books, such as Charlie Savage's Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle that the president is accountable under law. Can the executive branch torture despite domestic and international laws against torture? Can the executive branch spy on citizens without warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary? Can the executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of law, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law professor John Yoo say "yes the president can."

Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.

And it wasn't just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progresive/left which has discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize and was not fired as a male would have been.

There is now a "funding platform" endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump's capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.

To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let's assume that the vague, unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let's assume that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn't she raped? I suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available. Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go. How is this a serious sexual offense?

Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama, and Trump regimes?

There has been no accountability for these obvious and undeniable crimes. Why are not feminists and presidents of Catholic Universities such as Georgetown and Catholic University in Washington, and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US media, and the liberal/progressive/left websites concerned about real crimes instead of make-believe ones? What has happened to our country that nothing that really matters ever becomes part of public notice?

US administrations have not only murdered, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated millions of totally innocent human beings, but also the evil and corrupt US government, protected by the presstitute media, which is devoid of character and integrity, has tortured in violation of United States law hundreds of innocents sold to it under the US bounty system in Afghanistan, when the Cheney-Bush regime desperately needed "terrorists" to justify its war based on nothing but its lies.

All sorts of totally innocent people were tortured by sadistic US government personnel who delighted in making people under their power suffer. These were unprotected people picked up by war lords in response to Washington's offer of a bounty for "terrorists" and sold to the Americans. The victims included aid workers, traveling salesmen, unprotected visitors, and others who lacked protection from being misrepresented as "terrorists" in order to be sold for $5,000 so that Dick Cheney and the criminal Zionist neocons would have some "terrorists" to show to justify their war crime.

ORDER IT NOW

The utterly corrupt US media was very reticent about telling Americans that close to 100% of the "world's most dangerous terrorists," in the words of the criminal US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were released as innocent of all

[Oct 06, 2018] Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh clears crucial hurdle to confirmation by Eric London

Oct 06, 2018 | www.wsws.org

... ... ...

With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.

The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the confirmation process.

From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has abandoned as a political issue.

In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:

"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times wrote.

The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the Republicans.

Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion written by the other only once.

In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.

[Oct 05, 2018] It would seem Kavanaugh never encountered a Stasi-style privacy invasion he did not like

I come across information about connection of Kavanauch to Vince Foster before but this is probably the most complete text of what can be called Internet rumor. The suicide has nevertheless continued to fuel speculation: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made news in 2016 when he remarked in an interview with the Washington Post that Foster's death was "very fishy", and added "I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair."
Notable quotes:
"... Praised *dissent* in Roe ..."
"... Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare ..."
"... Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants ..."
"... Opposes net neutrality ..."
"... Opposes consumer bureau ..."
"... Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional ..."
"... -- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018 ..."
"... " According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life -- without a warrant" ..."
"... " According to his wife , security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen"" ..."
"... color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply. ..."
"... "Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy" ..."
"... A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald's Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire. ..."
Jul 10, 2018 | ronaldthomaswest.com

Kavanaugh.jpg - 1

Kavanaugh:

-- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018

[Oct 05, 2018] I thought the Judge was too angry, whining, and evasive, when he could have been much more precise and pointed in his responses.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

alexander , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT

@anonymous I agree, it is a big circus.

Both sides seem to be interested in the truth , only in so far as it serves their respective political agenda's. Nothing more.

I was not particularly impressed with the testimony from either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford.

I thought the Judge was too angry , whining, and evasive, when he could have been much more precise and pointed in his responses. I was not a big fan of the "calendar"story (true or not) nor his responses to an FBI investigation.

... ... ...

[Oct 05, 2018] Sex, Lies and Privilege The Kavanaugh Case

Notable quotes:
"... The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

By Joe Lauria

October 2, 2018 • 240 Comments

The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria.

... ... ...

(SEN. SHELDON) WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?

KAVANAUGH : Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.

... ... ...

In earlier testimony in September, Kavanaugh appeared the model of judicial restraint and non-partisanship. On Thursday he dropped all the pretenses.

" This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit," he said, "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

" This is a circus," Kavanaugh said. "The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades." He then issued what can only be seen as a threat: "And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around."

The judge's outburst unleashed an attack from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the opposition party.

" I hope the American people can see through this sham," Graham screamed. "This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap If you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics."

... ... ...

Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, said :

" Contrary to the mantra that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have it in for Kavanaugh, they've largely let him off the hook on a number of critical issues, instead favoring theatrics."

"While there's substantial attention being paid to the serious charges of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, there's been very little note that he is a putative war criminal. Specifically, recently released documents show that while Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush administration, one of the people he attempted to put on the judiciary was John Yoo, who authored many of the justifications for torture that came out of the Bush administration."


O Society , October 4, 2018 at 8:08 am

Kavanaugh's career as a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security state, and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying, and the domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of these.

Brett Kavanaugh is a douchebag who lacks the political, emotional, and moral grounding to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Sifting , October 3, 2018 at 11:55 pm

It's clear that most commentators here didn't read Anastasia's recommendation above about Ford's friends, FBI connections, and substantiated lies:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/comment-page-3/

backwardsevolution , October 4, 2018 at 1:38 am

Sifting – I read it, and it was very interesting indeed. Ms. Ford needs to be investigated. She has yet to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee her therapist notes and the information they wanted re her polygraph test.

Her former boyfriend of six years has said that she was never claustrophobic, was not afraid of tight spaces, flew often, even on small planes, he witnesssed her help her friend prepare for a polygraph test with the FBI, and, although the reporter did not want to talk about it, it appears that her sexual relationships were not hampered by this alleged Kavanaugh groping.

Sounds like her FBI friend may have helped draft the letter to Senator Feinstein. Many questions to be answered by Ms. Ford.

irina , October 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm

I found the 'flying around the Hawai'ian Islands in a propeller plane' to be
rather telling. This activity could probably be easily corroborated by family
or friends or even old postcards, receipts, etc. If anything is designed to
make a person feel 'trapped' (in more ways than one), a prop plane ranks
right up there. Her 'fear of flying' (interesting reference to Erica Jong as well !)
seems to me to be extremely selective.

Sandra Villarreal , October 3, 2018 at 11:47 pm

EVERYONE'S behavior during this Kavanaugh/Ford circus was deplorable. Made for a nice distraction though didn't it. Christine Blasey Ford deserves an award for her performance, because that's all it was – acting. She's a disgrace to all women who have 'really' been raped, many violently, including myself. And we certainly don't reach out 36 years later to profit from our traumatic experience. Gofundme: Help Christine Blasey Ford $528,475 raised of $150,000. Donald Trump and our entire Government is a joke, a laughing stock for the entire world to see. It doesn't get much more disgusting than this. Oh but wait, it will.

robjira , October 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm

As was pointed out in this article (and thanks to Mr. Lauria for re-emphasising the point), Kavanaugh already had plenty of factors against his suitability for the Supreme Court; mainly his being an enthusiastic war monger and an accessory to war crimes (not to mention the appearance of judicial corruption). Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display. It is distressing that otherwise insightful posters to these boards are getting caught up in the partisan theatre which, once again, has proven to be highly effective in keeping the citizenry divided against itself while the usual criminals continue to laugh our collective way to either thermonuclear or ecological apocalypse.

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm

Bridget , October 4, 2018 at 12:51 am

"Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display."

That's because the Democrats are equally guilty of war crimes and war mongering. There's no partisanship when it comes to grinding under the corporate boot.

Why is it that the Republicans aren't shouting about Ukraine's collusion with the DNC to benefit Hillary Clinton? [And they did, succeeding in ruining Manafort, and birthing the Trump/Russia narrative.] Could it be that the Republicans are just as eager to demonize Russia, that they need an enemy to justify their war economy? Trump is expendable. Their real target is Putin. They'd like to replace him with Khodarkovsky so they can once more rape Russia as they did in the 1990's.

anastasia , October 3, 2018 at 3:24 pm

A part of the coup vs. Trump?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/comment-page-3/

The polygrrapher was also a retired FBI agent. Done in Delaware where the letter to Feinstein was written, and where Monica McClean lived?

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 5:08 pm

That link anastasia posted is well worth a few minutes – take a look people, it may alter how you look at this Kavanaugh thing.

jean , October 3, 2018 at 5:48 pm

Even MSNBC is reporting about it ..

Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are stepping up efforts to challenge Christine Blasey Ford's credibility by confronting her with a sworn statement from a former boyfriend who took issue with a number of assertions she made during testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week.

The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."

"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," the man said in the statement. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."

He added that she never told him about a violent encounter with Judge Kavanaugh. "It strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship," Mr. Merrick told the newspaper. "But I would never try to discredit what she says or what she believes." "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."

Mr. Merrick took issue with Dr. Blasey's professed fear of flying and of confined spaces, noting that they once traveled around the Hawaiian islands in a propeller plane. "Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying," he wrote. "To the best of my recollection Dr. Ford never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/christine-blasey-ford%E2%80%99s-credibility-under-new-attack-by-senate-republicans/ar-BBNSOBF?ocid=spartanntp

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 1:47 pm

I wonder if the Toxic Cloud State (aka deep state) couldn't find anything relevant against the nominee in the 10+ years of private comm data they have on him (and on all of us), or do they favor him, despite being a Trump nominee, because of his not caring about the 4th Amendment?

Something to think about.

Brian , October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm

You want something to think about ? If there's nothing damming about this nominee, why did the committee withhold 100,000 pages of information about him ? Or why you support a nominee for the highest court in the land who lies at the drop of a hat (2 that can be proven with his last conformation hearing) ?

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:30 pm

Here's what I think – that this is an attempt to destroy someone with an accusation – it's about the power to do that.

If he can proven to have lied in his last confirmation hearing, then why isn't that what they're using to defeat him, instead of an unsupported accusation from 35 yrs ago. There's good reason to believe this accusation is part of a well planned conspiracy and is full of holes.

I think you should read this
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/comment-page-3/

I think his lack of support of the 4th amendment is itself a good enough reason to reject his nomination instead of this feminist liberal attempt to destroy someone with an accusation.

I think there's EVIDENCE plainly available to defeat him. Defeating him on the basis of an accusation is what they're trying because that suits what this really about – the power to destroy with an emotionalized accusation. That's power that undermine the law, politics, everyday ethical behavior and normal humn relationships.

Rob , October 3, 2018 at 7:12 pm

That about sums it up. We're making fools of ourselves to the world.

Herman , October 3, 2018 at 9:19 am

Very selective in your judgement.

Smear, malign, ridicule a man, then when he succumbs emotionally smear him for not being able to control his emotions. Not a bad strategy. Attacking him because of his performance, even as a teenager for goodness sake, and finding that was likely to fail, the enemies of what they think he represents have attacked his emotional stability.

Having said that, I think Cavanaugh could have used some coaching before he rightly attacked his accusers on the Committee. He. being human, I can sympathize with his attack but his attackers are a cold and cunning lot and they finally found something they could use to do what they wanted, to keep a Trump nominee off the Court.

That Trump will be willing to throw him under the bus is not beyond imagining.

As to Ms. Ford, however useful she was, she will suffer from the continuing glare of the spotlight as the inconsistencies in her story unravel and her personal life is dissected over and over.

If she is instrumental in keeping Cavanaugh off the Court, she will have proved quite useful to those who went after Cavanaugh. That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her.

JoeSixPack , October 3, 2018 at 11:38 am

"That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her."

Excellent point. Neither Democrats nor Republicans care. This is all political theater. No one is interested in the truth.

jean , October 3, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Trump is a huge middle finger to the entire system especially the GOP and Bush cabal..The more outrageous he was the better they liked it.My guess.

Lucius Patrick , October 3, 2018 at 10:54 am

Yes, the great Obama, who bombed more countries and dropped more bombs, than Bush and Cheney; who sold more military weapons to foreign countries than any president in history. Who backed an illegal in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War. That Obama?

willow , October 3, 2018 at 3:13 pm

Obama legalized and industrialized fake news when he repealed the Smith-Mundt domestic propaganda ban as part of the 2013 NDAA. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/

willow , October 3, 2018 at 2:34 am

Everybody needs to call the republican and democrat senators of your state and tell them not to
confirm Bret Kavenaugh based on his opinion on the record that bulk NSA spying is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. That makes him a traitor who does not uphold the Constitution. This dog and pony show is a study in distraction. A 2015 Pew research study found the majority of Americans, Republican, Democrat and Independent voters, oppose NSA bulk spying.

jean , October 3, 2018 at 6:05 pm

You mean the NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying that democrat made legal and expanded?

The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

You do know the architects for those crimes now work for MSNBC and CNN? .they are democrats new hero's?

CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate. Fire him
Video for brennan lies
? 1:34
https://www.theguardian.com/ /cia-director-john-brennan-lied-sen

Jul 31, 2014
"The facts will come out," Brennan told NBC News in March after apologizes even though he's not sorry, who

James Clapper Just Lied Again About His Previous Lies About NSA

Video for clapper lies
? 9:28
thefederalist.com/ /james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous

General Hayden Lies To The Press

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZ0hALJVrE

May 22, 2018 – Uploaded by The View
In an interview with the ladies of 'The View' James Clapper told another lie about his previous lies about

Knomore , October 2, 2018 at 10:19 pm

What we've learned in these days is that it does not matter one whit if what you charge is false; the mainstream media, in league with the Democrat Party, have mastered this to perfection. No: What matters is lobbing something -- filth works best because it sticks best -- at someone, especially if the latter person is someone you want to discredit in some way -- any way -- possible.

I'm having a large problem with Lauria's article, admit I did not read past the first paragraph. My excuse is that we are all on emotional overload in the aftermath of Ford's juvenile presentation before the Judiciary Committee. What most of us suspected at the time–that these were false charges–was largely substantiated first by what we heard and then by Ms. Mitchell, the sex abuse professional who interviewed Ford. Witnessing the Democrats, Feinstein especially, and then the dispassionate Kamala H., smile beseechingly while encouraging this preposterous display left yet more funky smells in the room.

Now we are asked to forget all that and engage in a new game: This one is called Double jeopardy? Triple jeopardy ? It goes like this:

You take a baseball bat and slam someone over the head with it as hard as you can. Next step is to stand there and critique that person from every angle imaginable, but mostly for having the audacity to stand up and try to defend himself.

Shame on all of us.

JR_Leonardi , October 2, 2018 at 10:16 pm

I shall be amazed if the censor permits this comment to post.

Joe Lauria does not deserve to be the Editor of the journal Robert Parry established and, for years, edited honorably and professionally.

Joe Lauria disgraces Consortium News with his part-fraudulent, all toxic propaganda "article" that clashes with near-all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (rather than the baseless, thoroughly discredited accusations and the vile-politics-engendered "belief" of the Democrat-suborned false accusations).

One must wonder whether her, Lauria, would feel and express rage and show tears were HE the object of vicious, fraudulent character-assassination like that suffered by Judge Kavanaugh.

I contemn Joe Lauria as I contemned Joe McCarthy and contemn now the Democrat Party's members of Congress and the Clintonian DNC.

Joe Lauria needs to resign his Editorship.

exiled off mainstreet , October 4, 2018 at 4:21 am

Lauria's knowledge of Kavanaugh's real historic role explains why he finds the baseless allegations against him believable. One has to examine his entire record, which is admirable, rather than going to the mattresses because he makes a mistake here. The fact is, Kavanaugh is a disgrace for reasons other than the ones the democrats are proferring because as an integral part of a corrupt militarist imperialist power structure intent on continuing their total domination of everything, they don't want to deal with the real failings of Kavanaugh as a corrupt opponent of the rule of law. I agree that it is unfortunate that Lauria accepts this largely debunked story influenced by his knowledge of unrelated worse stories that are provable.

jean , October 2, 2018 at 9:17 pm

Could Trump Take Down the American Empire?

"Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S.
military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in
the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of
his "victory tour" in December 2016, Trump vowed,

"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we shouldn't
be involved with." Instead of investing in wars, he said, he wouldinvest in rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure."

"Trump retorted angrily that the generals were "the architects of this mess" and that they have were "making it worse," by asking him to add more troops to "something I don't believe in."

Then Trump folded his arms and declared, "I want to get out. And you're telling me the answeris to get deeper in."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/could-trump-take-down-the-american-empire/

No wonder democrats hate him.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/could-trump-take-down-the-american-empire/

KiwiAntz , October 3, 2018 at 4:01 am

Jean, you make a good point that Trump's taking down the American Empire, but not as you've envisioned it? Trump's Trade Wars & Financial terrorism in the form of Tarriffs & Sanctions are forcing other Nations to consolidate & start the process of the "dedollarisation" of their economies to transition away from the US Dollar & it's removal as the Worlds reserve currency! Alternatives to the US Swift Banking system are well on the way, further isolating the USA's role in punishing Nations through financial & economic warfare via the Banking system! Once this happens, the entire "ponzi scheme" of the most indebted Nation on Earth will collapse in on itself like a Black hole! And Trump is accelerating this demise of America as a Hegemonic Empire! And for your information & in direct contradiction of his campaign promises,Trump is not withdrawing America from meddling in the Middle East, he's appeasing the Deepstate & outsourcing this Foreign Policy of Regime change & Resources theft of other Countries, to Warmongers like Mattis & Pompeo who are maintaining the status quo of the US as a unwanted, Foreign Invader by hanging on in Afghanistan; Iraq & Syria, like a limpett crab attaching itself to a rock! Trump is unable to extricate the US because the US cant't or won't face the reality, that they have achieved nothing, despite wasting trillions of dollars of warmongering with zero results to show for the horrendous cost of the invasions! So they will remain over there, till hell freezes over, as a face saving measure to avoid the inevitable humiliation of defeat like in Vietnam, knowing that the endless Wars conducted by them has been a utter, catastrophic disaster caused by arrogance, ignorance & supreme hubris by a out of control, lawless Rogue Nation!

jean , October 3, 2018 at 6:09 pm

its called consistency and principles.

"Whataboutism" is a call out of hypocrisy and was first used by a poor Carpenter who said to "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

We wouldnt even have Trump if not for Hillary.

rosemerry , October 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm

All this "evidence" business is interesting when we observe that since March, the USA media and government has accepted the word of UK PM Theresa May that the Russians have poisoned two Salisbury residents with novichok under the orders of Vladimir Putin himself. NO evidence of any kind has been produced, the EU and NATO gang were called in, over 100 diplomats were expelled and the Russians had no right of reply at all, and the whole saga continues. These days, who cares about evidence?
In this case, there is abundance evidence over thirty years that Kavanaugh is "a corporation masquerading as a judge", to use Ralph Nader's words. He cares not at all for workers, environment, poor people, ordinary citizens. Find a real candidate, if any come forward.

Cratylus , October 2, 2018 at 4:58 pm

There are good reasons for opposing Kavanaugh – and they were obvious to begin with. Lauria and others have summarized them nicely.
BUT with all those things known, he was on his way to confirmation. The lesson is that the Elite, Dems and GOP, are just fine with Kavanaugh. If it were a Dem essentially like him the voting would be Partisan, just the other way.

Some would prefer a woman but they had their day in approving Gina Haspel. No big fight was involved; and we know what she has done dwarfs even the worst accusations against Kavanaugh.

Then the last minute accusations, and everyone got interested. There are many serious issues here – sexual assault being one of them as Lauria points out. But they are unproven and alleged against a 17 year old. So the discussion shifted to temperament and respect for Senators. Do they deserve respect? I do not think so. And now on to drinking habits of the high school and college boy. Down, down, down.

What is motivating 99% of the people glued to this issue? It is Partisan Identity Politics – in fact worse, it is Tabloid Identity Politics. Meanwhile tensions are soaring on the Russian border, in Middle East and in the South China Sea; mass incarceration stares us in the face; health care degenerates ever further -and we have to debate Kavanaugh's alcoholism and "temperament." What a sad excuse for real political discussion. In fact I find I am getting annoyed at myself for even weighing in on this. I

irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:44 pm

Exactly. We are now reading in the 'papers of record' articles which not long ago
would have appeared in supermarket checkout tabloids. But since they are in
the Big Papers, they now have an aura of authenticity lacking in tabloid spreads.

It's practically impossible to find useful information on any topic in the Big Papers.

Deltaeus , October 2, 2018 at 4:38 pm

Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.

Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that. Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with this article.

Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be a shame.

irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm

Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.

For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he started strongly resembling his dad (her son).

False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.

Hans Zandvliet , October 2, 2018 at 4:06 pm

I think the whole Kavanaugh back-and-forth-mud-slinging excersize is just an irrelevant side-show to distract us from what really matters.
Justice in the USA is already dead; they only forgot to burry the corpse.
So why fighting over it? That;s the point: it's all a distraction from the twin-brother of "Justice", called "Democracy" who's on life support, too. And by fighting over the already dead corpse of Justice, the Deep State can let the death of Democracy go unnoticed.
In fact, I believe the present USA government system is way beyond repair. Corporate corruption has taken over all government institutions, so there are no institutional proceedings left to fight this corrupt system. The only way left is a revolution to overthrow the corrupt system and start anew.
It will not be pleasant, but that's the ride the USA has embarked on.

GofSMQ , October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm

I believed Kavanaugh, did not believe Ford. Her fake crying reminded me of Susan Smith. If no woman had ever lied and made false accusations about a man Lauria might have ground to stand on, but sadly it happens, and thus no human being should be automatically given credibility over someone else simply because of their gender, race, or other immutable characteristics.

That said, Kavanaugh is unqualified due to his involvement with the Federalist Society, Starr, and the Bush/Cheney regime. His background shows he is a threat to Constitutional and natural rights. IMO He is as partisan as the people who hope to destroy him.

Joe Tedesky , October 2, 2018 at 12:44 pm

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers give a blow by blow review of Judge Kavanaugh's partisan career.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/02/kavanaugh-is-the-wong-nominee/

O Society , October 2, 2018 at 10:51 am

Here is a list of some of the serious allegations about Brett Kavanaugh which have nothing to do with identity politics. When are we going to publicly discuss these issues?

Advocating torture, aiding war criminals, Big Brother-level surveillance the real issues go far beyond whether or not Brett liked to party and drink beer and get aggressive in high school. He's basically a henchman for Bush and will be one for Trump, and far-right authoritarians for years to come.

This is the real problem with Brett Kavanaugh. Why do the Democrats make it all about He Said v She Said identity politics? Is the Democratic party more concerned about firing up the masses for the coming midterm elections than about Kavanaugh's record of assisting authoritarianism? Certainly looks this way

Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 am

As I said in the McGovern thread:

The reason for that is simple: Democrats have no power to stop Kavanaugh's appointment. That depends entirely on getting a couple Republicans to vote No, and they would not be impressed by the lines of argument you (and others) have suggested.

O Society , October 2, 2018 at 11:22 am

Oh, I think the answer is clear and simple. The Democratic party is in favor of authoritarian imperialism just as much as the Republican party is, and I think this whole circus is a dog and pony show to distract everyone from the fact everyone in the show is a criminal with skeletons. Happy Halloween!

Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Well, the difference between the parties is the that the Democrats pretend to opposed to the Plutocracy, while the Republicans brag about promoting the Plutocracy. That is why the Dems know it is useless, when the Repubs are in power, to oppose Kavanaugh on the grounds of his being wholly owned.

Stumpy , October 3, 2018 at 3:28 am

You nailed it. Further, the bonus comes in when the Kavanaugh appointment enrages the groundswell of #metoo assaultees into a even greater force of male career destruction at the hands of vengeful goddesses.

willow , October 3, 2018 at 2:56 am

Actually a Pew Research poll showed that the majority of Americans opposed NSA bulk spying, and interestingly, the largest group of voters in opposition were Independents, followed by Republicans and then the Democrats. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ft_15-05-29_nsa/

O Society , October 2, 2018 at 12:38 pm

The Democrats aren't really Resisting. They are playing the identity politics. It's the only thing they stand for that's different from the Republicans. Here are examples of their happiness with authoritarianism and imperialism. They even like it when Trump does it.:

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/08/giving-trump-carte-blanche-for-war/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/06/20/house-and-senate-democrats-vote-68-percent-and-85-percent-for-massive-military-spending/

Sally Snyder , October 2, 2018 at 7:57 am

Here is an article that looks at one of the little-discussed reasons for concerns about a Kavanaugh judgeship:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-and-surveillance.html

If Justice Kavanaugh had his way, mass collections of Americans' private data would be routine in spite of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Oct 05, 2018] Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not interested in such trifles.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

psychohistorian ,

"The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored..."

Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not interested in such trifles.

It is interesting that the name "Dick Cheney the Traitor" is gradually getting a name recognition on a par with Goebbels & Mengele.. What a miserable subhuman being Dick Cheney is.

karlof1 , Oct 5, 2018 8:23:52 PM | link
Anya @61--

You might be interested in what over 2400 professors of law had to say to their Senators as to why Kavanaugh's unfit as a judge at any judiciary level . Not "trifiles" but foundations.

">link

Anya , Oct 5, 2018 8:00:44 PM | link

[Oct 05, 2018] Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [107] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:18 am GMT

Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").

. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.

Thus without a properly functioning hippocampus learning and memory become problematic. https://sites.duke.edu/apep/module-3-alcohol-cell-suicide-and-the-adolescent-brain/content-alcohol-memory-and-the-hippocampus/

Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma" from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc) stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.

So does alcohol.

Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college?

[Oct 05, 2018] Blasey Ford's FBI Polygraph Buddy Pressured Woman From Mystery Groping Party To Change Story

Notable quotes:
"... Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened. ..."
"... So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

A former FBI agent and lifelong friend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford allegedly pressured a woman to change her statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in 1982, reports the Wall Street Journal .

Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened.

The Journal also reports that after the FBI sent their initial report on the Kavanaugh allegations to the White House, they sent the White House and Senate an additional package of information which included text messages from McLean to Keyser .

McLean's lawyer, David Laufman, categorically denied that his client pressured Keyser, saying in a statement: "Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser's account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is absolutely false."

Ms. Keyser's lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh , whom she said she didn't know. That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she believed Dr. Ford . On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Keyser's attorney sent a letter to the panel saying his client wasn't refuting Dr. Ford's account and that she believed it but couldn't corroborate it. - WSJ

Keyser's admission to the FBI - which is subject to perjury laws - may influence the Senate's upcoming confirmation debates. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said that he found the most significant material in the FBI report to be statements from people close to Ford who wanted to corroborate her account and were "sympathetic in wishing they could, but they could not."

In his testimony last week, Judge Kavanaugh sought to use Ms. Keyser's initial statement to undercut his accuser. " Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers ," he said. " Refuted ."

Two days later, Ms. Keyser's lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account." Mr. Walsh added: "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question. " - WSJ

In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford claimed she never told Keyser about the assault, saying "She didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her," and adding that she didn't "expect" that Keyser would remember the "very unremarkable party."

"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera." said Ford.

About that polygraph

On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing letter to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took, after her ex-boyfriend of six years refuted statements she made under oath last week.

Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford's, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, "Never." This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."

McLean issued a Wednesday statement rejecting the ex-boyfriend's claims that she was coached on how to take a polygraph test.

A closer look at McLean

Enjoying the tastes are In back (l-r) Kelly Devine and Nuh Tekmen. In front, Monica McLean , Karen Sposato, Catherine Hester, Sen. Ernie Lopez, R-Lewes, and Jennifer Burton. BY DENY HOWETH

An intriguing analysis by "Sundance" of the Conservative Treehouse lays out several curious items for consideration.

First, McLean signed a letter from members of the Holton-Arms class of 1984 supporting Ford's claim.

Next, we look at McLean's career:

Monica Lee McLean was admitted to the California Bar in 1992, the same year Ms Ford's boyfriend stated he began a six-year relationship with her best friend . The address for the current inactive California Law License is now listed as *"Rehoboth Beach, DE". [*Note* remember this, it becomes more relevant later.] - Conservative Treehouse

Sundance notes that "Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI." and that " After 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara :"

Here's where things get really interesting:

Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as "roommates" in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former boyfriend of six years.

Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential election. Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware ; which aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.

Now, where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh ?

[Transcript]

So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. - Conservative Treehouse

Thus, it appears that Blasey Ford was with McLean for four days leading up to the actual writing of the letter, from July 26th to July 30th.

Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms. McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?

Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael Bromwich, begin to make more sense?

Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a different meaning or make more sense, now?

Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE .. could it be that Mrs. McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor? - Conservative Treehouse

Were Ford and McLean working together to take out Kavanaugh?

In September we reported that an audio recording purportedly from a July conference call suggests that Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh wasn't simply a reluctant claim that Diane Feinstein sat on until the 11th hour.

The recording features Ricki Seidman - a former Clinton and Obama White House official and Democratic operative who advised Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and who was revealed on Thursday as an adviser to Ford by Politico .

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers, is being advised by Democratic operative Ricki Seidman .

Seidman, a senior principal at TSD Communications, in the past worked as an investigator for Sen. Ted Kennedy, and was involved with Anita Hill's decision to testify against Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas. - Politico

"While I think at the outset, looking at the numbers in the Senate, it's not extremely likely that the nominee can be defeated," says Seidman. "I would absolutely withhold judgement as the process goes on. I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance."

What's more, the recording makes clear that even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Democrats can use the doubt cast over him during midterms.

"Over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it's possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee... whether or not it ultimately defeats the nominee, it will help people understand why it's so important that they vote and the deeper principles that are involved in it. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/zRttpJxj59A

[Oct 05, 2018] Christine Blah-Blah Ford Her Hippocampus by Ilana Mercer

Notable quotes:
"... has been writing a ..."
"... paleolibertarian ..."
"... since 1999. She is the author of " ..."
"... (2011) & " ..."
"... (June, 2016) &. She's on ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.

Granted, we don't know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That's because, well, she must never be questioned.

Questioning the left's latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine Republicans blindly obey.

I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the "recovered memory ruse," in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.

Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships -- one in law, the other in psychology -- had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator, a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of the Crown's attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in therapy.

I attended. I was awed.

Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with some suggestions.

"A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of boredom, impatience or fascination" -- these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the malleable human mind.

Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed: "Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them."

Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.

Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.

Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?

Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. "As time goes by," writes Loftus in her seminal book, "The Myth of Repressed Memories," "the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to post-event information."

What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.

After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.

"Recovered memories," inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association, "are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the historical dustbin."

Not that you'd know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under therapy.

Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999 : Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016) &. She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube


anon [107] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT

@Abel

It is idiotic to write a piece talking about recovered memories in this context.

Agree: Mercer's approach to Ford's hippocampus is idiotic.

Also appears to be neurologically off-base; there's a much stronger refutation to Perfesser Ford's dazzling psychological explanation: alcohol wreaks havoc on the hippocampus –

https://www.unz.com/freed/kavanaugh-gang-rapes-collie-in-satanic-ritual/#comment-2554935

She can't remember the house she was in or how she got there/got home because her hippocampus was suffering alcohol poisoning.

She did poorly in subsequent high school and in early years in college because her hippocampus was pickled.

Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").

. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.

-- -

Mercer's assessment seems to have been skewed in order to promote Mercer's 1999 work on the Loftus case...

Anonymous [348] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT
The whole hippocampus explanation made her sound like she's been talking to a therapist, but then she herself is a psychologist so she probably doesn't need a therapist to help her 'recover' that memory.

I think the key thing here are the witnesses. None recalled such a party ever taking place. Her best friend said not only did she not remember the party, but she had never met Kavanaugh. If she had been ditched by Ford that night and was left in a house with 2 potential rapists, don't you think she'd remember and talked it over with her the next day? That just made her story fall apart.

Bill H , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
Interesting photographic choice for such an article. Trial, whether in a court of law, or merely in terms of destroying someone's life in the media, cannot be about what someone believes, or can be made to believe, but must be about what the evidence can reveal to be true. Where, when and why did we ever lose sight of that?
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 7:20 am GMT
It is amazing to me how it is these constitution loving, immigrant pundits drop the ball and have no clue what all of the smokescreen is about:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/07/12/kavanaugh-the-royal-nonsuch/

The Dems (dims) wouldn't dare attack the criminal Kavanaugh on the actual facts because it would implicate their goddess Hillary. There are no clean hands at the worm farm at DC, that just doesn't happen.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 5, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@renfro Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.
Main thing here is that she remembered to the rest of her life to be careful about the water.
And also Miss Ford (If she did not lie) must have noticed the house that she would not go into that house ever,
anarchyst , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
Let's not forget the "false memory" debacles of the 1990s with the McMartin preschool and Wenatchee Washington preschool cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes that they could not have possible committed.
In the McMartin case, the problem was overzealous parents who believed their childrens' fantasies, and got overzealous "child protective services" caseworkers involved. Questionable tactics to elicit "correct" responses from the children were used. Rewards, such as ice cream were used when the children gave the "correct" response. The children were badgered by these "professionals" until the proper answers were given. Many innocent peoples' lives were ruined as a result.
The Wenatchee debacle was fueled by a rogue detective, who saw child abuse under every rock and was determined to get convictions, the truth be damned.
The same tactics as in the McMartin case were used to elicit the correct responses from the children.
In both cases, the mantra that "children cannot lie" was used, along with tactics that would be unacceptable today (but are still being used).
anon [401] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
After a long conversation last night with drunken friends, me being the sober one of course, I had only one beer cuz I'm a good girl, but I can't recall what was said or how many of us were in the room. Wait, oh yeah.

We all decided that the seeming wussy response by Republicans was a strategy. Weren't they all also being accused? If Grassley hadn't bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and her increasingly violent democrat extremist enablers and all of their ethically challenged dumb followers, they would have appeared uncaring. They gave the Feinstein and Ford crowds serious consideration – no one can truthfully say otherwise.

There really isn't much one can say about a woman, or a man, who claimed they were assaulted or abused. Proper respect must be given and investigations must be made. We all know Ford is a liar now. Almost any real victim of sexual assault can recall the details of the assault.

I think Republicans played it right all along. If she was not deceptive, it would have come out.

The whole affair was the same as watching Justice Channel homicide detectives patiently wait for their prime suspect to speak until she slipped up and incriminated herself. No dna test for Ford though. In fact, no evidence at all. In the end, she proved herself incredible and all of her apoplectic supporters went off the rails and are making things worse for real victims of sexual abuse.

The little girl act made Ford look insane.

Now, the unfunniest comedian in the world, Amy Shumer, who, let's face it, only got fame due to her Uncle Chuck, is rallying the rest of the moonbats, reactionaries, and liars, aka Democrat nutcases to rally and resist. Resist. Bunch of clowns think they have something to resist rather than working to rebuild a party and find solutions to their problems. Hopefully the democrat party will splinter apart and crawl away like the worms they are.

Anyone on the fence about Trump has now almost definitely jump to one side or the other. Elections will show most people will deny democrats their ambition to destroy what's left of the Republic.

anonymous [333] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
The 'recovered memory' witch trials back then ruined many lives. The hysteria featured a wide cast of characters including reckless and totally irresponsible 'therapists' who, for whatever weird reason pushed gullible customers into believing these false induced illusions, the troubled women (all women?Why?) who went on to make false accusations and all the true believers in the form of prosecutors, police, judges and members of the public who accepted this lunacy. Loftus deserves credit for having been one of the few people willing to stand up and take the heat, going against this wave of hysteria. Seems like the US always has had these bubbles of hysteria and panic since the days of the Salem witch trials. This person Ford has been getting all this unwarranted fawning treatment, being continually called 'Doctor' and 'Professor' which, while true, isn't the usual treatment accorded to people who have a Phd in one of the social 'sciences' or have jobs as professors. Nobody I've ever met with those qualifications cared to be continually addressed by title. On the one hand this person is some empowered example to all women, an esteemed 'Doctor Professor' who jets around the world to surf the waves at exotic locales yet claims to have some fear of lying when called in and starts to cry when she recalls being laughed at almost four decades ago. Looking at it briefly she leaves the impression of being just plain screwy as well as being a person who lies a lot where lies and facts are interwoven so that one can't be sure what's what. What a circus this is.

[Oct 05, 2018] Bret Kavanaugh is a Liar, a Perjurer and Belongs in Jail Instead of on the Supreme Court by David William Pear

Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
Brabantian says: October 4, 2018 at 9:23 pm GMT

How Brett Kavanaugh helped Hillary & Bill Clinton cover up evidence that Hillary's law partner Vince Foster had been murdered

'My sinister battle with Brett Kavanaugh over the truth', by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard :

lysias says: October 5, 2018 at 12:15 am GMT

I agree Kavanaugh is a warmonger and has probably committed perjury many times. The trouble is, if he is denied confirmation in the present circumstanes, it will amount to a victory for the feminists' witch hunt against men, and it will do nothing to defeat the war agenda. The next nominee will be just as much a warmonger.

SolontoCroesus says: October 5, 2018 at 3:09 am GMT

@David William Pear

1. The judgment of anyone who believes Christine Ford has to be questioned. Her senate performance was a series of holes held together with emotion. If she had been questioned as aggressively as Kavanaugh, she would have melted quicker than brie at a beach party.

2. That she is a fraud does not in any way mean that Kavanaugh was/is honest or that he is appropriate material for Supreme Court; I agree: he is not, he is deeply flawed. The pity and the tragedy is that his flaws are not being discussed on their merits: the fact that he made his living as a lawyer and a citizen by supporting the George Bush administration, which participated in war crimes, is enough to disqualify him.

3. But US government, from Supreme Court to presidency to the entire Congress, have been havens for liars who lied to the American people in order to wage war; they get monuments and institutes, not jail cells:

–> Woodrow Wilson was a notorious womanizer, and a weak toady. One of his liaison's threatened to release love letters unless he paid her $40,000. Zionist fanatic Samuel Untermeyer paid the sum, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to Supreme Court.

Brandeis "lied" insofar as he used his elevated stature to promote the Zionist cause.
Wilson was manipulated into signing off on the Balfour Declaration, then drawing USA into WWI.

–> FDR (who was in the company of his lover when he died) lied to get USA into WWII.

–> George H W Bush sanctioned lies to involve USA in Persian Gulf war: "babies in incubators . ."

–> George W Bush had Condi Rice and Colin Powell to do his lying for him, to involve USA in war against Iraq.

–> Schumer pledged he would harry Trump "six ways 'til Sunday" -- to force him to wage war on Iran. Schumer and the Israel firsts don't give a tinker's dam about Kavanaugh OR Ford; their method is to keep Trump on a short leash and to make it impossible to rule other than in a way that achieve their goals, which are similar to Wilson and FDR: with them, the zionist goals were to destroy Germany and Palestinians for the sake of Zionists; wrt Trump, the goal is to complete the fragmentation of the ME and destroy Iran, for the sake of Israel.

[Oct 04, 2018] The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions

Notable quotes:
"... Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh. ..."
"... in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls." ..."
Oct 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions. So much so, in fact, that Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh.

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0

@SenBillCassidy

A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the
apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was
submitted to the Senate by @MichaelAvenatti.

12:37 PM-Oct 2, 2018

Q? 25.9K Q 13K people are talking about this О

The threat of a probe into his own client did not daunt the pop lawyer, who on Wednesday morning tweeted that "we still have yet to hear anything from the FBI despite a new witness coming forward & submitting a declaration last night. We now have multiple witnesses that support the allegations and they are all prepared to be interviewed by the FBI. Trump's "investigation" is a scam."

And, in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls."

[Oct 04, 2018] What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes? The Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump

Notable quotes:
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kratoklastes says: October 2, 2018 at 1:58 am GMT 600 Words Oh, and as to substantive matters

Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).

He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.

In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of which, more in a few sentences' time).

I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.

That has corollaries:

So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is nothing more than light entertainment.

It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later.

But here's the thing: this dude wants to be part of a life-tenured clique that arrogated to itself the right to call the shots on the final jurisprudential stage in the US system up to and including matters of constitutional import. As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn). The hubris involved in wanting to be on that court is an invitation to nemesis .

And to quote Brick Top (from the movie "Snatch"):

Do you know what 'Nemesis' means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent – personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt: me.

If this was going to play out Hellenically, this controversy will result in the nomination failing, and Kavanaugh will move on to catharsis and eventually metanoia ; but this being 21st century America, he will be confirmed and will go on to do his masters' bidding.

Now the question of actual fitness for purpose.

Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role.

However, since the SCOTUS-J role is just to be a lifetime lackey for the party what brung you to the dance he's exactly what his side of politics ordered.

[1] Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol. I.)

Low Voltage says: October 2, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT

What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes? We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it starts to feel like a family member.
Biff , says: October 2, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT
There are two things I cant stand: Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
Realist , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:03 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).

You left out.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Rurik , says: October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes This was a beauty of a comment.

Kudos, and muchas gracias

I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.

Very eloquently and succinctly stated!

  • anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
  • anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.

So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is nothing more than light entertainment.

agree

There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt, aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win, only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes women and cruelly mocks their messiah.

Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even today. It's the gift that keeps on giving

Carlton Meyer , says: Website October 2, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
From my blog:

Oct 1, 2018 – The Kavanaugh Circus

This is a curious and confusing spectacle. I don't think he's a good pick since like all Supreme "Justices" he's a Deep State sponsored toady with little respect for the US Constitution. But the Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump, who they are tying to oust even though he does whatever they demand. Perhaps they worry that Trump may suddenly rebel.

One wonders why Republican Senate leaders allowed this circus to form. When allegations of drunken misconduct arose shortly before the vote, they should have dismissed the matter and moved on, noting there were no police reports or arrests involved, and all this occurred when he was a minor. Case closed! Most Americans consider groping and unwanted kisses by teenagers to be of poor taste remedied with a slap or kick in the shin. It is not "sexual assault."

Or perhaps they chose to allow the looney part of the Democratic Party to run wild knowing they would unwittingly hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. Or maybe this is a Deep State media diversion to keep the social justice warriors busy with an unimportant issue, so they don't protest Deep State wars, ever growing military spending, soaring budget deficits, or our dysfunctional health care system. Encourage them debate and protest what some guy did as a drunken teenager for the next few weeks and fill our "news" programs with related BS so real issues are avoided during the election campaigns.

ThreeCranes , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer "all this occurred when he was a minor"

Yeah. Liberals make much of the virtue of erasing a minor's record once they turn 18. "It's a clean slate. A chance to start over again with a reputation unblemished by youthful folly and mistakes. How can young Trey'Trayvontious grow up to become an aeronautical engineer if, upon entering adulthood, he is handicapped by the burden of felonious assault, burglary and attempted murder convictions?"

But when it comes to Kavanaugh??? No way. No forgetfulness, no forgiveness. What he did as a minor, he will wear as a badge of shame throughout his adult life.

Is it even legal to consider what he did as a minor as having any bearing on his fitness for this job? I'm seriously asking any parole officers or social workers out there who work with youth.

KenH , says: October 2, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes

As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).

Then you must be a leftist ideologue.

In the Dredd Scott case the naturalization act of 1790 only extended citizenship to "free white persons", so the court got it objectively right since they ruled in accordance with existing law and didn't strike down or make law from the bench as too many power mad federal judges do today.

Plessy v Ferguson is a closer call (because of the 14th amendment) but IMO the court got it objectively right because the court only upheld de jure segregation with the stipulation that public facilities must be equal in quality. And in doing so the court ruled that the desires and wishes of blacks don't automatically supersede those of whites like federal courts reflexively do today.

The great irony is that today blacks, not whites, are demanding racially segregated dormitories, student orientations, facilities, graduations, schools, clubs, etc. and leftists have no issue with that but will scream themselves hoarse about racism and white supremacy if whites do.

In Bush v Gore I'm not sure what pressing moral issue was at stake other than you didn't like the court's decision, hence it was "immoral." Was SCOTUS supposed to allow Florida to keep counting votes until Christmas?

Kratoklastes , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic

I'd rather it be a bourgeois white guy with social markers indicating that he, like me, has been a red-blooded American teenager rather than a foppish Bubble-boy nerd with no theory of mind or a bitter lesbian hag

It's not the teenage indiscretions that should concern people – it's the obvious temperament problem that manifested itself during his testimony.

Anyone who 'arcs up' the way Kavanaugh did, has no place in any judiciary, be he ne'er so white and red-blooded: it shows that he is a narcissist.

I don't think he actually uttered the words " How dare you !", but it would not surprise me if he had done so.

So I would prefer a non-narcissist lesbian hag or "Bubble-boy nerd" (as if Kavanaugh did not grow up in a protective bubble! He exudes contempt for anyone outside of his class nothing wrong with that, except if you're hearing death penalty appeals or adjudicating on reproductive or sexual rights).

By way of stark contrast, I have a very good example of a decidedly non-bourgeois person (who will be Chief Justice in my jurisdiction before he retires)

One of my close friends from university was made a judge of the Supreme Court (of Victoria, Australia) in 2013.

He was a first-rate advocate (specialising in criminal defence) – another contrast with Kavanaugh, who is a lifetime party/government apparatchik who has never tried a case.

Michael (for that is my old mate's name) was also a former logging truck driver who returned to study in his mid-30s (having already had a family). He went to government schools for his entire education – the first Supreme Court justice to have done so, a fact that the Chief Justice remarked upon at his inauguration.

Despite having no pedigree, no connections, no Old Boys' (or Masonic) connections, he was made QC at the earliest possible date (i.e., 10 years after he was called to the Bar).

He is also a witty bugger, and his default expression is a kind of half-smile, even now. He was (and is) talented enough that he does not have to rely on gravitas : on several instances he has cried in open court while recounting the facts of particularly tragic cases, even as he was sentencing the perpetrators to jail. This is not a display of weakness: it's a display of empathy – a weak man would be scared of the public reaction.

His robes sit heavy, but he still played "old-blokes' footy" after his elevation to the bench.

And although I think he has some leftish tendencies, I could not say with any certainty where his politics lie: when we were students together his economics was first-rate and "rationalist" (he and I both got Reserve Bank cadetships – only 4 of which were awarded Australia-wide in our year).

Now the reason I drop his name into the mix is that I can declare with absolute confidence that if he was involved in a hearing of this type, there would be no displays of righteous indignation, no partisan political commentary, no facial contortions, no spittle-flecked lips in short, no displays of behaviour that indicate that he thinks that he is above reproach simply by virtue of his background or his current station .

That 's the guy you want in your judiciary: you can't tell me that a nation of 300 million people – and a surfeit of lawyers – doesn't have a single lawyer like Michael Croucher.

OK, so that was a rhetorical trick on my part, because the US Supreme Court is only open to people who went to Harvard or Yale Law (although Ginsberg got her JD at Columbia, she was a transfer from Harvard).

And, of course, they must have a lifetime track record of opinions that align with the party in power at the time of their nomination.

The Anti-Gnostic , says: Website October 3, 2018 at 1:11 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Judges frequently "arc up" on the bench. And I couldn't care less about your friend.
Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

>>>>>>>>>>He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape. <<<<<<<<<<

She was two grades behind him and attended an all girl school in a different part of town. So how is she someone he went to school with? I went to an all girl school (Catholic) and can't recall any boys I went to school with. As a mother, I was interested in the distance of her home from the place of the party.

I gathered it was too far to walk to and walk home from, (especially at night). What did she tell her parents were she had been? Her parents did not care she ran around at night like that? At age 15. Not that Kavanaugh would be my choice.

Biff , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic Outliving the dinosaurs, and the upcoming nuclear war that deep state Kavanaugh butt buddies initiate does in fact stir my envy.
Sin City Milla , says: October 3, 2018 at 5:07 am GMT
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS! I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their lips sealed n are completely neutral.
Liza , says: October 3, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Anonymous We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age 15″.

Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character, but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe everything will now be alright with their naughty child.

Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.

Dorian , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To Prison

As I stated in a previous comment, Ford is just another hysterical man hating wobaby (woman baby), that has lied in her testimony and public shameful denunciation of Kavanaugh.

Her lies are now coming back to haunt her: Ford delusional story unravelling rapidly . Ford is now facing prison, not Kavanaugh.

As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.

Some people like Nicephorus , took Ford's trauma to be some sort of psychological mental disorder or emotional distress. As I pointed out this was just hogwash, Regarding Nicephorus and Reality: Specifically the truth is much simpler: revenge .

Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did!

Once again, proof, facts and evidence, shows us all that you can't trust what people say, especially hysterical women! History is replete with examples of how hysteria, especially by women with a grudge, can destroy men lives. This nonsense, and it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, by Ford and her followers is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic individuals who've nothing in their lives other than to be jealous and embittered of others all because they are all failing in their own miserable, misbegotten lives. This is not about social justice, it is just about people who can't accept their irrelevant position in society and need to destroy others whom are make something of themselves.

Christine Ford is that lowest thing of womanhood; a bitter, delusional, man-hating female. When in reality the only thing she really hates, is herself. Now she will get her well over due comeuppance.

And what of Senator Feinstein? That modern incarnation of Reverend Samuel Paris (alla Salem Witch Trials), what of her? She should be thrown out of the Senate, and allowed to wither in the backwaters of the Deep Swamp, where she belongs!

Senator Feinstein you are a disgrace to Justice, the Senate, to Women, and above all, to the Human Race! Go back to murky slimy depths of the swamp, where you belong!

Hans Vogel , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:03 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Wholeheartedly agree with all your comments and adstructions. However, it would seem to me that in 99% of cases, it really does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any office, in the US or whichever other country.

What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis.

Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious.

Wizard of Oz , says: October 3, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
@Kratoklastes I don't know Michael Croucher J but I know and have a high regard for the conservative Attorney-General who appointed him (also, you may be interested to know the product only of radically unfashionable non-government schools). I Googled for Michael Croucher and was surprised to find how many of the items on the first page had him tearing up on the bench. I suspect that he fits pretty well with his appointer's pretty strong law and order approach though I don't remember what the attitude of the latter was to the introduction of victim impact statements, inevitably not subject to cross examination for obvious enough reasons. (Moi: I was never a fan for several reasons).

While internet anonymity frees us up to say more than we can know with arrogant confidence I am surprised that you don't make the distinction between US judges with a Bill of Rights to maximise the likelihood of value differences infecting their judgments (bolstered by life tenure) and Australian judiciary much of which still honours Dixon CJ's "strict and complete legalism" in the sense in which he meant it (in answer to complaints of "excessive legalism") and maybe Blackburn J's excellent 1970s article on Judicial Method.

But you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more.

steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:32 am GMT
No evidence just accusations. IOW no substance just shit-throwing. In the past this Perjuring whore ( http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-told-senate-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/ ) would have been tossed in the gutter. But Feminism. I demand to be heard (Even though I lie).

... ... ...

animalogic , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Heros , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:29 am GMT
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.

This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions, it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.

Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming, with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:51 am GMT
I do not think that even Bill Cosby raped anybody. All he had to do is promise the girl role in next episode. And so by the time when Bill turned around and headed to liqueur cabinet there she was on the bed naked with the feet pointing to the Heavens. Basically the same story was with Weinstein. You know women do not use their pussy only as a payment for full, they also use pussy as a deposit.
White Refugee , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that. Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.

But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white women.

But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by the Third World.

Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic Said the pinko.

Envy as the Foundation of Capitalism

http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/business/envy-as-the-foundation-of-capitalism.html

Carroll Price , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always will.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal. Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal society. I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange. Is this happening in US? I do not know!
George , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:10 pm GMT
Is Kavanaugh a true believer in the Bush II mission to save the world or was he just a water carrier?
chris , says: October 3, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.

Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your 15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."

And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already is.

[Oct 03, 2018] Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans

Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house, location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form letter), Klobuchar (trying to exploit fraudulent Swetnick testimony for political purposes), Kavanaugh (inability to take punches calmly, low quality of defence (this supposed to be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible aggressive behaviors when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high school and college, possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left her, not vise versa), using questionable methods to rent part of her house, and even more questionable method to justify this, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... "Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims. ..."
"... We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault. ..."
"... But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans. ..."
"... I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. ..."
Oct 03, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Jay Lincoln NYC 5h ago

Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii, and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.

The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a partisan attack. Give me a break.

Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36 years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly being nearly raped and killed.

JDO Kensignton, MD 5h ago

The longer this Freak Show continues, more and more of Ford's bones will be pulled from the closet. Time to vote, time to move on. If Democrats want to pick judges, they need to win elections.

Bearn Atlanta, GA 3h ago

"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.

I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence, that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility? Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial board?

I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth? The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.

RobinR California 5h ago

Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?

Ginny Virginia 4h ago

How is investigating the allegations attacking her? She made statements in her testimony that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be investigated?

She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like this.

Reply 33 Recommend
Pono Big Island 2h ago Times Pick

Why shouldn't her credibility be established? She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years. Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said". To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative veracity of the two people involved.

It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side. It's strictly about the outcome going their way.

Jessica Evanston, IL 5h ago

@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"

Ralphie CT 4h ago

I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a quick summary from the American Psych Association.

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience, akin to phrenology.

People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.

Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed it with her beach friends.

I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.

Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.

Brookhawk Maryland 3h ago

I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I? Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman. That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to someone I was simply dating?

JB Chicago 5h ago

Finally we get some information about Kavanaugh's main accuser. For a while it seemed as if she had just sprung into existence and had no history beyond her claims of sexual assault.

Robin Cambridge 2h ago

"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone about taking a polygraph test."

So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.

Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.

One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).

Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and intellectually).

freddy 16 harrisburg 4h ago

I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him and his programs. Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market. Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.

P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.

GWPDA Arizona 4h ago

This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be deliberately destructive.

India midwest 4h ago

So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college "friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.

Mark Greenwich 4h ago

People who use others credit cards are liars. Selective honesty is not possible. She is dishonest. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh is honest but she is a pawn and loves the attention.

KBronson Louisiana 4h ago

Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists, having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.

Melissa Massachusetts 3h ago

@Charlie No, that's not clear at all.

Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people emotionally have more to lose.

I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job around it.

Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the testimony.

Harvey NC 3h ago

From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."

... ... ...

Rosie James New York, N.Y. 4h ago

Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.) Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).

Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she wanted she knew nothing about it.

Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!

roane1 Los Angeles, Ca 3h ago

You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr. Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.

Wine Country Dude Napa Valley 2h ago

Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck, doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from established).

We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault.

What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like men, thank you very much.

zb Miami 3h ago

The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and done.

Soxared, '04, '07, '13 Boston 3h ago

Charles Grassley knew about this lie and fed it to Rachel Mitchell to entrap Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Who can't see through the blatant partisan desperation?

Lee California 4h ago

Isn't it glaring to anyone that not her parents nor her brothers have come out to speak for her? I don't believe they attended the hearing.

Something just isn't right here. I know I would upfront and personal with anyone who would doubt my daughter.

Son of Liberty Fly Over Country 3h ago

I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.

This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without objective evidence.

In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous child.

gary e. davis Berkeley, CA 3h ago

"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve political interests. It does not serve interest in truth.

Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.

But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.

That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.

XLER West Palm 2h ago

So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would that make any difference?

Jonathan Northwest 2h ago

The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a 500 square foot apartment with ONE door.

Holly Los Angeles 3h ago

@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr. Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us know what he's made of.

Ora Pro Nobis A Better Place 3h ago

I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations into the process.

J c Ma 1h ago

A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for sure, barring further investigation.

The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted undisciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.

Chris CT 2h ago

Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters. From wikipedia:

"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound familiar??

rick chicago 3h ago

I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count.

I thought Ford's description of the assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are free.

kona ma 2h ago

I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing in real estate in Canada.

kfm US Virgin Islands 3h ago

Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the reason for his well-documented vomiting.

Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?

Randall Bachmann port st lucie 1h ago

My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were 'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to the WaPo story.

Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.

In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the 'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in 2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now refusing to discuss it further.

I was clear in my earlier posts that as a psychologist, especially a teaching psychologist, Ford would have to know about polygraphs and how they work. https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

And how to evade them: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/25/nsa-whi...

Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom she supported is a liar and perjurer.

Kayle Simon Seattle WA 1h ago

When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.

Allen Ny 2h ago

@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been identified uttering. She is not credible.

Rolf Grebbestad 2h ago

That woman appears to be deeply troubled. She has zero credibility.

Chico New Hampshire 2h ago

It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.

When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.

Scrumper Savannah 2h ago

This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."

My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in Merrick's letter.

Murphmurph Murphmurph 2h ago

Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that makes you more confident about your opinion.

If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax, be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.

If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I responded "no."

Jon Boston 4h ago

He also alleges she committed credit card fraud in grad school. But nobody should have their character judged by something that happened so long ago, right?

James Kirk California 4h ago

@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.

Rob Campbell Western Mass. 3h ago

If it is shown that Ford and/or any of the other accusers have lied and brought forward false accusations, should they be criminally charged?

Charlie Messing Burlington, VT 4h ago

@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.

Prof Emeritus NYC NYC 37m ago

The NY Times and other Democratic organizations are beginning to panic.

Ford's story is ... falling apart.

Reply 5 Recommend
Anthony Carinhas Austin, Texas 38m ago

I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way. Put someone else on the table already folks.

Regards, LC princeton, new jersey 3h ago

As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you; never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@al Ford is not the one accused of running rape gangs despite having an impeccable much commended judicial service record for 23+ years. He is understandably upset.

Also "innocent holes"? There is no such thing in law. Either you are lying or you are not.

Mor California 2h ago

Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when, exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any better on abortion anyway.

javierg Miami, Florida 3h ago

The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt, Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.

Jacqueline Colorado 2h ago

Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.

It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot get to the truth and never will.

I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.

Gerwick New York 2h ago

@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.

nom de guerre Kirkwood, MO 3h ago

"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."

Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at the guy who's in the WH.

They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it. He had no basis for a fraud case.

He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for taking a bus seat before a white person."

What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.

sandy Chicago 3h ago

@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection? Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his family. This isn't fair.

bored critic usa 3h ago

feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.

Mike CT 4h ago

@Andy
I graduated college in 1981, a fews years before Judge K but the same era. Drinking was common, altercations happened. No news here.

Do teenaged boys make awkward sexual references? Im not surprised.

It doesn't mean judge K is a predator as he is being portrayed by the Dems.

bored critic usa 4h ago

sounds like muldar from x-files, "I want to believe". so I will believe, regardless of any additional information which should perhaps cast a shred of doubt.

Reply 4 Recommend
bored critic usa 3h ago

but can you explain her lack of memory and the inconsistencies in her story?

Phil NJ 1h ago

There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.

First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support for the court, impeach him if he is on it.

Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing now.

Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a mandatory improvement in every election, period.

Ralphie CT 1h ago

@Henry Slofstra The fact is psychologists (Ford is one) know polygraphs are pseudoscience and can easily be beaten if you know how they work.

Gerwick New York 4h ago

@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process, he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way it was handled.

His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There was nothing more to be said.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@Mercutio

1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos - and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?

2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.

bored critic usa 4h ago

how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.

MB MD 57m ago

I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.

Mary Edgerton Houston 58m ago

So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill. Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports Trump (and we are divorced).

mike atlanta 1h ago

@Joan In California
"manly individuals who think this issue will go away after the dust settles better hope their behavior has always been above reproach."

and how many women have lives that are "beyond reproach"? Notice the goal post moving. Now its not only men who have sexually assaulted women who are the enemy its all men if the don't adhere to every single accusation made by any and every woman on the planet. How can any sane person think a gender war is the answer?

and will you only carry female babies to full term? because if one day your son doesn't believe just one woman on the planet (or think that she is mistaken) will you stand in line to scorch his earth too and betray your own motherhood?

DZ Banned from NYT 3h ago

@Brookhawk

They were in a relationship for 6 years and lived together. That doesn't make the boyfriend's account true, but it does explain how selectively the NYT chooses to inform its readers these days. The death of the media is a suicide.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@rosa Stalin's Russia also sent and punished without any regard for evidence or proof which is the exactly what the left is doing to Kavanaugh right now. Ford's claim has no corroboration, is convieniently dropped 2 days before senate vote, Fienstein recommended lawyers, now exposed lies about fear of flying, polygraph etc...yet Kavanaugh can not demand the basic courtesy of being treated "innocent until proven guilty" from the public and the media? Stalin would be proud right now of this pitch fork mob culture we got going I tell you that much.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@Henry She lied about fear of flying, lied about polygraph, no corroboration, she was with merrick for 5+ years yet never mentioned this "assault", allegations 2 days before senate vote?

How can anyone not be atleast suspicious?

Reply 2 Recommend
Gaspipe Casso Brooklyn 3h ago

@JenD My mother, my wife, my sister and my daughter's rage boiled over last week too...but at the thought that their father, brother, son and husband could face an uncorroborated charge and have his life ruined without due process.

[Oct 02, 2018] Kavanaugh Gang Bang Accuser Savaged By Ex-Weatherman Over Penchant For Group Sex

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a letter from former meteorologist and former Democratic candidate for Maryland's 8th district, Dennis Ketterer, who claims that Brett Kavanaugh's third accuser and Michael Avenatti client, Julie Swetnick, was a group-sex enthusiast that he initially mistook for a prostitute at a 1993 Washington D.C. going-away party for a colleague.

"Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her anytmore" -Dennis Ketterer

Ketterer writes that Swetnick approached him "alone, quite beautiful, well-dressed and no drink in hand."

"Consequently, my initial thought was that she might be a high end call girl because at the time I weighed 350lbs so what would someone like her want with me? "

The former meteorologist then said that since "there was no conversation about exchanging sex for money" he decided to keep talking to her, noting that he had never been hit on in a bar before.

Over the ensuing weeks, Ketterer claims that he and Swetnick met at her residence for an extramarital affair that did not involve sex.

"Although we were not emotionally involved there was physical contact. We never had sex despite the fact that she was very sexually aggressive with me.

...

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

Ketterer claims that since the AIDS epidemic was a "huge issue" at the time and he had children, he decided to cut things off with Swetnick. He goes on to mention that she never said anything about being "sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will," and that she "never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity."

After Ketterer decided to run for Congress in Maryland, he thought Julie could be of service to his campaign - however he lost her phone number. After contacting her father, he learned that Julie had "psychological and other problems at the time."

Last week we reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend,

Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she's lying.

"Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time ," Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. " I know a lot about her ." - Politico

" I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she's saying is not true at all ," he said. " I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more ."

Avenatti called the claims "outrageous" and hilariously accused the press of " digging into the past " of a woman levying a claim against Kavanaugh from over 35 years ago.

And now we can add "group sex enthusiast" to the claims against Swetnick. Read below:

[Oct 02, 2018] Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly damaged. Probably ruined.

Neoliberals have transformed themselves into a collection of Trump mini-mes, with guilty until proven innocent as the new "liberal" mantra. You've got standards.
Notable quotes:
"... I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone. ..."
"... To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted? ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

"Neocon/neolib alliance is flat out of ideas and leadership, and is now rolling around in the sexual accusations mud with the pig – and the pig is winning".

likbez 10.01.18 at 3:18 am 72 I believe Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly damaged. Probably ruined.

For example, Dr. Christine Ford testimony arose a lot of interests in minute and private details of her biography.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-bio/

Rolf Henriks

Her yearbook said she had had 54 consensual sexual encounters. But apparently only the alleged encounter with Kavanaugh was the one that traumtized her. Is she kidding me?

Research is very extensive and unlikely please her, or her husband
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/20/christine-blasey-ford-got-doxed-can-anyone-ever-really-disappear-online/

Despite those efforts, the Palo Alto University psychology professor's fears have come true since she came forward over the weekend: Her lawyers say she's facing harassment and death threats. Supporters and opponents have found pictures of her on the Web and converted them into memes. And her Palo Alto home address was tweeted, forcing her to move out.

In the age of the internet, what's to keep the same thing from happening to any victim of sexual harassment or assault who decides to come forward? Can they -- or anyone -- completely erase their online presences to protect themselves?

"The extremely short and brutal answer is no," said Gennie Gebhart, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She does research and advocacy for issues that include consumer privacy, surveillance and security.

ph 10.01.18 at 5:14 am (no link)

I've been wrong before and a month is an eternity, so the prognosis is subject to revision. I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone.

To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted?

Wasn't that the strategy with the access Hollywood tape? How'd that work out?

Good for the Dems isn't good enough. Dems might take the House, which looks very doubtful to me now, and are unlikely to take the Senate. That's the best case, which still leaves Trump and the GOP set up well for 2020. Notice how nobody is pinning their hopes on Mueller at the moment.

Meanwhile, from your canary:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/when-they-came-for-kavanaugh-kid-chris-britt/

[Oct 02, 2018] Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty

Notable quotes:
"... They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Realist , September 27, 2018 at 10:55 am

Exactly.

Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty, as reported in the Hill, on Fox News and elsewhere:

"HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh. But on Friday night's show he conceded that a last-minute attempt to smear President Trump's Supreme Court nominee with accusations of sexual assault is making liberals "look bad."

They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened.

But this accusation without substance seems to be standard operating procedure to justify anything the government, or some faction within the government, wants to do, even to the point of starting major wars. If THAT is permissible, merely destroying one man's career and good name might be considered a trivial price to pay for the Dems to get their way.

If this lynching succeeds, nothing will ever again be decided in a civilised manner according to a set of standard rules and principles again in this country. Tyranny will rule when guilt by accusation becomes the new standard. No one will ever again be safe and secure if a mere denunciation can remove you from the picture. That was called the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution. It was a hallmark of the Nazis, the Stalinists and the Maoists.

That these women can feign critical memory loss of most details, but just enough to claim "attempted rape," is preposterous. Fifty years later and I can still remember the exact details of both wonderful dates and times I was stood up by callous females who didn't care what those suddenly useless concert tickets might have cost you. You don't forget when people truly ride roughshod over you.

backwardsevolution , September 27, 2018 at 8:20 pm

Realist – great post! Maher, who I used to always agree with, but hardly ever do now (amazing how you change), is right here. Kavanaugh with accusations and no real evidence, Trump with Russiagate and no evidence at all, chemical weapons attacks with fake evidence, etc.

They just throw stuff out there and hope that it sticks, and their base laps it up. They don't care about evidence; they're too busy shouting for the lynch mob. This is dangerous stuff. I'm not exactly the most conservative person either, but I still see the importance of maintaining the Rule of Law, freedom of speech, sacred and hard-fought-for principles.

Yep, there's mean women out there (just as there are mean men). I remember overhearing women at work talking about going out for dinner with guys who they openly said they didn't even like, but it was a free dinner. When I called them on this, they just laughed, could have cared less. They're probably out there wearing pink pussy hats.

I've got both sexes as children, so I have to stay neutral.

[Oct 02, 2018] Recovered memory is a Freudian voodoo. Notice how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Nicephorus says: September 29, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT 2,000 Words

We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.

But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.

What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational, educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse – most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers, or others.

Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.

The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.

It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses.

It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course. Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life.

The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine.

The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.

This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities, and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof. Masson.

Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.

This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely eliminated.

But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such, I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon has been nearly entirely disproved.

Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.

Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.

Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory, however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.

PiltdownMan , says: September 29, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT

A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along, often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money. William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17125/17125-h/17125-h.htm

Coemgen , says: September 29, 2018 at 10:35 am GMT
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.

Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?

MarkinLA , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.

She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.

We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.

We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first base at the party.

From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.

This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.

Clyde , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
@Anon

Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment

Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.

[Oct 02, 2018] Zerohedge commenters discuss evidence and Dr. Ford personality

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Mzhen , 11 hours ago

Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public.

I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day.

fleur de lis , 13 hours ago

What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up.

She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too.

And as a teacher she must be a real screwball.

Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".

Westcoastliberal , 14 hours ago

What's this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey

aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago

Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...

Dormouse , 15 hours ago

She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten. Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. Oh, something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick! What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.

aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago

Funny how Democraps are getting their panties in a wad over BK drinking beer in college, yet were okay with Slappy Sotoro snorting cocaine in college....go figure...

MrAToZ , 17 hours ago

The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.

If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.

It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.

Sinophile , 19 hours ago

If the bitch 'struggled academically in college' then how the hell did she get awarded a freaking P(ost)H(ole)D(igger)?

onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago

Again, So What??

The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about delay.

Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....

onewayticket2 , 18 hours ago

He is not the first college student to get drunk.

Equating getting drunk to charges in every newspaper and TV news station for weeks stating he is a gang rapist ring leader etc is laughably idiotic. Nice job. Thx for the laugh.

Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago

The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations. That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.

It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.

Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago

She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or copying them less than 3 months ago?

Not possible.

She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him.

Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago

Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.

deja , 19 hours ago

Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further exploration.

Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago

Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.

deja , 19 hours ago

Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further exploration.

sunkeye , 21 hours ago

T/y Prosecutor Mitchell for conducting yourself w/ professionalism, decency, & honor - personal traits none of the Democratic senators seem to possess, or would even recognize if shown to them directly as you did. Again. t/y & bravo.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She allowed Ford to refuse to speak the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who was Ford's one-time boyfriend. Some speculate that he was the unnamed final boy at the party and that he may have assaulted Ford and/or dumped her after she refused to go to the next level with him. Hence the trauma.

Paracelsus , 21 hours ago

I am having trouble keeping these personalities separate as I want to give everyone the benefit of the

doubt. When I see Justice Kavanaugh, I think of the confirmation hearing as a political attack on the

Trump administration . Also as an attempt to score points, or make the other side screw up, before the

upcoming elections.When I see Dr. Ford, I see Hillary Clinton and all the bitterness from a failed

politician.

The funny thing is I thought all the Trump "fake news" statements were a load of crap. Turns out he hit the

mark quite often. The lefties are so damn mad because Trump is succeeding and they haven't been able to

score points against him. So they feel that it is justified to use other methods,regardless of the fallout.

There is a whiff of panic and desperation present.

I have stated this before, as have others: The loss of the White House by the Democrats provided a

unique opportunity to clean out the deadwood. This may have seemed cruel and heartless but the

Obama era is over and the Dem's urgently need to return to their roots before it is too late. Did they

use this moment of change or did they revert to business as usual? To ask the question is to

answer it.... This is commonly described as bureaucratic inertia. The Dem's only needed to get the

ball rolling and they would be moving towards the objective of regaining power. New, younger

and more diplomatic and law abiding types need to be encouraged to apply. Put out the help wanted

sign. Do what Donald does,"You're fired!".

RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago

Well, if others have stated it before, it MUST be true. Republiconarists and Demcraps are playing the same stupid games. Dems got punked w Garland, and now Reps are getting their comeuppance w Kavanaugh (who really made it worse for himself by holding up such an obviously false pious portrait of himself).

American Dissident , 22 hours ago

I believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I believe Rachel Mitchell, Esq. I believe Leland Keyser. I believe Mark Judge. I believe P.J. Smyth.

I believe the evidence. That's why I don't believe Ms. Christine Blasey Ford.

Anunnaki , 17 hours ago

But she only had one beer!

Torgo , 11 hours ago

What do you think of the Chris Garrett hypothesis?

VWAndy , 22 hours ago

Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They have gotten away with it before.

Aubiekong , 23 hours ago

Never was about justice, this is simply a liberal/globalist plan to stop Trump.

Prince Eugene of Savoy , 20 hours ago

Squeaky Ford only testified to what she had written down. She never used the part of the brain dealing with actual memory. https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI

JLee2027 , 1 day ago

Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too vague,etc.

Barney08 , 1 day ago

Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated ditz.

dogmete , 1 day ago

Right Barney, not an undereducated and-proud-of-it slob like you.

MrAToZ , 1 day ago

You Dims are so willing to just swallow the hook. You idiots have been trained to react, leave common sense at the door, slap on the vagina hats and start marching in circles.

What a cluster f*ck. Evidently there are suckers born every minute.

Kelley , 1 day ago

One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.

It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would have felt it and reacted far differently.

Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.

Giant Meteor , 1 day ago

Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter , not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that moment, have been accidently killed.

As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the **** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.

pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago

Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in. It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies (surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and travels the world surfing

Nunny , 1 day ago

If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful idiots on the left buy it.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.

MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago

If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone records for the last 2 years.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Kill shots:

· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party

· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,

· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with

· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.

· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post.

· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not know how to do that."

· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly frequently."

· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.

· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account.

[Oct 02, 2018] Christine Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public

Notable quotes:
"... Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day. ..."
"... Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members. ..."
"... She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi". ..."
"... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! ..."
"... Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists ..."
"... Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop... ..."
"... Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? ..."
"... Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. ..."
"... She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public.

I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.


Torgo , 11 hours ago

Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day.

fleur de lis , 13 hours ago

What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up. She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too. And as a teacher she must be a real screwball. Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members.

Brazillionaire , 14 hours ago

I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if somebody already brought this up... can this woman (who was 15) explain why she was in an upstairs bedroom with two boys? Did they drag her up the stairs? In front of the others? If she went willingly, for what purpose?

tsog , 14 hours ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1046611274753290240.html

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".

StarGate , 14 hours ago

So it seems... the Prosecutor determined which 'he said, she said'

gave False testimony under Oath

- Blasey Ford.

Ban KKiller , 13 hours ago

That's what it says. Investigate Ford and her scumbag fuckwad attorneys. Ha ha.

Westcoastliberal , 14 hours ago

What's this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey

motoXdude , 14 hours ago

Some things reign eternal... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! Thank you for paving the road to ruin! Don't forget to breathe in-between. You ARE the FACE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GIRL! Suck it up, Buttercup!

alfbell , 15 hours ago

I BELIEVE!!

... that America's institutions are being torn down by Leftists. The attempt to create a new totalitarian regime has been upon us for decades and is now perfectly clear.

We will not say goodbye to morality.

We will not say goodbye to science.

We will not say goodbye to democracy.

We will not say goodbye to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Logic, Decency, etc. etc. etc.

MAGA!

AHBL , 15 hours ago

Morality: Your dear Leader cheated on 3 different wives, one of them with a prostitute,...while she was pregnant (or had a 4 month old, I forget); filed for bankruptcy 5 times, cheating many people out of money; settled fraud lawsuits; lied about charity donations; your party nominated an actual PEDOPHILE (Moore) for Senate and now wants to appoint an angry drunk to be SCJ!

Science: You folks are literally disputing the conclusions of the vast, vast majority of scientists (97% by my last count) when it comes to global warming.

Democracy: this is a Democratic Republic...if it was a Democracy Trump wouldn't be President.

The rest of the nonsense you wrote was just filler...obviously.

Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago

Still better than the rapist and intern cigarer and Benghazi killer clintons. why do retarded libturds not see that!!

alfbell , 11 hours ago

You are clueless. Have all of your priorities and importances upside down. Have zero critical thinking.

Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists. Look at the big picture AHBL. C'mon you can do it.

aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago

Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...

NeigeAmericain , 13 hours ago

Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? 🤔

Dormouse , 15 hours ago

She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten.

Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto.

Oh, something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!

What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.

RighteousRampage , 16 hours ago

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/kavanaugh-college-visit-to-bar-erupted-in-fight-classmate-says-jmqwga1s?srnd=premium

" The episode occurred on a September evening in 1985 after Kavanaugh, Ludington and Dudley, attended the UB40 concert ."

UB40? Well, there you have it, if that isn't disqualifying, I don't know what is.

Debt Slave , 16 hours ago

She is a cross eyed boobis and we have to believe her because she says Kavanaugh, a white hetero catholic man without any decent upbringing or engrained scruples raped her like a monkey savage out of the jungle. Oh sorry, TRIED to rape her. As a teenager. Tried to raped a pathetic, stupid cross eyed retarded moron that has since been successfully lobotomized at a 'modern' American university.

When is the last time you saw a 'mentally challenged' person being abused? Oh yes I remember now, it was Chicongo, January 2017. Four negroes shoved a retarded white man's head in a toilet and demanded he swear that he loved Niggers.

Never heard what happened to the savage fuckers, eh? Not surprised.

i know who and what I am voting for white man, do you?

benb , 16 hours ago

Time for the un-redacted FISA docs and the text messages. That should send Schumer and the gang into a tailspin.

MrAToZ , 17 hours ago

The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.

If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.

It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.

BankSurfyMan , 18 hours ago

Fordy had sexual encounters, she drinks beer and flies all over the globe... One day she had a beer and cannot remember getting home on time to watch, MOAR DOOM NEWS! Fucktard Fordy! Doom 2019! Next!

Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago

Just had lunch with a democrat. He's generally tolerable, so his level of anger at Kavanaugh and his acceptance of "anything goes" to derail Kavanaugh was surprising to me.

Democrats believe that Roe V Wade is instantly overturned if Kavanaugh gets in. They also think that if Roe V Wade is overturned, no woman will ever be able to abort another baby in the US.

I explained to him that destruction of Roe V Wade will only make it a state issue, so girls in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc will be able to kill as many babies as they want to. It will only be girls in Wyoming or Utah or some other very red state that might have to schlep their *** to another state to kill their kid.

Democrats see this as a battle for abortion, and if Kav gets confirmed, abortion is completely gone in the USA. That's why you have these women freaking out. They think the stakes are much higher than they actually are. Almost all of the women that are so worried about this live in states where it won't have any effect on them at all.

Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago

I think I kind of calmed him down. We need to let them know that their world doesn't end if Roe V Wade is overturned. I am also not at all sure it would be overturned, even with Kav on the court, but they insist it will be, so not worth arguing. Reminding them that it doesn't effect them, if they live in a blue state should calm their fears a little.

The right to abort is their 2nd amendment, God help us. If you explain to them they are not really in danger, it may calm them down. They'll still make noise about those poor girls who can't get an abortion after school and still make it home for dinner, and instead, have to take a bus to another state to kill their kid, but they won't be as personally threatened and lashing out as they mistakenly are now.

when the saxon began , 17 hours ago

And therein lies the fatal flaw of an elected representative government. The votes of the ignorant and stupid are counted the same as yours or mine. And there are far more of them.

VisionQuest , 18 hours ago

Democrats stand for atheism, abortion & sodomy. Ask yourself this question: Who stands with Democrats? If your answer is "I do." then you'd best rethink your precious notions of morality, truth, common decency, common sense and justice.

It is undoubtedly true that, in our entirely imperfect world, the American Way of life is also far from perfect. But it is also true that, compared to every other system of government on the planet, there is no comparison with the level of achievement accomplished by the American Way of life.

Democrats hate and will destroy the American Way of life. Have you been a Democrat? Walk away.

freedommusic , 19 hours ago

At this point the FBI should recommend a criminal investigation to the DOJ for treasonous actors who are subverting the constitutional process of SC nomination. The crimes of perjury, sedition, and treason, need to be clearly articulated to the public and vigorous prosecution ensue.

We are STILL a Constitutional Republic - RIGHT?

Giant Meteor , 18 hours ago

Well, I am betting 27 trillion dollars that the answer to your question is a resounding , no ...

eitheror , 19 hours ago

Thank you Rachel Mitchell for having the courage to tell the truth about the testimony of Ms. Blasey Ford, P.h.D.

Ford is not a medical Doctor but is a P.h.D.

The Democrats seem to have abandoned Ms. Ford like a bad haircut, instead focusing on other smoke and mirrors.

onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago

Again, So What??

The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about delay.

Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....

Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago

About 35 years ago, at a party in San Francisco where everyone was very drunk, now Senator Feinstein sexually molested me. Don't remember the date or location or anything else, but it happened, I swear! Naturally, want to remain anonymous to protect my integrity, but it did happen! She shoved me down onto my knees and ground her crotch in my face. It was terrible, I can still recall the horrible smell to this day! The stench was a combination of rotting flesh and urine. Makes me nauseous just thinking of that sexual assault. INVESTIGATE this serial molester!

Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago

The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations. That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.

It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.

Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago

She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or copying them less than 3 months ago?

Not possible.

She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him.

American Dissident , 20 hours ago

McConnell on the Senate Floor 50 minutes ago: "The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close.... Mr. President, we'll be voting this week."

xear , 21 hours ago

Brett is obviously innocent. Groping her, holding her down, grinding into her... it's not like it was rape. And as far as covering her mouth so she couldn't scream... after a heavy night of drinking who wants to hear screaming? Almost anyone would do the same.

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 20 hours ago

it's always interesting to see where and why people claim to know things about which they have literally no 'knowledge.'

Also interesting to see how the same people who would protest assuming the guilt of an alleged Muslim terrorist or Black liquor store robber now argue it is 'whiteness' and 'patriarchy' to not assume the guilt of a white male regarding decades old uncorroborated charges... which 4 named witnesses deny having knowledge of, by a woman who lied about a fear of flying to try to delay the process.

We can all be hypocrites.

But watching the Left embrace hypocrisy as social justice has been, in the pure sense of the word, awesome to behold.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further exploration.

FBaggins , 21 hours ago

To fix things if after all of this crap from the feminazis and Kavenaugh simply withdraws his name, Trump should put forward Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next candidate. It would really ensure support for Trump candidates in the midterms from women in general and from social-conservative family-values people in the US and it would perhaps teach the feminazis a lesson at the same time.

istt , 20 hours ago

No, Kavanaugh deserves better. He has earned his place on the USSC.

Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago

My prediction was, and still is Kavanaugh goes forward. Even the revered CNN is starting to walk the drinking issue back.

By the way , the Trump presser today was a ******* hoot!

ToddTheBabyWhale , 21 hours ago

Nine page memo, Tyler. Your starting to write like a pro journalist now.

aloha_snakbar , 22 hours ago

Ms Ford, the newly minted millionaire, is probably lying poolside in Mexico, indulging in her favorite psychotropics and getting pounded by the local brown talent. Wow...having a vagina is like having a meat 3D printer that spews out money...

blindfaith , 23 hours ago

Was there in 1965, and I can recall what my classmates wore, who could dance, who kissed great, who had the best music, who got laid and how often...and it was NOT the head of the football or basketball team.

Her memory is selectively scripted, and I am 20 years older and my memory is just fine.

charlewar , 23 hours ago

In other words, Ford is a liar

JohnG , 23 hours ago

She's a goddamned sociopathic lying bitch.

arby63 , 23 hours ago

A highly paid one. Gofundme alone is over $900,000.

1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago

Her two *** lawyers doing well for their time and attention. McCabe's lawyer comes to the rescue for Ford.

LA_Goldbug , 22 hours ago

This nose nearly took my eye out,

https://www.gofundme.com/to-cover-dr-fords-security-costs

PantherCityPooPoo , 21 hours ago

Dead how? We already know that these corporation are die hard neo-liberal but name me 2 republicans or ANY federal entity that would EVER go after a corporation like that.

You are not aware of the score if you think anything will be done to them.

HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago

My hippocampus is turgid and throbbing after seeing Chris Ford in those Adrian (Talia Shire) spectacles.

blind_understanding , 23 hours ago

I had to look it up ..

TURGID - from Latin turgidus , from turgēre to be swollen

peippe , 22 hours ago

nothing better than a confused lady who forgets stuff...........

I'm all over that if she was thirty-six years younger. oops.

blindfaith , 23 hours ago

So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?

How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did she perjer herself?

Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL complaint in Maryland.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/09/29/montgomery-co-police-maryland-state-attorney-respond-to-state-lawmakers-reques-n2523791

San Pedro , 23 hours ago

Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus skewing the results.

Being Free , 23 hours ago

Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_Zg2phhLI

Mimir , 23 hours ago

Rachel Mitchell Memo

Follow the money !!

whatthehay , 23 hours ago

I was the victim of an abuse event when I was 4. I'm 47 now. I know exactly where the house is, we were in the backyard and I can tell anyone what happened and who was there. It happened a few days back to back maybe three days, it was during the winter in the midafternoon. I guess my hippocampus is in better shape than hers.

sgt_doom , 1 day ago

" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was poised, articulate, clear and convincing. More than that, she radiated self-assured power ."

----- So says Robert Reich

Saaaaay, Bobby, have you ever met Wesley Allen Dodd or Ted Bundy? I once came into contact with Dodd, the epitome of calm, cool and collected --- and he was later executed for torturing to death small children!

A (female) law professor from Seattle University said:

" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (why do they keep referring to a professor of psychology as doctor --- s_d) was credible and believable. " (Evidently, we don't need no stinking proof or evidence where a law professor is concerned!?)

Sgt_Doom says: Prof. Christine Blasey Ford sounded credible, believable and completely unsubstantiated.

Credible Allegations

Over this past weekend I learned three startling facts:

(1) All American women have been raped;

(2) All American males are rapists and liars; and,

(3) "Credible allegations" are accusations not requiring any shred of evidence.

Fake news facts , that is . . . . .

All this was conveyed by high-middle class (or higher) females who worship globalization and American exceptionalism --- from the same news conduits who once reported on weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and other similar mythologies!

Not a single so-called reporter --- not a single self-described journalist in American --- thought to ask that most obvious of obvious questions:

Where in bloody perdition is Christine Blasey Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks?

After all, they introduced Kavanaugh's yearbook, so why not Christine Blasey's yearbook?

Second most obvious question:

When one searches online for Holton Arms yearbooks, the searcher can find the yearbooks for the years preceding Ford's last several years at Holton Arms, and the years following --- why have the last several years when Christine Blasey attended missing? Why have they been removed --- even cached versions --- from the Web?

Takes some serious tech resources to accomplish this in such a short period of time?!

How very odd . . . .

I do not want Kavanaugh, nor anyone like him, on the Supreme Court bench, but that does not mean I automatically believe any and all unsubstantiated accusations and am sane enough to comprehend that credible allegations require proof --- also referred to as evidence.

It is not enough to state that this person drinks and is therefore guilty or that person is a male and is therefore guilty.

I fully support an expanded investigation into both Kavanaugh AND Christine Blasey Ford, including Ms. Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks and any and all police blotter activity/records for her ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16.

And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . . . and finally start doing their jobs!

Sidebar : Sen. Chris Coons claimed that Prof. Ford was courageous to have come forward as she had nothing to gain , yet within several days after her testimony, Christine Blasey Ford is almost one-half million dollars wealthier --- nothing to gain?

Hardly . . . .

[Next rant: MY elevator encounter with a 14-year-old psychotic blonde student, and her buddy, many years ago in Bethesda, Md.]

Giant Meteor , 1 day ago

She (Mitchell) was there to handle her like the delicate flower. To the pubes defense, someone was smart enough to realize that a bunch of GOP white guys questioning her was not going to play well. Enter the female prosecutor and her report.

On the other hand the dem guys and dolls could not genuflect enough , so their questioning was fine. I mean they had her painted as the courageous hero of the modern era. So brave, so noble , so, so, utterly awesome!

Puke ....

scraping_by , 23 hours ago

She had an emotional meltdown for a big finish. Note who gave her the run-in for it. (Not Mitchell).

nicholforest , 1 day ago

Seems pretty obvious that Mitchell could not see a case for prosecution - what we heard was mostly 'He said ... She said". So an unsurprising conclusion.

And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their houses.

But what struck me was the behavior and style of Kavanaugh. He came across as belligerent, petty, evasive, aggressive and impulsive. Those are not the characteristics that we want in a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Little Lindsey G would say that Kavanaugh has a right to be angry, which may be so - but the way that such anger is manifested is critical. In the military we look for leaders to be cool under fire. The same should be true for a judge in the highest court in the land.

Instead he came across like a fearful, reactive, spiteful, spoilt frat boy. That will not do.

scraping_by , 1 day ago

Ah, the double bind. Either he's robotic and reciting a script, or he's wild and howling brat. Nice how that works.

FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago

nicholforest - And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their houses.

Please enlighten us on specifically which Dem. SC nomination the Republicans did a full on character assassination .... were waiting!

It is mindless comments and a lack of rigorous thinking and moral equivocation like yours that has led the country into the abyss of nonsense and division.

Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago

Look at the time line provided and then tell me the Democrats aren't a pack of lying weasles. The truth means absolutely NOTHING to them. Their agenda (to **** over Trump in any way possible) is all that matters. Could anyone imagine what would have happened if the Republicans would have pulled just 1/10th of that kind of ******** with the Homo *****?? There would have been continuous MSM inspired riots in the streets.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

They play by Alinsky Rules

rksplash , 1 day ago

I guess the only way this nonsense is going to go away is if the GOP start using the same tactics. Hire some wannabe spin doctors to go through some old high school yearbooks in a church basement somewhere in Alabama. An old black and white of some poor pimple faced senator grabbing his crotch at the prom in 72.

Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago

She did take a polygraph - and passed.

Yeah that's what the lying sacks of **** say, but of course there's absolutely no proof it happened. She passed? O.k., let's assume they are at least not lying about that . . . what questions were asked?

Bastiat , 1 day ago

A polygraph with 2 questions apparently. In other words a complete joke. A real poly has scores if not hundreds of questions.

robertocarlos , 23 hours ago

Two questions were asked. "Are you a woman"? and "Are you a liar"?

Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago

It's amazing what a false memory can do.

Is there a verbatim transcript of the questions asked?

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Mitchell said it was irresponsible to give a polygraph to someone grieving the loss of a loved one. Grandmother in this case.

peippe , 22 hours ago

rumor has it the exam included two questions.

Two Questions.

you decide what that means.

nsurf9 , 1 day ago

Not one shred of corroboration evidence of Ford's testimony, not even from her friend, who flatly denied she ever went to such party, NONE, NADA, UNBELIEVABLE!

Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with democrat financed malicious intent to defame?

And further, Montgomery County Police has formally stated that, as a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations ran out on this allegedly crime - 35 frigging years ago.

And lastly, with regard to drinking in college, not one democrat mentions he finished top of his Yale undergrad class and top of his Yale Law School class.

FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago

nsurf9 - Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with malicious intent to defame?

Please tell me how you or I could possible "safeguard" ourselves from "crazy loon" and "bald-face lies" ....?

That is why we're supposed to be a nation of laws and innocent until proven guilty.

It is one thing to disagree over a person political position and or ideas but that is not what is happening here. The Dems are in full assault mode to destroy BK and his family as a warning to any future Conservative judge who may dare accepts a nomination to the SC.

What the Dems are doing will lead to some type of civil war if they do not stop this. It will not be pretty if that happens.

nsurf9 , 23 hours ago

Requiring even a modicum of corroborated facts or evidence, outside of mere "words," would be a good start!

JLee2027 , 1 day ago

Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too vague,etc.

dogmete , 1 day ago

Yeah what an incredible story. She was at a party with some drunken creepy guys and got sexually assaulted. Everyone knows that never happens!

scraping_by , 1 day ago

The current sleaze isn't overturning the legal right to abortion, it's making it impossible to get one. It's a legal right that a woman has to sit through lectures, travel to specific places, make certain declarations, and get a physician who's usually under attack at the state level. It's not illegal, it's impossible.

It's not about restricting women, it's about making life harder for middle and lower class people. Women of the Senator's economic class have always had and always will have access to safe abortions. It's wage earners who have to depend on local providers.

Whether Catholic K will go along with the sabotage of a privacy right isn't clear. But he's probably going to be sympathetic to making those working class wenches show some responsibility.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

To quote famed feminist and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, women can always "Keep their pants zipped". But then Granholm only extended her authoritarian control freakery to the male half of the human race when she said that a few years ago. If women lose some "reproductive rights" then some of them might start to have some empathy for men and our lack of rights. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to empathize with us.

Kelley , 1 day ago

One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.

It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would have felt it and reacted far differently.

Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.

Giant Meteor , 1 day ago

Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter , not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that moment, have been accidently killed.

As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the **** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.

pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago

Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in. It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies (surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and travels the world surfing

Nunny , 1 day ago

If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful idiots on the left buy it.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.

I Write Code , 1 day ago

Wasn't there an old SNL skit about the "amygdala"?

YouTube doesn't seem to have an index on the term, LOL.

seryanhoj , 1 day ago

One more example of US governance and party politics on its way down the tubes. There is no topic, no forum nowhere where the truth is even something to be considered. Media, law makers, everyone looks at a story and says " Let's make this work for our agenda even if we have to reinvent it from scratch". Then it is more than easy to find people to testify any which way you want. Vomits copiously.

mabuhay1 , 1 day ago

The standard for females should be "They are lying if their lips are moving." Any claims of sexual abuse should require proof, and witnesses that can back up said claims. Many studies have found that years before the MeToo# lies began, about 60% of all claimed rapes were false. Now, with the "Must believe all women" and the "MeToo#" scam, I would suspect the rate of false claims to be very close to 100%

scraping_by , 1 day ago

The standard for any criminal investigation is ABC. Assume nothing, Believe no one, and Check everything. The current feminist howl is sweep that aside and obey a women when she points at a man.

Jack McGriff , 1 day ago

And yet every single MSM outlet is claiming she is credible! WTF!!!

MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago

If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone records for the last 2 years.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Kill shots:

· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party

· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,

· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with

· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.

· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post.

· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not know how to do that."

· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly frequently."

· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.

· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account.

Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago

Major Hegelian dialectic **** going on with the Ford/Kav reality show.

Women everywhere side with Ford because she's a women, claims she was abused, and "has to be believed", in order to settle some personal score that they all claim empathy for, even though she has given every tell in the book that she is lying.

Men everywhere empathize with a man being falsely accused, regardless of his politics and judicial history, even though he made his bones in the Bush administration, and can probably be relied on to further the authoritarian state via the Supreme court. Guilty of this myself, because it could be anyone of us next.

Pick a side, doesn't matter, because we've already lost.

Bastiat , 1 day ago

I "Believe the Women" -- the 3 women Ford named as witnesses who denied it ever happened, the 65 women who signed the letter in support of Ford, and all the women who have worked with him and had no issues. I don't believe this one, though.

phillyla , 1 day ago

truly embarrassing answer

were I a self important college professor I might lie and say "Shakespeare" but the truth will out I learned it from The Avengers movie when Loki called Black Widow a 'mewling quim'

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

A lot of women have seen their sons and brothers falsely accused. Ford was completely unconvincing in her "I don't remember the details of a traumatic "sexual assault"

BGO , 1 day ago

Mitchell the "veteran prosecutor" also failed to ask Ford who hosted the party where the alleged assault took place.

This is an important question. Maybe the most important question.

No one should be expected to remember their high school friends' home addresses, just like no one should be expected to remember every person who attended a specific high school party.

One thing ANYONE who suffered a violent attack would remember is WHO OWNED THE HOUSE where the attack took place.

High school parties generally are hosted by a the same people throughout a students high school years. It's not like everyone in class takes their turn throwing a kegger.

As anyone who drank to get drunk at parties in high school will tell you, it was always the same handful of kids, maybe three or four, who let their friends drink alcohol in their parents' home.

Narrowing down exactly who owned the home where the alleged attack took place should be easy due to the fact that, according to Ford, it was more of a small get together than a full blown party.

All investigators should need to do is ask the known attendees, under oath, whether or not they hosted the party where the alleged attack took place.

The fact that Ford's testimony includes exactly one person whose name she cannot remember is NOT a coincidence.

The phantom attendee was created out of thin air to give Ford an out if the known attendees claimed the attack did not occur at their homes.

There are so many things wrong with this political farce. Liberal mental illness, as with any case, is a given, automatically assumed.

Flip flopping dufuses on the other side, weakness, gross ineptitude.

The entire system needs to be culled via a massive firestorm; no one or thing left standing.

Cassander , 1 day ago

@BGO -- Re your first sentence, Mitchell notes in her memo "She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity". I think this covers your point implicitly. If she doesn't remember what house it was, how can she remember whose house it was?

Just thought you were going a bit hard on Mitchell, whose memo seems pretty damning to me...

BGO , 1 day ago

Asking *what* house and *whose* house are two ENTIRELY different things.

Think about the most traumatic experience of your life. You know EXACTLY where the traumatic experience took place, right?

FUBO , 1 day ago

She didn't ask one sexual question of her either,bu but dove right in on Kavanaugh.

istt , 1 day ago

And now we find out Leland Keyser was Bob Beckel's ex-wife. Unbelievable. Small circle these libs run in.

Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago

Actually nothing about the Democrats is surprising. They are predictable in keeping within their closed ranks.

Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago

They brought the wrong tool to the fight. Mitchell is a sex abuse prosecutor? Her tactics may well work in the courtroom but the Judiciary Comm hearing was not a platform of Mitchell's expertise. She apologized to Ms Ford and stated at the onset she would not ask Ms Ford about the "incident" other than her recollections of location, date and witnesses. Mitchell then hit Judge Kavanaugh head on with questions of gang rape, rape, sexual assault, drinking behaviors. All validating Kavanaugh's guilt for the sheeple.

My two Eng Springer Spaniels exhibit better strategy than what we saw here.

Herdee , 1 day ago

Her father was in the CIA. Who was it within the organization that planned this?

aloha_snakbar , 1 day ago

If Fords alleged/imaginary groping is allowed to stand, what about all of the groping that the TSA dispenses daily?

phillyla , 1 day ago

if touching over your clothes = rape I have several lawsuits to file against the TSA ...

Luce , 1 day ago

How does this ballsy ford bitch keep her PTSD in check when the TSA gropes her for all of her exotic vacations?

phillyla , 1 day ago

some one should investigate if she signed up for the TSA's skip the line service for frequent fliers ...

[Oct 02, 2018] Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a well paying gig if you can get it

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Teeter , 1 day ago

Also telling... nobody from her family (mother, father, brother) has come forward to support her. Only her husband's family. They likely know she is making it up as it relates to Kavanaugh. They know who she is.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

That's actually false. However, the muted support from her father is likely due his not wanting to be ostracized from his upper-crust old boys golf club.

davatankool , 1 day ago

This Confirmation Process Has Become a National Disgrace

idontcare , 1 day ago

....and the biggest indications of fraud here are 4 go fund me accounts now raising over $2M for CBF. Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a good gig if you can get it now days.

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

Y'all are being distracted and played, as usual, I am sad to say...

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/msm-using-kavanaugh-sex-scandal-to-distract-you-from-real-reason-he-shouldnt-be-appointed/

The judge Napolitano video at the end should have been played to Congress.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Yup, this man is not a friend of liberty, or justice.

IridiumRebel , 1 day ago

His *** is rethinking it now

istt , 1 day ago

"Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person's car without first obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn't constitute a "search" as defined by the Fourth Amendment."

I like him more now that I have read this article. Police should be able to legally track known or suspected drug dealers. You got a problem with that? I suppose you're outraged over our treatment of MS-13 as well?

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

Yes, I have a problem with that. Police must have enough prior evidence to get a warrant to put a device on anyone's property (car, phone, email account, internet router) - any private property is protected by the 4th.

Once they convince a judge of probable cause and get the warrant, they can plant the tracking device. Most cops are power hungry, petty, vindictive, control freaks, with too much time on their hands - one tried to make my life hell simply because I cut him off in traffic.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

The hypocrisy of ZH posters in favor of this douche is unreal. Where is the libertarian outrage?

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

I think most libertarians have left ZH and this is a predominantly Republican partisan site now. The internet is quickly becoming a bunch of echo chambers for like minded people, with trolls appearing from time to time to fan flames if interest and eyeballs starts to wane. We are lucky if one post out of 50 has any insight or real information.

11b40 , 1 day ago

Once you start down this slippery slope, the next step down is easy.

spieslikeus , 1 day ago

Eye opening, thanks for that. Appoint Judge Napolitano!

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

It would be nice to have a token libertarian voice on the court. Kavanaugh is not only a statist, but a deep statist.

Golden Phoenix , 1 day ago

If taken completely at her word the gist of her story is someone touched the outside of her clothes. Prison for tailors! They are all rapists!

Bricker , 1 day ago

Ford says she ran from the house, Question, how did you get home? Answer, I don't remember.

No Time for Fishing , 1 day ago

No one followed her out. No one said where are you going.

She is outside the house, no car, no phone, maybe clicked her heals and was magically at home, worked for Dorthy.

Walked six miles home but just doesn't remember that? could be.

Knocked on a neighbors door to ask to use the phone and had someone pick her up but doesn't remember that? could be.

Walked a few blocks to a pay phone and with the quarter she had in her bathing suit called someone to pick her up, waited for them, didn't tell them what happened and then they drove her home, just doesn't remember it? could be.

When she ran from the house did she not leave her purse or bag behind? Did she ever get it back? Did her girlfriend never ask why she left?

Maybe I should just believe her......

Bastiat , 1 day ago

She ran all the way, got home in 35'32" -- she would have been a track star but the coach looked at her *** at the team tryouts.

Benjamin123 , 1 day ago

Auntie delivers

The Swamp Got Trump , 1 day ago

Ford is a lunatic and a liar.

onebytwo , 1 day ago

so she does not remember how she got to the party or how she left the party but she suggested she narrowed down the year because she knew she did not drive to the party since she could not drive yet so she must have been 15.

I beg your pardon!

bh2 , 1 day ago

So does anyone recall Comey giving Clinton a free pass despite her many deliberate and clear violations of US security laws on the basis that no reasonable prosecutor would take action against her?

nope-1004 , 1 day ago

Dr. Fraud was a planned hit. Her social media presence was methodically deleted over the last few months. There is nothing about her anywhere.... it's almost as if her name is fake too.

Heard on 4chan that her and her husband have a big interest at the place she used to work, Corcept Therapeutics. Apparently Corcept has developed a new abortion drug and have invested a ton in R&D.

As always, follow the money.......

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

yeah, yeah. you do realize that her father plays golf with Kav's dad at their local country club.

don't forget your tinfoil hat your way out, nutjob.

nope-1004 , 1 day ago

And you do realize that Kav's mother was the judge that presided over Dr. Frauds' parents home foreclosure?

Lots of motives here.

Thanks for chiming in so we can all get to he truth.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Presiding over a foreclosure is not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a strictly administrative task. The bank is the one foreclosing, you dolt.

Garciathinksso , 1 day ago

another unhinged, faux compassionate, rude leftist

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Another braindead gaslighting troglodyte

11b40 , 1 day ago

Then what is the judge for?

istt , 1 day ago

Turns out Ford is not even a psychologist. Some of the stupidest people I know carry PhD titles because they are perpetual students. This just starkly shows the difference between the two worlds people live in, if they can find Ford credible. She is the face of left wing hysteria and partisanship.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

And angry-boy Kavanaughty is the perfect reflection of unhinged conspi-racist GOP.

istt , 1 day ago

Keep repeating the mantras, losers. I'm sure there are many single mom's out there who made lousy decisions, who hate their lives, who are willing to buy your whole story. YOU resonate with them. But they are not here so get lost.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

I crap bigger than you.

Got The Wrong No , 1 day ago

That's because you are Crap

Slaytheist , 1 day ago

Real men that live lives of principal and truth, get angry when women (inclues numen like you) lie like children to get their way.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

So pretty much all of Kavanaugh's old cronies turn out to be degenerate drunkard misogynist ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist toolbags and somehow Kavanaugh himself is Mr. Squeaky Clean? <cough>********<cough>

nope-1004 , 1 day ago

No, they were all drunken college kids.

So have you lefties changed it and would like to charge him for partying?

lmao.....

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Lol, drunked college kids? More like degenerate a-holes. Troll harder.

IridiumRebel , 1 day ago

Yes. Troll harder.

Garciathinksso , 1 day ago

your being spoon fed a narrative by the msm like rice pudding to a gay cowboy, you make me sick

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself, please.

Garciathinksso , 1 day ago

I thought I was being kind with the gay cowboy remark

istt , 1 day ago

Get the **** out of here, wingnut. Switch back to your CNN. We don't need your ilk here, loser.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

I have been here farrrrr long than the vast majority of you pikers. Long enough to recall what ZH was intended to be for, before it became the cesspool it is today, infested with russian trolls, nazi-fascist thugs, lunatic fringe d-bags spouting off like they know anything about anything. So GET the F OFF MY LAWN, punk.

istt , 1 day ago

Anyone who finds this woman and her story credible need their head examined. They are incapable of critical reasoning.

A political hit job and the stupid, ignoramus Ford was willing to do the hit. She should be in jail for this disgraceful action.

onebytwo , 1 day ago

So she was communicating on Whatsup with the Washington Post on JULY 6th! How is that consistent with wanting this whole story to be confidential?

She knew the person she was in contact with since she admitted she was the same journalist who wrote the article in September. In whatsup you know each other's phone numbers so the journalist knew her identity from the very beginning. Stop lying about the anonymous tip line !

Let's call this for what it is: a conspiracy to hijack a supreme court nomination and Mrs Blasio Ford, the Washington Post, democratic parties operatives (including senator Fienstein's staff or the senator herself and the Kats legal firm) were co-conspirators).

onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago

Hired by Pukes, no surprise here.

cheech_wizard , 1 day ago

So elections have consequences, right?

I'll bet you didn't miss a single one of Hillary's campaign events in Wisconsin, did you?

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

I really don't get it, there are many qualified conservative judges who would do a much better job on SCOTUS and not damage the court's honor and credibility. Why Kavanaugh?

onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago

Because he is a political heck and Drumpf likes it that way.

Bricker , 1 day ago

Ford doesnt remember much, except when it matters. She doesnt know exactly when she was raped or where she claims to be raped, but remembers seeing Mark Judge in a Safeway exactly 8 weeks later.

Hell I remember where I was when the space shuttle blew up in the 80s, I remember where I was and who I was with when Mt St Helens blew her top in 1980.

People will always remember notable events, PERIOD!

Here is a classic, if you believe her story, I have a bridge for sale

Endgame Napoleon , 1 day ago

Back when the Roy Moore thing was keeping MSM ratings up, I, a person in Dr. Ford's age group, recalled a 100% harmless event from my 16th year. The reason it sprang to mind is: it echoed things they were accusing him of.

Accusers said he was in the mall, flirting with girls in their late teens and in other commercial venues, chatting it up girls in that age group.

Although this event had not crossed my mind in years -- so un-traumatic was it -- I remembered in much greater detail than Ford the specificities of this harmless event.

I was working at a locally owned steakhouse as a hostess, a glorified and very bored door opener. I was wearing a pink, medium-warm-gray and light-warm-gray, striped dress (ugh, the Eighties).

After work, I decided to stop at a local grocery store, and I felt pleased that a candidate for office who later won handed me his card, trying to convince me to vote for him. He also mildly flirted with me, not knowing how old I was, and I did not tell him my age, enjoying the feeling of being older, sophisticated and attractive enough to get his attention.

He put his phone number on the card, not that anything happened as a result. I knew that I would not be allowed to go out with this man who really wasn't that much older than me, anyway, probably about a decade older.

If this man ever ran for another office, or was appointed to a high office, I could call this sexual assault, I guess, in this insane world. But I would never do that, nor would almost any woman that I have met.

There must be something in the water, producing more barracudas with a mission to criminalize things that earlier generations would have called flirting.

learnofjesuits , 1 day ago

was she on valium for funeral and polygraph test ?

this explains why test was done after funeral and her passing this test,

FBI must check this

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

And while they're at it, they should also check all the stories from Yale classmates who can attest to the fact that Kavanaugh was often spotted late at night stumbling and slurring his words, and sometimes aggressively starting sh*t.

learnofjesuits , 1 day ago

inconsequential, nothing will come out of this,

opposite of her being on drugs for polygraph test, this just ends her story

[Oct 02, 2018] Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In the Dr. ford residence area that setup probably commands $2000 a month.

Notable quotes:
"... The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up? ..."
"... Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis . ..."
"... Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep. ..."
"... Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill. ..."
"... My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Demologos , 1 hour ago

Hey, John Brennan said to dig deeper, so we are. Keep peeling the onion and expose more and more layers. She had a second door put in to improve the house's curb appeal, but you can't see the door from the curb. The door helped with her claustrophobia but it only allows egress from living space separate from her main residence.

As the commenter above said, "look squirrel"!

The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up?

The only pacifier evident here is the one up your ***.

Beatscape , 1 hour ago

Follow the money... it almost always takes you to the real motivating factors.

Good work here by by Thomas Lipscomb via RealClearPolitics.com

NoPension , 2 hours ago

Sounds more like hubby didn't want strangers in the house, and she wanted the extra income or potential. Perhaps, he was scared of the consequences of getting busted, after spending the money...doing something non code compliant.

Builder here.

This starts to make sense...in a fucked up way.

digitalrevolution , 2 hours ago

Too far in the weeds on this one.

Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis .

NoPension , 1 hour ago

Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep.

PGR88 , 2 hours ago

Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill.

ChartRoom , 2 hours ago

My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen.

Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago

Can confirm

45North1 , 2 hours ago

A floor plan would be instructive.

NoPension , 2 hours ago

Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In an area where that setup probably commands $2000 a month.

zoning inspectors 3....2.....1....

[Oct 02, 2018] Fatal Attraction ?

The gotcha moment for me was Ford's response to a question in which she declared that she wanted Sen. Feinstein's office to know about her story while there was still time to find another candidate. Not political at all.
Notable quotes:
"... after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of fatal attraction for him. . ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

akaPatience , a day ago

...In recent days I've seen teenage photos of both Ford and Kavanaugh. His handsomeness was obvious. And he was evidently a leader in his school when it came to sports and academics. I'm beginning to suspect, after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of fatal attraction for him. .
Snow Flake -> -> akaPatience , 18 hours ago
Except for claiming she's 100% certain that Kavanaugh assaulted her, I
wonder if she's been vague enough to prevent any perjury charges?

There is this interesting passage, here as cited by the WP:

*****************************************
Feinstein: How were you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh] ?

Ford: The same way that I am sure that I am talking to you right now: It's basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that sort of, as you know, encodes that neurotransmitter, encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so the trauma-related experience then is kind of locked there whereas other details kind of drift.

Feinstein: So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?

Ford: Absolutely not
*****************************************

[Oct 02, 2018] Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends?

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Mzhen , 11 hours ago

Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public.

I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day.

Being Free , 23 hours ago

Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_Zg2phhLI

San Pedro , 23 hours ago

Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus skewing the results.

blindfaith , 23 hours ago

So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?

How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did she perjer herself?

Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL complaint in Maryland.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/09/29/montgomery-co-police-maryland-state-attorney-respond-to-state-lawmakers-reques-n2523791

PGR88 , 1 day ago

Blasey-Ford's squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child voice was both poor acting, and creepy. If it wasn't acting, then its a clear sign of a deranged mind.

[Oct 02, 2018] Her house (according to Zillow) is currently valued at $3,000,000.00+. Renting part of the house was an illegal a way to offset taxes. The second door justification was a tax scam

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Pollygotacracker , 1 day ago

Blasey-Ford resides at 3872 Duncan Place in Palo Alto CA. Her house (according to Zillow) is currently valued at $3,000,000.00+. There must be a lot of idiots out there contributing to her GoFundMe account. She will need a lawyer, soon. I believe that there will be a trail leading back to witnesses who will admit the entire thing was a hoax. And, the band played on.

morongobill , 1 day ago

Saw this over at Burning Platform. Interesting that Ford's address is reveled.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/10/01/vindication/

blind_understanding , 1 day ago

INTERESTING! I clicked it...

Historical-timeline PICTURES of Dr Ford's home at 3872 Duncan Place, in Palo Alto, CA, and comments as to how it relates to her testimony -
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/10/01/vindication/

[Oct 02, 2018] Watch Live Kavanaugh, Accuser Dr. Christine Ford Testify To Congress

Oct 02, 2018 | www.realclearpolitics.com

[Oct 02, 2018] More Holes Appear As Records Raise Questions About Ford's Double-Door Story

I for one see her as a political operative, may be crusader for abortions right (which I support) and very troubled human being, possibly on antidepressants or something similar (her facial expression, and kind of "permanently glued smile" are not natural at all and she looks like a female of over 60 biological age while being 51 years old)
Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Thomas Lipscomb via RealClearPolitics.com,

Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure." And his former colleague, James Comey, has urged investigators to "dig deeper."

So begin at the beginning of her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony :

" I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couple's counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail."

Under questioning from Sen. Diane Feinstein, Ford described an agonizing after-effect of the alleged Kavanaugh attack that caused her to demand that second door :

"Anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I've been coping with," Ford said. "More specially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

FEINSTEIN: "Is that the reason for the second front door? Claustrophobia?"

FORD: "Correct."

The trade-off, apparently, was evident in Ford's statement that "our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb." From the view on Google Earth, or Redfin, one can't see the second door easily and the house appears no uglier "from the curb" than it ever did, if it did. But a glance at the real estate databases about Ford's house are instructive.

The Fords bought the house on June 20, 2007. And the "very extensive, very long remodel," including the second front door, were completed under a building permit granted in 2008.

So a natural question is why, four years after the remodeling, which also added two rooms and a bathroom, is the installation of that second door still such a bone of contention between the couple that it was an issue in the counseling they were undergoing in May 2012?

One key may be Ford's continuing testimony to Feinstein, after describing the aesthetic difficulties "from the curb."

FEINSTEIN: "I see. And do you have that second front door?"

FORD: "Yes."

FEINSTEIN: "It "

FORD: "It - it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we get to have - other students can live there."

Now that she mentions it, the additional remodeling in effect added a self-contained unit to the house, with its own entrance, perfect for "hosting" or even possibly renting, in violation of the local zoning . Perhaps a professional office might be a perfect use, if an illegal one. And in the tight Palo Alto real estate market, there are a lot of games played for some serious income.

And that may answer another strange anomaly.

Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what is now the Ford property . It is listed as this person's residence from 1993 to July 2007, a week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.

Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in 2007.

Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a talented artist as well.

But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall's address listed at what is now the Ford residence.

Which raises other questions.

Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can't seem to recall much about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the therapist's summary? Who was the psychologist?

In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would not answer yes or no, replying, "I am a couples therapist."

So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for the primary resident, how did the door's existence ameliorate Ford's professed claustrophobia?

None of this means that her charges against Kavanaugh might not be perfectly valid, but her explanation for the "second door" looks like it could use more investigation. At the very least it appears to be a far more complicated element of Ford's credibility than it originally appeared.


lulu34 , 3 minutes ago

It's a simple property tax scheme. Rent out the spacw to offset the taxes. You don't report this income to the "authorities".

hannah , 22 minutes ago

first...******* NO ONE STATES THAT THERE ISNT EVEN A DOCTOR MUCH LESS THEIR NOTES...? everyone wants to see the doctors notes yet no one has even mentioned the name of the doctor. i dont think there are notes about a door. that is all ********. feinsteins people typed up 'the notes'.......also if she is renting the remodel area is she paying taxes on that income. in california it could be $24,000 to $48,000 a year easily........

lulu34 , 2 minutes ago

Bingo...it's a cost $$$ collection to offset property taxes

Automatic Choke , 34 minutes ago

Illegal and unzoned apartment added to a house? Watch out, here comes the tax collector. She just might have talked her way into a tax fraud conviction.

Seal Team 6 , 47 minutes ago

Randall ran a business from her home so I would wonder if she put the door in in the 90s, as businesses run from homes typically have alternate entrances. Ford and husband listed it on the permit in 2007 to cover it up otherwise it could be used as a basis to walk on a real estate deal...no building permit was granted. Happens all the time. Boy if someone has a picture of Ford's house from the 90's and see's that second door, she is done done done.

[Oct 02, 2018] The Kavanaugh hearings and the Lack of Radical Action

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... " The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles ..."
"... "The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive." ..."
"... Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system? ..."
Sep 30, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

" The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles ."

(The Socialist Party and the Working Class". Eugene V. Debs' opening speech as Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in Indianapolis, Indiana, www.marxists.org . September 1, 1904. )

I haven't paid any attention to the "Kavanaugh hearings" other than reading some headlines and some comments here and there. It's not that I don't care about the Supreme Court, although my paying attention to this bullshit won't change a damn thing, it's more that the entire spectacle of watching this country's political system in action, with or without sex crime accusations, makes me sick.

I'm writing this because I clicked on an article titled, "More Like a Hijacking Than A Democracy, Senator Graham" because the reference to democracy interested me (we don't live in one for the ten thousandth time). I scanned the article, which has a photo of Lindsey Graham and some suits against a wood grained background of political importance, and saw it contained information about the process and system being followed by the oligarchy controlled duopoly.

At this point in my life, I'm adamantly against having a "Supreme" court with nine One Percenter assholes appointed for LIFE by the duopoly unrepresentatives having the power of life, death or misery over hundreds of millions of people, and beyond when it comes down to it. What bullshit. As with everything else in our national political system, the system and process has become so warped, corrupt, partisan and ideological it's pathetic.

Plenty of people are asking why the process is unfolding the way it is, with the sex allegations as the focal point, but very few are asking why we have a system like this at all. Why do we need this? Who and what is this for? Aren't there better options? Why are we letting all these assholes do this to us? WHY do we let the corrupt and oligarchy controlled democratic and republican parties completely control this process? In the end, isn't this just another example of how fucked up our political system is at the national level?

After I scanned the article linked above, I clicked on Paul Craig Roberts latest, Where Does Our Attention Belong: Kavanaugh or Yemen? .

"The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive."

Kind of the same old, same old Paul. I think the real question is why can't enough of us organize together to challenge those that rule us. I mean really challenge, like revolution type challenge. Overthrow these motherfuckers type challenge. This isn't new. Look at that Debs quote, 1904. Nothing is new, we keep doing the same shit over and over. Maybe that's just the way it is, but then again, we're smarter than that aren't we? Why aren't more people calling for/demanding radical change to our fucked up political system completely controlled by the rich? Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system?

They're doing all this shit and then we're going to have another election. Shit.

[Oct 02, 2018] Kavanaugh is the Wrong Nominee by Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers

Highly recommended!
Oct 02, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and wrong.

Kavanaugh's career as a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of these.

Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political activist.

The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture

A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the government to conduct searches.

Kavanaugh explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the court.

Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people. He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the wrong nominee and should be disqualified.

Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as a justice but should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of torture.

Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006 confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the controversial Haynes nomination."

Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being confirmed.

This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.

Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop this nomination?

Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet

In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and planet.

This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water. If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.

Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruled in favor of the Trump Organizatio n throwing out the results of a union election, sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the casino's First Amendment right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.

Kavanough opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality, which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges the mainstream narrative.

In 2016, Kavanaugh was asked if he believed that money spent during campaigns represents speech, and is protected by the First Amendment and answered: " Absolutely. " Kavanaugh joined in decisions and wrote opinions consistent with efforts to oppose any attempt by Congress or the Federal Elections Commission to restrict campaign contributions or expenditures. His view that free speech allows unrestricted money in elections will add to the avalanche of big money politics . Wealthy elites and big corporations will have even greater influence with Kavanaugh on the court.

Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.

Women's Rights, Abortion and Sexual Assault

Judge Kavanaugh has not ruled on Roe v. Wade and whether the constitution protects a woman's right to have an abortion. In 2017, Kavanaugh gave a Constitution Day lecture to the conservative American Enterprise Institute where he praised Justice Rehnquist and one of the cases he focused on was his dissent in Roe. Rehnquist opposed making abortion constitutionally protected, writing, it was not "rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people." Shortly after that speech, Kavanaugh wrote a dissent that argued an immigrant minor in government detention did not have a right to obtain an abortion .

On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free exercise of religion.

Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.

Multiple accusers have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify – it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI investigation. It is unclear whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses. As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St. Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"

Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.

A Republican Political Operative As A Justice?

Kavanaugh has been a legal operative for the Republican Party involved in many high profile partisan legal battles. He spent three years working for Ken Starr on the impeachment of Bill Clinton where he pressed Starr to ask Clinton sexually graphic details about his relationship with Monica Lewinisky. He tried to expand the Starr investigation into the death of Vince Foster, whose death had been ruled a suicide. He was a lead author of the infamous Starr Report -- widely criticized as "strain[ing] credulity" and being based on "shaky allegations."

Kavanaugh was one of George W. Bush's lawyers in the litigation after the election in 2000, which sought to block a recount of ballots in Florida, resulting in a decision that handed the presidential election to Bush . In the Bush administration, he was involved in pushing for conservative judges as well as controversial policies like torture.

During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying, torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted, but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.

[Oct 02, 2018] The potential payoff is exaggerated. There's nothing stopping a lame-duck Senate ramming an equally-conservative alternative justice through before they're gone.

Oct 02, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Orange Watch 09.26.18 at 4:29 pm ( 4 )

SC@1:

The potential payoff is exaggerated. There's nothing stopping a lame-duck Senate ramming an equally-conservative alternative justice through before they're gone. The SCOTUS payoff is for seating someone like Kav , not for seating Kav. The payoff for seating Kav is far narrower. And the seating of a Kav-or-equivalent justice ahead of the election is an entirely and unevaluated different matter

john c. halasz 09.26.18 at 10:30 pm ( 14 )
What are the odds? No, the question should be: what are the ends?
cian 09.26.18 at 7:41 pm (no link)
More on Anita Hill:
"But conservative members of the State Legislature, led by Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, a Republican from Oklahoma City, have called Professor Hill a perjurer, said she should be in prison, demanded her resignation, tried to cut off matching money for the professorship and introduced legislation to shut down the law school."
CJColucci 09.26.18 at 8:31 pm ( 9 )
Post-Thomas, nobody made any claims of sexual misconduct, true or false, against Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Harriet Meyers, Sonia Sotomayor, or Elena Kagan (though there were some whispers about matters that, in decent circles, don't count as "misconduct"). Let's add in perhaps the only people who have a higher profile than Supreme Court nominees: No one made any claims of sexual misconduct against Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, whoever-the-hell was his VP candidate, Bob Dole, whoever-the-hell was his VP candidate, Joe Lieberman, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Kaine, or Mike Pence. There were claims of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Donald trump, but they were true. It just doesn't look s if claims of sexual misconduct, true or false, are that likely.

[Oct 02, 2018] Christine Balsey Ford and her father are all CIA, check it out, he father Ralph G. Balsey Jr. and her brother are all CIA

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

DRA , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:33 pm GMT

@Rational It seems to me that the FBI investigation should include an investigation of who leaked the Ford information, over her stated objections.

On the other hand, the Dems were VERY interested in having the FBI do a further investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, the same FBI that got a FISA warrant to "wiretap" Trump under false pretenses. Can we really be sure that there aren't arrangements already in place to frame Kavanaugh?

The Alarmist , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Anon

"I'm puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?"

Because. Trump!

DESERT FOX , says: September 29, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX One more thing, Christine Balsey Ford and her father are all CIA, check it out, he father Ralph G. Balsey Jr. and her brother are all CIA.

[Oct 02, 2018] Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

freedommusic , 54 minutes ago

Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure."

national treasure

Is CLEARLY a code word.

Payoff? Bribe?

silverserfer , 22 minutes ago

Creepy as **** that a former CIA diector would say soemthing like this.

surf@jm , 18 minutes ago

Fords father was CIA....

Dont forget that.....

thebigunit , 42 minutes ago

Very curious.

So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances?

What I find MOST curious is the fact that Dr. Ford's internet persona has been completely "sanitized".

Someday, the master conspiracy will be revealed, and it will look something like this:

  1. The main plotter and organizer of the anti-Trump coup d'etat was former CIA director John O. Brennan.
  2. Venture capital funding for Google was provided by CIA venture capital operation In-Q-Tel.
  3. Google was started by Stanford University grad students Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
  4. Stanford University is located in Palo Alto, California
  5. Palo Alto is a company town for Stanford University
  6. Stanford University is a captive technology incubator for the CIA
  7. One of the biggest technology companies in Palo Alto is CIA contractor Palantir
  8. Palo Alto is a company town for the CIA.
  9. Dr. Christine Baseley Ford was a professor at Palo Alto University and also taught at Stanford University.
  10. Overy 1750 Stanford University graduates work at Google.
  11. The CIA developed the plan to take out Judge Kavanaugh using radical feminist operatives associated with Stanford University and Stanford Law School to claim sexual misconduct.
  12. The CIA used its control of the technology industry and Google in particular to sanitize Christine Ford's internet personna and to obscure or suppress any information that might disclose her radical history and associations.

The CIA, Stanford, and Google are joined at the hip.

[Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

Highly recommended!
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [257] Disclaimer says: September 29, 2018 at 8:28 am GMT 400 Words

I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.

Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment

There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity. It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door and it's a small apartment.

Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely. But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.

So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped.

Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.

She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office.

I'm puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

[Oct 02, 2018] Something about judge Kavanaugh personality and political views.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Deschutes says: September 29, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT 400 Words John Derbyshire – another shitty, adolescent article from the angry white conservative man child who blames everybody whose not white and male for his own failings and problems. The way you portray women in this article reveals a man child who never matured beyond 16 years of age. It is little wonder you portray women as nothing more than angry children's book characters who vomit if they don't get their way: a man child can't see it any other way. Not once in this diatribe do you mention abortion rights. It never occurred to you that losing abortion rights might piss off some women. If Kavanaugh is put on the court, abortion will be made illegal in USA. Debryshire, you remind me Jeff Sessions: you're a couple of bookends from the 1940s. Same racist mind set, same 'war on drugs' reactionary bullshit, same 'women belong in the kitchen' nonsense etc. What's more, anybody who actually likes Lindsey Graham is a total complete asshole. There is nothing to like in that self-righteous reactionary, war criminal piece of shit from the Old South. If you've enjoyed the last 17 years of wars without end and the wretched 'war on terror' and all that has come to pass since 9-11, then Lindsey Graham is your man. Like McCain, he never saw a war he didn't love starting. And watching Graham's temper tantrum meltdown in the congressional hearings the other day made for rather uncomfortable viewing, like watching a 5 year old in a toy store who didn't get his GI Joe doll. Since when is losing your temper, foaming at the mouth and screaming at the entire caucus because you are not getting your way acceptable behavior? It isn't. But it is a sure sign of a person who is a total, complete egotistical asshole. I always hated Scalia, and was really happy when he died. That Obama and the dems were too spineless to stick a replacement on the bench when they had the chance only reinforced my total lack of respect for the dems. The tragedy in waiting was that now we will have a reactionary conservative majority scotus headed by Kavanaugh, and abortion will be made illegal; more laws passed to favor giant corporations like Citizens United; more anti-worker legislation passed; more war and more police state measures domestically: that's your Trump/Kavanaugh/Lindsay Graham/John Derbyshire shit stain USA coming yer way!

[Oct 02, 2018] The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

seeing-thru , says: September 29, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT

@Deschutes Ah, ah, the main issue here is not where Kavanaugh will stand on abortion laws but whether the campaign of slander against him could have any possible truth.

The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago. Well, where on earth was she all these years? She ended up with a Ph.D. in psychology so she could not have been ignorant of laws and remedies surrounding rape and attempted rape through her years in university. Where was her "great courage" all these years? A tad too much of a coincidence this, her finding her memories and courage right on the eve of Kavanaugh's proposed appointment. Kavanaugh may or may not be a good choice for the Supreme Court; opinions can differ legitimately. But putting him on a show-trial where he comes out looking unclean no matter what is a travesty of natural justice and a grave injury to common decency and common sense.

[Oct 02, 2018] The hysterical harpies were certainly pleased with themselves when they got the result they wanted.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

MEH 0910 , says: September 29, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT

Score one for hysterical harpies, score zero for the dignity of Senatorial process.

The hysterical harpies were certainly pleased with themselves when they got the result they wanted.

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website September 29, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@anon I know all of this woman-howling is covering up his role in the Vince Foster 'suicide' making him a George HW Bush CIA (Iran-Contra, cocaine trafficking) lap-dog. Oh, and he ruled the USA can kidnap American citizens abroad and hold them at black sites

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/07/12/kavanaugh-the-royal-nonsuch/

^ it's amazing what's still out there despite internet gatekeeping more and more everyday -

[Oct 02, 2018] Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him, always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sandy Berger's Socks , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT

Kavanaugh hearings are just another episode of bad political theater.

Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him, always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.

No border wall.

No money even appropriated for border wall.

No repeal of Obama care.

No end to the mid east follies.

There should be an enthusiasm gap.

[Oct 02, 2018] I found her not credible. Her allegations were just plausible enough to smear Kavanaugh, but Kafkaesque enough to deny the possibility of any exculpatory evidence to clear Kavanaugh.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

J Lee September 29, 2018 at 2:41 am

I find the charge that Kavanaugh was acting like a spoiled baby because he defended himself outrageously shabby and undeserved.

So, trying to defend himself against the utter devastation of his character and reputation is considered petulant? Absolutely not! He defiantly denied the allegations most indignantly after Democrats made him and his family their outhouse floormat on which they continuously wiped their feet. Instead of trying to defend his honor, his family, and his life, I guess he was supposed to take it with groveling submission and withdraw his name in humiliation? To the chagrin of the left he did not. He called Democrats out for what is patently obvious to anyone with a thinking brain, this was a carefully orchestrated political hit job and he was spot on in leveling the indictment.

As for Dr. Ford? I found her not credible. Her allegations were just plausible enough to smear Kavanaugh, but Kafkaesque enough to deny the possibility of any exculpatory evidence to clear Kavanaugh. Wouldn't it be nice if we could question the driver who took her home? They could testify as to her state of mind, the location of the house, possibly the time, and date. Or did she walk? She left without warning her best friend she could be in danger? Did her sudden exit raise eyebrows? She remembers how many beers she had but not the house she was drinking in? Was there not a down stairs bathroom? If you're going to put the mark of Cain on somebody, you had better have something damn more credible than just a free-floating assault story, because the bare allegation itself is not proof of truth no matter how believable she tells it after thirty years.

And there are other troubling inconsistencies. She seemed confused by some of Ms. Mitchell's questions. She could not arrive in Washington earlier in the week because she said she had a fear of flying, but she flew to Washington and flies all the time. It's clear that she was being heavily managed by her liberal handlers. She wasn't even told that Grassley had proffered to come to her in California to take her statement. Of course, this would have upset the objective to delay as long as possible. Her own witnesses cannot corroborate her story. We can't check the veracity of her questionable lie detector test because her lawyers won't cooperate in turning over any recordings. She supposedly turned over her medical records to the WP, but refused to make them available to the Judiciary Committee. Just out of curiosity, what PhD doesn't know the meaning of "exculpatory?" What PhD doesn't know how to get in touch with her elected representatives? Meanwhile her social media accounts have been scrubbed So we can't see the true extent of her political activism. A proper FBI investigation of these allegations could have been done in due time had not Feinstein been up to her skullduggery.

Now that they have their one week FBI investigation, look for the goalposts to move yet again. Only an anencephalic would be fooled into thinking Democrats are operating in good faith.

Randy S Williams , says: September 29, 2018 at 11:50 am
As someone (male) who has helped victims of sexual crimes, I did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation to be credible, nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation will never reach the level of a charge because it lacks basic evidence. Further, the accusator's tale remains just that without a proper interrogation. For instance, it is improper to assume that Ms. Blasey Ford's demeanor is evidence of her "truth". Sure, she may be convincing to a naive person, but how often have we been convinced by a sincere victim, only to find out later that the accused was innocent?

The facts are:

At best Ms. Blasey Ford is a willing stooge, at worst she is a co-conspirator in a political scheme to destroy the nomination of an innocent man to be a SC Justice. It is she and her Dem. allies who need to be investigated.

Youknowho , says: September 29, 2018 at 7:04 pm
All this could have been avoided if they had gotten the FBI to investigate from day 1. The investigatin should be conducted by professionals not by amateur cops and lawyers who learned it from TV. That would keep the theorizing at bay "We are waiting for their findings" is the kind of response that does not raise hackles.

It would take a bit more time, of course, but it would not turn into a three ring circus.

[Oct 02, 2018] Comparing Kavanaugh to Bill Clinton

Oct 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Cjones1 September 28, 2018 at 11:07 am

The greatest irony is that all those indignant Democratic Senators voted to return alleged serial rapist and sexual predator, Billy Jeff Clinton, and his enabling wife, Hillary, to the White House.

[Oct 02, 2018] This allegation will never reach the level of a charge because it lacks basic evidence."

Oct 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Kurt Gayle September 30, 2018 at 9:33 am

Like commenter Randy S Williams I "did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation to be credible, nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation will never reach the level of a charge because it lacks basic evidence."

Victor Davis Hanson (National Review, Sept 28) gives this succinct summary of the Ford testimony: "The "process" of memorializing Ford's testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state's investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-testimony/

Andrew , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:34 am
The endless sympathy, empathy, claims of "sincerity", given to Dr. Ford are mystifying to me. What, if anything, ever happened to her I don't know, but the possibility that NOTHING of this nature, a sexual assault, has ever happened to her is certainly not one I can rule out, and, as a adult woman, a citizen in this republic, that she should be showered with so many calls of "respect", and hosannas to her "bravery" is bizarre and inexplicable. She has PERMANENTLY damaged, irrevocably, the reputation, up to now a sterling one, of a sitting United States federal judge with this reckless allegation of criminality of the most serious sort. She has no sympathy from me whatsoever, no matter what her motives were, which I care not at this point after watching such a sickening display of politically-motivated character assassination in America.
Donald , says: September 28, 2018 at 7:49 am
Sure, concentrate entirely on the Democrats. Republicans are the soul of honor in this. They know that former drunken frat boys have to stick together.

Here and there, but certainly not here at TAC, one can find posts which actually state what is wrong with both sides in this typically American bipartisan idiocy. Here is one --

https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2018/09/28/the-kavanaugh-hearings-encapsulate-the-rampant-emotionalism-of-american-politics/

Michael Kenny , says: September 28, 2018 at 10:32 am
Personally, I don't care a hoot who Americans appoint to their Supreme Court but the political game is amusing to watch. Clearly, the target is Trump and the prize is the midterms but what's amusing is that the Republicans have left themselves no choice but to shoot themselves in the foot. The only choice being which foot they're going to shoot themselves in! If they confirm Kavanaugh, they will alienate middle-of-road swing voters. If they fail to confirm him, they will alienate Trump's core supporters. The latter aren't all that numerous. Trump got only about 25% of the registered electorate in 2016 and part of that will have been Republican loyalists. The loss of either of those groups could swing the election. Trump needs a massive "October surprise" to overcome that and another "I'll denuclearize when you do" meeting with Kim Jong-un will hardly surprise anyone. A war, perhaps?

[Oct 02, 2018] It is hard to believe that the shy, shrinking violet, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, could stand before students at Stanford and Palo Alto and teach them.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Minnesota Mary

September 28, 2018 at 3:33 pm
It is hard to believe that the shy, shrinking violet, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, could stand before students at Stanford and Palo Alto and teach them. She came off as a case of arrested development, hiding behind oversized glasses, like a 6th grade girl, so demure, timid, and afraid of flying. Give me a break! She deserves an academy award for that performance!

For the Republicans and Trump to buy into her little act makes me gag.

[Oct 02, 2018] Once Again What Are The Odds Blue Pill Philosophy Edition

Oct 02, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

ph 09.30.18 at 6:57 am (no link)

@33 Jerry Springer and politics, true, and I'm glad we're finally getting to the nub of your pieces: politics – and the mid-terms?

Meanwhile, I did a little more background reading on the latest round of accusations. Witness number 2 confirms that BK was an obnoxious drunk at Yale, and very much a "man's man" in the infantile sense of the expression. From CNN

"James Roche, Kavanaugh's roommate in the Fall 1983, also issued a statement saying that Kavanaugh was a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time."
"(H)e became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk," Roche said.

One classmate who attended many of the same parties as Brett Kavanaugh but did not want to be identified, says he was "aggressive, obnoxious drunk, part of the crowd he hung out with."

Roche added that he became close friends with Ramirez in the early days at Yale and while he "did not observe the specific incident in question," he did remember "Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

BK whipped out his male parts on at least one occasion, seems hopelessly immature, and could be grabby and inappropriate. First time I've heard of that kind of behavior, ahem.

My own narrow experiences in this community as a youth were limited to middle-school athletics. Members of the rugby team liked to pull down their pants when drunk. Even at sixteen I could see that kind of behavior wasn't going to lead me to the promised land. That said, after migrating into a much more mixed community, I distinctly recall being dragged into a totally dark bedroom at a party and thrown down onto a bed in a manner quite different to Ms. Ford. Lines blurred. I've known a number of women who owned to intimate contact with two or more partners in an evening in high school and after, and who are now successful parents and hold good jobs. People do grow and change.

Yet, it's clear BK and I would never have been at the same parties, but I'm not sure I've read anything that makes him a sexual predator, (a charge you withdrew), or guilty of rape. He seems guilty of nothing more than being an asshole to both girls and boys as a high-school student, and an entitled and ugly drunk at Yale.

If there's more, I'm ready to change my mind.

Burn him at the stake.

[Oct 02, 2018] Rachel Mitchell failed to cross examine properly

Oct 02, 2018 | www.facebook.com

Rob Holston Rachel Mitchell failed to cross examine properly.

Dr Ford gave credible testimony in her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and was seemingly made more credible by an almost non-existent cross examination by Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell had many failures but I'll just mention a couple. Dr. Ford testified that her life was so disrupted after the alleged "attack" on her that she had a very difficult time with her first two years of college. Here is where Mitchell dropped the ball. She had no idea of where the ball was, how to pick it up or which direction to run with it.

Her immediate line of question should have been:

What grades did you earn in math, science, english, history during your freshman year in high school. What was your freshman GPA. Could you please tell me the same answers for your sophomore year? Your junior year? Your senior year? If the attack happened as you allege, wouldn't your GPA in high school take a drop during your junior and senior year?

Of course I would recommend that Mitchell would know the answers before asking the questions. The point is IF the attack happened as alleged between Ford's sophomore and junior year then one would expect a dramatic change in her academic and social life during her junior and senior years, NOT 3 & 4 years after the alleged attack. And IF Ford's GPA and social life in high school DID make a dramatic change after the next two years, Ford should be able to present teachers and high school classmates to testify as as to Ford's dramatic change IN HIGH SCHOOL not 3-4 years latter in college.

Another line of questioning should have been questioning Ford's drinking habits: When did you begin attending parties with boys and drinking beer. Did you ever drink to excess? Did YOU ever drink so much that YOU didn't remember much about the previous night's party? Did your drinking habits increase through the years? What years of your life has your drinking of beer been the greatest. Were your drinking habits perhaps responsible for your failure at college during your first two years?

I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford's testimony was NOT credible. It was in ways incredible, in the positive meaning of the word. But I AM saying that Mitchell was obviously not the right choice for the job of cross examination. Paul Dent I actually think Mitchell's questioning was on the right track. She did not ask questions on the practiced lie, but rather on peripheral details that the lying brain would not have stored in the hypothalamus. All of the answers "I don't know" etc are proof that the main story is a big lie because it has no anchor to surrounding realities. I would have loved to have asked how she dried her bathing suit after swimimig

[Oct 02, 2018] Dershowitz Senate Special Counsel Mitchell Was Incompetent, Did A Terrible Job Questioning Ford Video

Oct 02, 2018 | www.realclearpolitics.com

[Oct 02, 2018] If Blasey Ford was really attacked, she's in part responsible for the next attack, having enabled it by her silence.

Oct 02, 2018 | reason.com

[Oct 02, 2018] Most of Kavanaugh Bush-era records have been sealed.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Sep 30, 2018 6:34:02 PM | link

Sasha @52

Do you think the leadership of the Democrat Party care any more for women than Trump?

The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have been sealed. Why?

Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.

[Oct 02, 2018] Do you think the leadership of the Democrat Party care any more for women than Trump?

Oct 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Sep 30, 2018 6:34:02 PM | link

Sasha @52

The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have been sealed. Why?

Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.

[Oct 02, 2018] Innocent until proven guilty????not in the 21st century, it seems.

Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

rosemerry , September 27, 2018 at 2:37 pm

This of course is the way the whole "elite" in the Democratic Party is behaving towards Russia in the accusations of interference in the 2016 election. The dozens of "sanctions" to punish Russia for its alleged transgression are based on no real evidence. It is even more so in the completely fabricated story of the Skripal poisonings in the UK, where no evidence has been presented which would have any chance of standing up in a court, and the punishments have been inflicted in droves on the "guilty party" which "everyone knows" is at fault.

Innocent until proven guilty????not in the 21st century, it seems.

backwardsevolution , September 26, 2018 at 11:26 pm

I don't even know what to say. Do we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence?

"When political animus spills over into action in the real world such as repeated criminal assault, as has been happening now with regularity and is being increasingly documented in video form and in their own voices by the political left, there is a major problem.

When that sort of activity is intentionally amplified and permitted by major corporate firms such as Facebook and Twitter while suppressing any sort of pushback whatsoever, you now add an attempt to con the public into believing this is some sort of 'organic' series of events -- when nothing of the sort is the case.

When Chuck Schumer states on CSPAN that "There is no presumption of innocence", then the Rule of Law and due process are both dead and he is inviting, provoking and in fact inciting civil war.

The conduct alleged is criminal; whenever one makes such an allegation due process rights attach. If one cannot find recourse in due process before the law, then the only remaining recourse is to the law of the jungle.

There are also those (Hirono) who have gone even further and stated that Kavanaugh is presumed guilty because she does not like his written judicial opinions. This is exactly identical to the Salem witch trials where one was presumed a witch because they had a black cat and were unmarried, which certain people found 'distasteful'.

The media, specifically but not exclusively CNN, is even worse -- they are intentionally lying and when the civil war they are inciting comes they are and should be first on the list of parties held responsible for the outcome.

As just one example, in the context of Ramirez they have intentionally lied about the fact that her attorneys have ignored and deflected seven separate attempts to obtain some sort of formal statement of facts and allegations made under penalty of perjury; instead her attorneys continue to insist on a trial in the media where there is no penalty for outright lies. Why is this?"

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1044790886494863360

Are all women to be believed just because they are women?

[Oct 02, 2018] Kavanaugh vs Bill Clinton

Looks like Neoliberal Democrats have zero problem with rapists as long as they are democrats.
Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Jean , September 28, 2018 at 11:58 pm

BS

I Believe Juanita

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html

What About Bil

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.amp.html

What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/546170/

The Clinton Double Standard

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/10/bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault

rife kimler , September 29, 2018 at 6:18 am

So Clinton did not fly around with Jeffery Epstein?

jean , September 29, 2018 at 7:43 pm

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/16/hillary-clinton-weinstein-bbc-trump-bill/

You'd Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped by Bill Clinton

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37797819-you-d-better-put-some-ice-on-that

[Oct 02, 2018] In any case we entered the period in the crisis of neoliberalism which might be called an "uncivil wars." Will we see the physical fights in Senate in our lifetime is still too early to tell but the trend is clear

Oct 02, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

White women might not have liked Trump much, more liked Hillary less. Blame Russia!

[Oct 02, 2018] Who is Christine Blasey Ford, the professor who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct

Oct 02, 2018 | www.foxnews.com

Ford is a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. A biostatistician, she "specializes in the design and analysis of clinical trials and other forms of intervention evaluation," according to the university .

Her work has also been published in several academic journals, covering topics such as 9/11 and child abuse.

Ford has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, according to a Holton-Arms' alumni magazine, the Bethesda, Maryland, school from where she graduated, The Wall Street Journal reported . She teaches at both schools in consortium, according to the newspaper.

The magazine also noted she is an "avid surfer, and she and her family spend a great deal of time surfing in the Santa Cruz and San Francisco areas."

Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. During therapy, he said his wife talked about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.

He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh's name. She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Ford provided a copy of the therapist's notes to The Washington Post, which detailed her recollection of being assaulted by young men "from an elitist boys' school" who would become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."

Additional notes from a later therapy session said she discussed a "rape attempt" that occurred when she was a teenager, The Washington Post reported. Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.

She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.

KAVANAUGH STAUNCH GUN-RIGHTS DEFENSE AMONG HUNDREDS OF DECISIONS IN SPOTLIGHT

She is also among the thousands of medical professionals who signed onto a Physicians for Human Rights letter in June decrying the practice of separating children from their parents at the border and urging the Trump administration to stop it.

Ford already took a polygraph test

Once it was clear that Kavanaugh was President Trump's pick to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Ford contacted The Washington Post's tip line, according to the newspaper.

She also contacted her representative in Congress, Democrat Anna Eshoo. She sent a letter to Eshoo's office about the allegations that was passed onto Feinstein.

After she retained the services of Debra Katz, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, she took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. According to the results shared with The Washington Post, the test concluded that Ford was being honest.

[Oct 02, 2018] I think the problem is the people in general and the political sphere in particular have never come to terms with unresolvable doubt. We may never know "beyond a reasonable doubt" which testimony is closer to the truth, and yet we must make a decision soon on whether Kavanaugh should be appointed to the SC.

Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Andrew Dabrowski , September 28, 2018 at 12:23 pm

There are, broadly two possibilities here.

(1) Kavanaugh is telling the truth and Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are lying.
(2) Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying.

Of course with four witnesses testifying there are many other possibilities, but I don't think anyone here (me included) has patience for more than two hypotheticals.

Which of (1) or (2) one believes is largely subjective, the outcome of a life's worth of cognitive experience. Myself, based on the balance of probabilities, Occam's Razor, yesterday's testimony, and my personal political biases, I go with (2). Many others here go with (1); I don't have a problem with that, individuals' beliefs cannot be adjudicated.

I think the problem is the people in general and the political sphere in particular have never come to terms with unresolvable doubt. We may never know "beyond a reasonable doubt" which of (1) or (2) is closer to the truth, and yet we must make a decision soon on whether Kavanaugh should be appointed to the SC.

But it is not necessary for those who believe (x) to demonize those who believe (y).

Frank , September 28, 2018 at 3:22 pm

Andrew,

I agree with you about the need to stop demonizing friends and neighbors because they disagree with us. I don't agree with your other point. There is actually quite a bit of evidence out there already. Trained investigators face the problem of older evidence all the time. Although the FBI does not have a good record with regards to objective and depolitized work, I do think it is possible for them to reach a conclusion about who is telling the truth here. Whether they will do an honest investigation is an open question for me, but they could do one and we would have a well reasoned conclusion.

Realist , September 29, 2018 at 4:30 am

So, you say there are basically two possibilities with no way to objectively decide between them.

What consequences should therefore follow from such uncertainty?

1. Destroy the man's career and reputation because???? Or

2. Ignore this undecidable issue with respect to his qualifications and appointment?

Now, which makes more sense and is closer to an approximation of justice?

Punish a potentially innocent man for??? Or

As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be punished?

Miranda M Keefe , September 29, 2018 at 6:38 am

"As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be punished?"

Uh, if he is not confirmed to SCOTUS he will go free. This is a job interview, not a criminal trial.

Realist , September 29, 2018 at 9:49 am

Really, it's more than that. It's an attempted character assassination to achieve a political goal. Don't pretend otherwise. Moreover, it's still a form of punishment to have his reputation ruined even if he is confirmed.

Kim , September 29, 2018 at 10:30 am

What your equation ignores here is the harm to others that would ensue were the guilty man to be free to impose his warped views on the nation's justice system.

Andrew Dabrowski , September 29, 2018 at 11:26 am

There are multiple evidentiary standards used in different contexts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
In the US, criminal cases use that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil cases the standard is preponderance of evidence. That was why OJ Simpson could be held liable in the civil case after having been acquitted in the criminal one.

Confirmation hearings seem much more akin to a civil case than to a criminal one; in fact even less is at stake here than at many civil trials, where multi-million dollar penalties are often sought. So I believe the correct standard should be preponderance of evidence, if not an even weaker one.

[Oct 02, 2018] Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, agreed to cave in to Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell so that they could fast-track 11 of the pro-corporate, anti-consumer judges that Republicans are wanting to ram through the courts, or through the nomination confirmation process, before the midterm elections

Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

ronnie mitchell , September 28, 2018 at 1:51 pm

You are so soaked in Rachel Maddow type kool-aide it is probably pointless to post this for you but I will for others to read.
It is astounding to try to tie Russia and Putin as behind every perceived wrong in the world ,they ARE two separate things ya' know as in Trump is not America. However he does represent it but with mask off, no charming words unlike Obama who spoke so well while bringing about the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Libya or funding terrorists in an attempt at another regime change so the U, UK and France can't loot the resources.

i guess you missed this "On Tuesday of this week, in a story that's almost impossible to find anywhere, Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, agreed to cave in to Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell so that they could fast-track 11 of the pro-corporate, anti-consumer judges that Republicans are wanting to ram through the courts, or through the nomination confirmation process, before the midterm elections. This is why people get mad at the DNC, and the establishment Democrats, and at the Democratic Party itself in general. There was no reason whatsoever for the Democrats to cave on this issue, none."
https://trofire.com/2018/08/31/democrats-cave-agree-to-fast-track-trumps-corporate-judges/

[Oct 02, 2018] Swetnick and Salem witch hunt standard of evidence.

Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Kim , September 29, 2018 at 10:03 am

I agree with your statement that "[the FBI] will try to figure out what will best serve their interests. I believe in Michael Avenatti, however, and that he and his client will prove to be Kavanaugh's undoing.

jean , September 29, 2018 at 8:40 pm

You do know she wasnt raped by Kavanaugh right?

And she continued to go to parties she says girls were being gang raped ?But never witnessed it?

They had better evidence at the Salem witch trials.

[Oct 02, 2018] If the incident occurred at all, could it have been done in jest? Ms. Ford, by her own admission, said that the two guys who did this were maniacally laughing and very intoxicated.

Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

backwardsevolution , September 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm

Diana – Ms. Ford WAS NOT RAPED. She was GROPED.

If the incident occurred at all, could it have been done in jest? Ms. Ford, by her own admission, said that the two guys who did this were maniacally laughing and very intoxicated.

The groping probably lasted for all of about one second before the other boy jumped on top of them, and they all fell off onto the floor, laughing. There appears to have been no "seriousness" involved here.

Ms. Ford was not challenged at the hearing. In fact, Ms. Mitchell, the prosecutor brought in specially to question her at the hearing, specifically said that she would not be asking her about the allegations at all, and she didn't. What? She should have been strenuously challenged.

The only things Ms. Mitchell brought out were:

– she established a potential political bias

– she established that even though the hearing was held up from Monday until Thursday because Ms. Ford stated she was afraid to fly and needed more time to get to the hearing, this turned out to be a lie. Ms. Ford DID fly.

Ms. Ford was not challenged. I say bring her back and put her under some serious cross-examination.

[Oct 02, 2018] The key problem with this nomination is that it tips the scale in the Supreme Court

Oct 02, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

"If he is rejected -- although his confirmation seems to be a substantial likelihood at this point -- my only disappointment will be that Democrats think they won."

likbez 87

@Sebastian H 10.01.18 at 1:52 pm (87)

Illya's post on job interview vs. criminal standard is good
I respectfully disagree. Illya's post is naïve because the key problem with this nomination is that it tips the scale in the Supreme Court. That's why we see torture supporting female senator assaulting torture supporting nominee and rebuffed by the best friend of Senator John McCain.

But I agree that the discussion is good and illustrate various point that are missing from this thread, especially the fact that this creates a new standard that Dems will now face, if they have a chance to nominate a new member of Supreme Court. They might regret about elimination of filibuster. Now it is about vicious attacks in the personally of the nominee with no stone unturned in his/her personal history.

I will provide some interesting quotes below. Not that I agree with them all (I would like Kavanaugh to be derailed due to his participation in justifying torture in Bush II administration)

No, but this isn't a job interview. A better analogy would be more like a TV interview. If the interviewer is reasonably fair and asks sensible questions, it would be foolish to get angry with him / her. But if the interviewer is obviously biased, asks loaded questions, constantly interrupts your answers, and paraphrases your answers into the opposite of what you said, then rather than sit and take it meekly, it may be more sensible to push back and call the interviewer out.

Senators and Congesscritturs in committees have been allowed to get away with the pretense that they are owed deference for their showboating and that people up before them must meekly submit to the most egregious abuse. A nominee who tells them where to get off, in no uncertain terms, is very welcome.

Miguel Estrada's comment that he would never accept a nomination because it might require him to be civil to Chuck Schumer is one way out. The other is to accept the nomination and forget about being civil to people like Schumer.

The discussion also raised the importance of the fact that the supposed assault was reported so late and that there is a possibility that 2012 therapist session served as a justification of creating a separate entrance to the master bedroom in order to rent it to Dr. Ford students, the hypothesis that is now circulating at alt-right sites:
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time, not decades later. Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later, but because real sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
Another interesting point is that the potential benefits for Dr. Ford create a perverse incentive in the future to come forward with false accusations with the expectation of a huge monetary reward from "Me too" funding sources :
"I'm becoming convinced the only thing that will actually deter such unsupported accusations, is to abolish the "public figure" rule for libel. Blasey Ford is already better than a half million dollars richer having made this accusation, and faces a future of lucrative speaking fees and possibly even a movie. And having carefully avoided any claims specific enough to be proven false, she has no need to fear perjury charges."

[Oct 02, 2018] Regardless of whether Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Ms. Ford's accusation has tainted Judge Kavanaugh's good name and his reputation -- forever.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Kurt Gayle September 28, 2018 at 10:48 am

"As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will ask that of Christine Blasey Ford "

That's right: "No one will ask that of Christine Blasey Ford."

But why will no one ask that of her?

She knew that her accusation had the potential -- no, the certainty -- of tainting forever the good name and the good reputation of another human being. But she was still willing to go forward with her accusation.

And that's all there was, and all there is: Her accusation. To this day there is no corroborating evidence. None. As Peter Van Buren lays it out:

"Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been refuted by everyone she said was present at the party Ford admitted not remembering specifics that could have formed the basis of exculpation, including how she got home from the party, that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's condition and thus support or weaken her story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged assault, Ford did not allow for Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact couldn't say where they both were supposed to be to begin with, apart from 'a suburban Maryland house'."

Again, there is only her accusation. There is no corroborating evidence at all.

Regardless of whether Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Ms. Ford's accusation has tainted Judge Kavanaugh's good name and his reputation -- forever.

How does Ms. Ford get away with making an entirely unsubstantiated accusation that forever taints a man's good name and his good reputation – yet not herself have to answer the accusation that she is lying? Because the accusation that should be made -- that Ms. Ford is lying -- is well-substantiated.

Linda Curran , says: September 28, 2018 at 11:30 am
I believe, in this country, when an accusation is made we follow the evidence. Sometimes the crime cannot be proven. Yesterday's hearing showed two troubling facts that no one seems to think much of but I believe they lend credence to the Democrats making this a political hit jobrather than trying to get at the truth. Mrs. Ford said at the end she wished she could have done this in California as she would have welcomed the committee. Well, Chairman Grassley offered her attorneys' that option for her. Her attorneys also said they couldn't make the Monday hearing because Mrs. Ford was afraid to fly and would have to drive to Washington. Another lie as she flies often. So who were the attorneys really representing, Mrs. Ford or the Democrat party?
Kurt Gayle , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:38 pm
A DC Wonk said: "There might be corroborating evidence. But GOP refused to ask the FBI to re-open the investigation."

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC, Thurs, Sept 28) to Judge Kavanaugh: Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?

JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein

GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that.

GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this -- allegations for over 20 days?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.

GRAHAM [turning to the Democratic members]: If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You've said that, not me This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy.

[Oct 02, 2018] Will 'God' Save Kavanaugh

Notable quotes:
"... There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Identity politics is going to get us all killed or worse.


CitizenOne , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 am

Transactional politics or the nomination or promotion of any entity which supports the political ambitions of political leaders has become a replacement for deliberative jurisprudence of the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of government under the rule of the Republican Party. The entire force of the Republican Party has become focused on supporting special interests with one goal which is the disestablishment of government. The Constitution of the United States is despised by the leadership of the Republican Party and their aim is to make The Constitution null and void like a bad check bounced by the banks which declare our constitutional democracy is a debtor to be foreclosed on.

Every effort from shutting down the government to anointing a plenary president with extra-constitutional powers to end our system of laws and replace them with a president with plenary or absolute authority hinges on preserving the current president and his powers to dismantle the government and all of the constitutional law which preceded.

Make no mistake. We face a constitutional crisis where our president backed by republicans will seek to permanently control the three branches of government for the benefit of the wealthy and the money interests. The banks and the stock market and the billionaires in industry, securities and high finance see an opportunity to wrap up control of the government which is a long sought after goal using the current administration to close the deal to end all social programs. But that is not their real intent.

Their real intent is to end government abolish the defense budget along with social spending, collapse the government by abolishing the income tax and establishing themselves as the rulers of the land by controlling all of the levers of power which they will use for their personal gain. Does this mean they will diminish our ability to defend the nation? Yes.

There is nothing but profit for themselves if they are able to do it. How better to clean up if there is a war in which the economy is collapsed and the nation divided just like the Great Depression where labor is forced into servitude for the preservation of the nation and all monies flow to the wealthy defense contractors and the investors as the entire nation is plunged into a new global war.

This is a very old plan. Render the nation defenseless and filled with ignorant propagandized paupers and wait for the inevitable external threat to attack. Then the populace will be willing to rise against the foreign threat and sign up for war to preserve their "freedom".

Here is a suggestion. Use the power of the vote to get rid of these plutocrats because they don't give a damn if you live or die and elect some politicians who care about preserving our nation and its Constitution before it is too late. When the next financial collapse comes as it will and has done before many times do not fall prey to the propaganda that it is our Constitution and our system of laws and our system of justice which is to blame but focus efforts on removing the billionaires who wield too much power in government and in our supposed free press to be able to spin us all to the "fight for the right" and have us fight their battles and die for their monetary gain.

Already we have failed and the propaganda is winning. We need to see our current situation for the ancient monster of unbridled greed in search of power that it is and vote to protect our democracy and its Constitution founded on the principle that everyone is in charge of where we go from here.

Where we go from here is up to the populace of this free nation.

Jean , October 1, 2018 at 4:02 am

Blame republicans all day long and it won't change the fact that democrats are and have been accomplices to it all and worse.

Obama had the only chance we had to correct it and did what?Let the bush criminal cabal walk and legalized their crimes.Worse he expanded their crimes and wars and let the criminal banks keep their loot and continue their crime spree.

And then we get Hillary?Who is worse?

Democrats long ago abandoned any pretense of caring about the country or working people who they are supposed to represent.They don't even pretend anymore.

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."

Chuck Schumer

And you wonder why we have Trump?

Republicans control both houses and 2/3rds of the states?

And you blame republicans?

Democrats love republicans rule.Its empirical since they even rule like republicans when elected.

We even got Romneycare instead of single payer healthcare that 80% of Democrats wanted.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , October 1, 2018 at 9:50 am

Well said.

There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences.

Readers may enjoy:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/john-chuckman-comment-the-culture-of-complaint-in-american-politics-noise-for-the-sake-of-noise-strutting-and-posing-for-the-sake-of-strutting-and-posing/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/john-chuckman-comment-cocktail-party-political-commentator-george-clooney-puts-down-his-cocktail-a-moment-to-call-trump-a-xenophobic-fascist-clooney-is-obviously-completely-unaware-of-what-a-fa/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/john-chuckman-comment-george-bush-as-president-same-realities-governed-obama-and-govern-trump-what-america-has-become-leaves-no-room-for-independent-elected-decisions-draining-the-swamp-is-a-si/

Marc Chieppa , September 30, 2018 at 9:58 pm

Aw man, McGovern went full SJW .but don't believe me, I'm an evil white male.

backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm

Marc – this is what I said further down the page:

"The Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship. Unbeknownst to the Left, the Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and conquer – get women, blacks and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't look our way, says the Deep State. Look over there to that "white man".

The white man is the new villain in town.

The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil."

Your white armband will be arriving soon.

O Society , October 1, 2018 at 2:03 am

You are confused. There has not been a left-wing in American government for decades.

HillBillary Clinton, Gore, Obama, Biden, all of them are New Democrats going back to the '80s following Reagan's administration.

These people call themselves centrists, but when I was a kid, we would have called Hillary and Obama moderate Republicans.

Obama is BFF with John Brennan. The Democratic party is now BFF with the CIA because of Russiagate. None of these people are left-wing.

The CIA specializes in overthrowing left-wing governments, setting up right-wing dictators. Think Netanyahu in Israel.

He