|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||Class Struggle In The USA||Recommended Links||Kavanauch witch hunt||Bait and Switch||Divide and conquer strategy|
|Hillary Clinton faux feminism||Bill Clinton, the founder of "Vichy left"||Identity politics as divide and conquer||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||Divide and conquer strategy||Politically Incorrect Humor||Etc|
“Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.” ― George Orwell, 1984
The term "neoliberal identity politics" can also be used in a neutral, non-pejorative sense to encompass ‘feminism, black liberation, gay rights, minorities right, nationalism, etc …’Neolib DemoRats given up "class warfare" for "identity politics". A Blairite would say: "we wanted to be a party of power" => money. Identity politics led to "unilateral representation of ethnic minorities", that is a politic decision based on race.
Identity politics has been co-opted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth inequalities, the dominance of big corporations and financial oligarchy in politics, and the complete lack of democratic accountability of elected officials.
This is why African Americans voters which have been just as let down by neoliberal politics by Bill Clinton and Obama voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton, Obama and Hillary Clinton. Such a nice politico-technological trick did them in.
This election identity politics did not work all the time. One resent and spectacular failure was Presidential elections of 2016. Neoliberal establishment candidate -- a staunch neocon and warmonger Hillary Clinton with all her identity politics tricks lost the election to Donald Trump who positioned himself as an independent candidate not controlled by financial oligarchy:
Minorityreported,For the last thirty years, there has been no left or right wing governments - not economically or fiscally. Third way centrism (liberal progressiveness) embraced the primacy of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and focused exclusively on using political power as a tool to win the culture war instead.confluence50,
That's fine if you've done materially very well out of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and all that therefore matters to you is social justice issues.
But if you were once in a secure job with a decent income and decent prospects for your children, and all of that has been ripped away from you by unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and the people responsible for preventing that - or at least fixing it when it happens - are more concerned with policing the language you use to express your fears and pain, and demonstrating their compassion by trying to improve the life chances of people on other continents, then social justice issues become a source of burning resentment, not enlightenment.
There has been a crushing rejection of globalism and corporate plutocracy by Western electorates. The Western progressive left will only survive if it has the courage to recognise that, and prioritises the fight for economic and fiscal policies that promote the interests and prospects of its own poor and middle class, over and above the cultural issues that have defined it for a quarter of a century.
We should always remain vigilant, but the truth is that the culture war is won. It would be tragic beyond words if that victory was reversed by an explosion of resentment caused by the left's determination to guard old battle fields, while ignoring the reality that its thinkers and activists are needed to right new injustices. Trump's success doesn't represent the victory of hate over hope, it just represents the loss of hope. The left has to see that or its finished.The left pandered to the margins. It is more important for them to impose a transsexual using a rest room with my daughter in school than it is to just keep the boys with boys and girls with girls.
One example, but my point is that this kind of policy alienates and offends more people than it seeks to serve. The dems let us down by pandering to the margins of our society along with prioritizing all sorts of things that simply just don't matter to the rank and file American.
dusktildawn,I agree. I think looking at this through the prism of race and gender is a massive red herring. Race and gender bias are symptoms of insecurity, not causes of it. The insecurity in this case is the feeling that the country - economically, politically and culturally - has been stolen by elites who care naught about ordinary, less privileged folk.Potyka Kalman,
On another thread I also mentioned another issue which is how fractured society has become in the West, how disconnected its different parts, a process which technology has fuelled. You can get through your life today without dealing in any significant way with anyone who disagrees with you, which is actually very, very dangerous.They given up "class warfare" for "identity politics". A Blairite would say: "we wanted to be a party of power" => money.lotusblue,
Identity politics led to "unilateral representation of ethnic minorities", that is a politic decision based on race.
Yeah, Democrats has a lot to account for. They are guilty.The working classes have been stripped of their dignity, whole communities have become wastelands and virtual ghettos. The working class don't trust the left to sort things out for them and that is why and how a figure like Trump can come along and say 'I will save you all' and become President.marjane52
Meanwhile, the socialist left sit around scratching their heads, unable to work out what has happened and squabble about the spirit of socialism and ideology that in all honesty, most working class people don't give a toss about. They just want jobs that pay a decent wage, a nice house to own, nice food on the table, two cars and nice holidays. They want to be middle class in other words.
lotusblue,But democrats are not left. They right wing too. If Americans think that Democrats are left, they don´t know what left is at all. And what socialist goverment has USA had. I see Americans saying tthat Democrats are socialists, really?.Hillary left and socialist?. Trump and Hillary are both right wing, only that Trump is more extreme.muttley79,Guardian columnists such as Hadley Freeman, Lucia Graves, Wolff, Abramson, Freedland and company should be forced to read this article. These columnists very rarely if ever talk about the Gilded Age style inequality levels in the West, and the USA in particular. Instead it is all about identity politics for them. Can these individuals start writing about the disastrous chasm between the very rich and the rest please?
hexotic -> muttley79,
Definitely. Identity politics has been coopted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of democratic accountability in governance.
( Aug 26, 2017 , www.unz.com )
Nov 10, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
JamesWonnacott , 10 Nov 2016 11:18
"And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women."
Muslims, of course, never degrade women do they?
Nov 10, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
dartmouth75, 10 Nov 2016 10:26KelvinYearwood , 10 Nov 2016 10:30
That ship has sailed. Bernie was the opportunity and it wasn't grasped. The moment for a 'left' alternative has been lost for a long time. The whole globalised liberal paradigm - allied to the metropolitan elite's obsession with identity politics at the expense of bottom-line issues - has been broken up by people who now realise centre-left politicians (Clinton/Obama) have presided over whole communities being gutted in the name of 'free' trade (for 'free' trade read labour arbitrage). I felt it in my bones that Trump would be elected - 55% of US households are worse off than they were in 2000, how on earth could anyone possibly think that that would result or a vote for the status quo.rebuydonkey , 10 Nov 2016 10:31
Well said Naomi.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it. I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those 43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia. Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.brianpreece -> rebuydonkey
Great article. I think there needs to be a lot of soul searching in certain sections of the media and amongst the left wing political parties too. They don't have the correct approach to a rapidly changing ground swell of opinion. They are fast becoming out of touch - leaving a huge void for more conservative rhetoric (euphemism) to take over.
The failure to tackle immigration concerns across the west is the greatest example of comfy left wing elites being so far away from general consensus imo. The assumption that if you are concerned about immigration then you are a racist, xenophobic half wit appears rife amongst elites and the highly educated.TeTsuo36 -> rebuydonkey
I agree that this is a great article. And I agree that there is a coming migration crisis that we need to be very worried about, as the refugees from the Middle East try desperately for a better life away from conflict zones and poverty. However, the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class" onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today.
The evidence for this is that in the EU referendum, the areas that were most strongly Leave were generally speaking those with few or no immigrants. I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated.
"Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push. I grew up in Northern Ireland so I saw this at first hand. My grandfather was a highly intelligent technocrat, but he was also an Orangeman. He did not seem able to understand that the Catholics he knew and were his friends were the same "them" that he demonised. All progressive people need now to find a way, as Naomi's article says, to repoint this anger to where it belongs. Sorry if this makes me a comfy left wing elite!zephirine -> brianpreece
It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit they were wrong. Look at the past year here ATL and then BTL. Witness the absolute, unchanging and frankly extreme editorial line, in the face of massive discourse and well argued opposition BTL. Even now there are no alarm bells ringing in the back of their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong. No attempt to understand, such is their unwavering belief in the echo chamber. You will only find an attempted programme of re-education in these pages. They will be still be doing it as Europe falls into the hands of the far-right.ID3924525 , 10 Nov 2016 10:33It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs, not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either.
I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated. "Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push.OhReallyFFS , 10 Nov 2016 10:34
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Yes. But, in the meantime, the system has become so right-wing that it only permits a right-wing outburst - a Social-Democratic one is instantly discredited by the totalitarian media outlets.
There is no way to articulate an effective response to this attack within the system.tomandlu -> OhReallyFFS 2 3
As usual Klein seems to make more sense than anyone else.
This paper needs to decide where it's going to stand politically for the next few years.
Rights are important, but identity politics contain too much whimsy and focus on the self.SaintTimothy , 10 Nov 2016 11:01
Yes, but they're politically and economically cheap, don't require much thought, and you get to hang out with pop-stars.
This article is spot on except that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on the Clinton neoliberal train for reasons of political expediency. From now on, anything either of them say should be critically examined before being supported.
Nov 10, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
PaulDLion , 10 Nov 2016 11:43
In order to justify the unjustifiable (a corporate elite exploiting the world as their own private estate), they constructed an artificial equivalence to make it seem that their self-interested economic system was part and parcel of a package of 'democracy', 'multi-racial tolerance', 'LGBT tolerance' etc, so that people would be fooled into thinking that rejecting the economics meant rejecting all the other things too.
George Soros' "Open Society Foundation'" is a key offender here. The false consciousness thus engendered does indeed set the scene for fascism, but a genuine left opposition can and needs to be built and we can only hope that we can succeed in so doing.
Jul 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Jun 30, 2019 6:16:41 PM | 51Kamala Harris's Hillaryesque tweet re Trump meeting Kim at DMZ:
"This President should take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against humanity seriously. This is not a photo-op. Our security and our values are at stake."
Comments on the thread are telling, and she's not fooling anyone.
VietnamVet , Jun 30, 2019 8:11:02 PM | 76Thank goodness that there is one place where Globalism, Boeing, and Kamala Harris can be discussed. From the bottom, looking up, they are intertwined. Corporate media strictly ignores the restoration of the robber baron aristocracy, the supremacy of trade treaties, the endless wars for profit, the free flow of capital, and corrupted governments. The sole purpose is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.uncle tungsten , Jul 1 2019 8:07 utc | 121
There are many tell-tale signs that this is an apt description of the world. With deregulation and outsourcing, there is no incentive to design and build safe airplanes. That costs money. Two 737 Max(s) crash killing 346. Workplaces are toxic. The life expectancy in the UK and USA is declining. The US dollar is used as a military weapon. Monopolies buy up innovation. Corporate law breaking is punished by fines which are added to the cost of doing business. There is no jail time for chief executives. The cost of storm damage is increasing. Families are migrating to survive. Nationalist and globalist oligarchs are fighting over the spoils. Last week the global economy was 10 minutes away from collapse by an American air attack on Iran.
Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an African-American. Neo-Populism and France's Yellow Vests are the direct response to global capitalism that is supported by Corporate Democrats, New Labour Party, and Emmanuel Macron. The rise of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in response is no coincidence.snake #97
Why burden b when you can read this by Caitlin Johnston: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/kamala-harris-is-everything-the-establishment-wants-in-a-politician/
especially read this by Helen Hanna in the comments section:
kamala looked aside while wells fargo bank established 3 million fraudulent accounts while she was attorney general of california. she did nothing to punish them. she might as well be wearing a hillary mask. as someone who lived in the bay area for 31 years, i remember her on the 'matier and ross' interview program--her performance was juvenile and silly--- and i remember her being willing to join the parade of willie brown's cocaine addicted mistresses,. as number 21 and as a woman of color, she was a relief---not white, not skanky, no silver cocaine spoon around her neck while pretending to eat dinner at chez michel with willie, but why on earth would you want to join this parade and go out with this sleazy man whose kiton suits do not improve his image one bit, a politician who offended the san francisco public by his obnoxious habit of publicly flaunting his many skanky female hangers on, and reveling in their 'whiteness.' what a bad choice kamala made. remember that pelosi and feinstein wouldn't let willie brown anywhere near the inauguration podium of barack obama because these women did not want willie's offensive background to sully obama. willie had had an illegitimate child while 'serving as' mayor of san francisco, a city of 500 churches, mostly catholic. the catholic church continued to retain him in the role --'of counsel.' that was astounding to me, absolutely astounding.... willie also laundered drug money in a sutter street garage with his haberdasher, wilkes bashford, but dianne feinstein prevented him from being jailed. i can just see the sisterhood at temple emanuel where dianne feinstein worships--i can just see them admonishing her for even suggesting one of serial adulterer willie's former mistresses be the first woman president....is that why senator feinstein is keeping such a low profile lately? what i don't understand is why pelosi and feinstein keep bringing us these puppet-like women----hillary will always be bill's puppet and kamala will be willie's puppet. you cannot possibly choose two more sleazy, obnoxious men to be your superior.
Jun 28, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Originally from: We’ve Seen the Debates–And What Could Be Our Future The American Conservative
... ... ...
Those emotions erupted in the Thursday debate when Kamala Harris took on Biden for his earlier remarks about the old days of the Senate when he could work collaboratively with Southern segregationists such as Alabama's James Eastland. Harris said it was "very hurtful" to hear Biden "talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputation and career on the segregation of race in this country." She scored Biden also for working with such senators in opposition to busing for racial balance in schools during the 1970s.
"Do you agree today, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then? Do you agree?" she asked with considerable emotion in her voice. She added it was a personal matter with her given that she had benefited from busing policies as a young girl.
Biden retorted: "A mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise racists." He added that he never opposed busing as a local policy arrived at through local politics, but didn't think it should be imposed by the federal government. "That's what I opposed," he said.
The exchange accentuated the extent to which racial issues are gaining intensity in America and roiling the nation's politics to a greater extent than in the recent past. Biden's point, as he sought to explain, was that there was a day when senators of all stripes could work together on matters of common concern even when they disliked and opposed each other's fundamental political outlook. That kind of approach could point the way, he implied, to a greater cooperative spirit in Washington and to breaking the current political deadlock suffused with such stark animosities. But that merely stirred further animosities, raising questions about whether today's political rancor in Washington can be easily or soon ameliorated.
Jun 24, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Our deranged media continue their propaganda offensive. Here is a Houston TV station celebrating the sexualization of a little boy, whose parents ought to be ashamed of themselves. We have completely lost our moral minds.
This is true:
I long thought the sexualization of little girls in beauty pageants had become gross, and until recently there seemed to be a growing consensus about that. Now the sexualization of little boys dressed as girls is a cause of great celebration. Count me out. https://t.co/j7nVQkRJEX
-- Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) June 22, 2019
Meanwhile, a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month:
1. Latest leak from our source in the affirming parents Facebook group: Dr. Beverly Fischer in Baltimore, MD is offering a $750 discount on double mastectomies if booked during Pride month, according to this mother. pic.twitter.com/Od9w0TFXPp
-- 4thWaveNow (@4th_WaveNow) June 22, 2019
No kidding -- the surgeon tweeted this out herself:
June is PRIDE MONTH! Celebrate with a $750 discount on our Top Surgery procedure! #plasticsurgery #cosmeticsurgery #genderaffirmation #gendertransition #FTM #DrBevsBoys pic.twitter.com/6tuPy8tl1v
-- Dr. Beverly Fischer (@BeverlyAFischer) June 7, 2019
Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride?
We are a sick civilization that deserves to be punished.
Nate J • 19 hours agoA "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable. Welcome to the brave new world, where the neoliberal obsession with consumerism (and the reduction of all human experience to markets) meets prog-left social chaos. What an unholy union.
Jun 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
hooligan2009 , 7 minutes ago linkgmak , 8 minutes ago link
lest we forget, kim foxx recused herself so she could attend the oscars.
https://medium.com/@FlorianSohnke/crimefightin-kim-foxx-hits-the-red-carpet-at-the-oscars-e2579d0f3b36Wild Bill Steamcock , 3 minutes ago link
good start. now, let's have false accusers do jail time for ruining an innocent man's life with lies and /or innuendo.Ghost of Porky , 9 minutes ago link
let's have false accusers do jail time for ruining an innocent man's life with lies and /or innuendo.
This! The sentence should be equal to the sentence of the falsely accused, plus someBlue Boat , 6 minutes ago link
$100 bucks says Foxxy "accidentally" bleach-bitted her phone and her hard drive so we will never get to see the correspondence with Michael Obama.waycup , 10 minutes ago link
HA! NSA has everything. No worries....RoyalDraco , 1 minute ago link
" If reasonable grounds exist to further prosecute Smollett, in the interest of justice the Special Prosecutor may take such action..."TheVoicesInYourHead , 9 minutes ago link
Are you referring to the Portland State freshman linebacker?
This Foxx bitch judge just chose to dismiss the charges for no apparent reason other than a bribe or gaining favor with the national DNC. I am not a lawyer (thank the Lord) but I see no obstacle regarding bringing the charges back and trying him. Since there was no jury verdict, the constitutional ban against double jeopardy does not apply. I agree that the whole thing is Kabuki theatre, but giving the Mullett some serious time in an Illinois prison would be very "educational." However, with his sexual predilections, it may be throwing Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch.
Perpetrators of fake "hate crimes" are actually guilty of a true hate crime. This should be written into law.
Smolett perpetrated a true hate crime.
Jun 11, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
... ... ...
What we have here is a clash of values.
What one side believes is preserving the God-given right to life for the unborn, the other regards as an assault on the rights of women.
The clash raises questions that go beyond our culture war to what America should stand for in the world.
"American interests and American values are inseparable," Pete Buttigieg told Rachel Maddow.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Claremont Institute:
"We have had too little courage to confront regimes squarely opposed to our interests and our values."
Are Pompeo and Mayor Pete talking about the same values?
The mayor is proudly gay and in a same-sex marriage. Yet the right to same-sex marriage did not even exist in this country until the Supreme Court discovered it a few years ago.
In a 2011 speech to the U.N., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Gay rights are human rights," and she approved of U.S. embassies flying the rainbow flag during Pride Month.
This year, Mike Pompeo told the U.S. embassy in Brazil not to fly the rainbow flag. He explained his concept of his moral duty to the Christian Broadcasting Network, "The task I have is informed by my understanding of my faith, my belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior."
The Christian values Pompeo espouses on abortion and gay rights are in conflict with what progressives now call human rights.
And the world mirrors the American divide.
There are gay pride parades in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, but none in Riyadh and Mecca. In Brunei, homosexuality can get you killed.
To many Americans, diversity -- racial, ethnic, cultural, religious -- is our greatest strength.
Yet Poland and Hungary are proudly ethnonationalist. South Korea and Japan fiercely resist the racial and ethnic diversity immigration would bring. Catalans and Scots in this century, like Quebecois in the last, seek to secede from nations to which they have belonged for centuries.
Are ethnonationalist nations less righteous than diverse nations likes ours? And if diversity is an American value, is it really a universal value?
Consider the treasured rights of our First Amendment -- freedom of speech, religion and the press.
Saudi Arabia does not permit Christian preachers. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, converts to Christianity face savage reprisals. In Buddhist Myanmar, Muslims are ethnically cleansed.
These nations reject an equality of all faiths, believing instead in the primacy of their own majority faith. They reject our wall of separation between religion and state. Our values and their values conflict.
What makes ours right and theirs wrong? Why should our views and values prevail in what are, after all, their countries?
Under our Constitution, many practices are protected - abortion, blasphemy, pornography, flag-burning, trashing religious beliefs - that other nations regard as symptoms of a disintegrating society.
When Hillary Clinton said half of all Trump supporters could be put into a "basket of deplorables" for being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic," she was conceding that many Trump's supporters detest many progressive values.
True, but in the era of Trump, why should her liberal values be the values America champions abroad?
With secularism's triumph, we Americans have no common religion, no common faith, no common font of moral truth. We disagree on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Without an agreed-upon higher authority, values become matters of opinion. And ours are in conflict and irreconcilable.
Understood. But how, then, do we remain one nation and one people?
Aug 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com
Q Garcia , August 9, 20171984 is Here - Everybody's Brother is WatchingBrumble Buffin , August 18, 2015
This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference) can and do end conversations before they begin .
Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future, the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning..0 out of 5 stars A Professor's Review of the Outrage Circus (and the first non-Vine review :-)Tolerance gone astraySteve Bicker , August 1, 2015
I became interested in this book after watching Megyn Kelly's interview with Benson (Google it), where he gave his thoughts on the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. He made a heartfelt and reasoned plea for tolerance and grace on BOTH sides. He hit it out of the park with this and set himself apart from some of his gay peers who are determined that tolerance is NOT a two-way street.
We are seeing a vindictive campaign of lawsuits and intimidation against Christian business people who choose not to provide flowers and cakes for same-sex weddings. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thumbing your nose at this core American freedom should alarm us all. Personally, I'm for traditional marriage and I think the better solution would be to give civil unions the same legal rights and obligations as marriage, but that's another discussion.
So what about the book? It exceeded my expectations. Ham and Benson are smart and articulate. Their ideas are clearly presented, supported by hard evidence and they are fair and balanced. The book is a pleasure to read - - unless you are a die-hard Lefty. In that case, it may anger you, but anger can be the first step to enlightenment.A Well Documented Death of Debate
A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas.
A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them.
The Left lays claim to being the "party of tolerance", unless you happen to "think outside THEIR box", which, to the Left is INtolerable and must not only be silenced, but exterminated... A great book!
Jun 03, 2019 | russia-insider.com
Walter • 2 months ago ,Isabella Jones Walter • 2 months ago ,
Rachel is the grand daughter of a Lithuanian (J) what else would you expect her to be but anti-Russia?Jasaah • 2 months ago ,
The brilliant American physicist, Nobel prize winner, Richard Feynham was also descended from LIthuanian Jews.He had no time for any religion, and refused all aspects of Jewishness. He was a brilliant mant who contributed much to American Science.
Don't make generalisations based on race. Every race has demons and devil, and brilliant angels, and all points in between.
Rachel Maddow is garbage. She is godless and without any principles, honor, or dignity.
Unfortunately, she probably represents at least 50% of the US population these days.
- Orthodox Christian Palestinian
May 08, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on the Right by Fox News's Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less, rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000, those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to maintain adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's title. Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found, women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just 5.8 percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time work for pay, despite consistently telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
Fran Macadam April 4, 2019 at 4:34 pmShe Woke up.Tim , says: April 4, 2019 at 7:19 pm
Careerism trumps sanity. In the age of #MeToo, it's got to be all about me.Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.K squared , says: April 5, 2019 at 7:05 am
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not? It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then – the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit $) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
May 06, 2019 | www.unz.com
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers, including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary, community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions, and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
... ... ... "
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 back on Twitter , after being suspended, and is also on Facebook , Gab & YouTube
imbroglio , says: April 27, 2019 at 1:24 pm GMTThe franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have the power to grant them.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: April 27, 2019 at 2:01 pm GMT
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them. But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously. Just one big clown show.hamtok , says: May 5, 2019 at 6:15 pm GMT@Jim Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this subject. He must feel the Burn!
May 05, 2019 | www.unz.com
It is a simple fact that females are more "emotionally unstable" than males. Psychological analyses all agree that by the time females reach adulthood, they are significantly higher in the personality trait "Neuroticism" than are males of the same age. [See Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample , by C. Soto et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011].
Neuroticism is characterized by "feeling negative feelings strongly," with the opposite of Neuroticism being "Emotional Stability." Such "Negative Feelings" include sadness, anger and jealousy. But females score particularly strongly on "anxiety" -- possibly because, in prehistory, the children of anxious, protective mothers were less likely to get seriously injured. But the key point is that the stereotype is correct.
And people are also correct to think that women -- that is, those who, on average, score higher in Neuroticism -- will be less able to cope in the brutal world of power-politics.
Successful politicians -- the ones who get into their country's legislature but don't make it to the very top -- score significantly lower than the general public in Neuroticism, according to research published in the leading psychology journal Personality and Individual Differences . [ The personalities of politicians: A big five survey of American legislators , by Richard Hanania , 2017]
And this research reveals something very interesting indeed. These "successful politicians," while being more emotionally stable than most voters, score higher in the personality traits Extraversion ("feeling positive feelings strongly"), Conscientiousness ("rule-following and impulse control") and Agreeableness ("altruism and empathy").
But this does not tend to be true of those who reach the very top of politics -- and especially not of those who are perceived as great, world-changing statesmen. They tend to be highly intelligent but above average on quite the opposite personality traits – psychopathology and Narcissism [ Creativity and psychopathology , by F. Post British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. However, high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion are true of successful politicians in general.
In much the same way, run-of-the-mill scientists are above average in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness but genius scientists combine being relatively low in these traits with stratospheric intelligence. This gives them creativity, drive and fearless to be original. [ At Our Wits' End , by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Ch. 6]
This is important, because these are typically female traits: women score higher than men in Agreeableness, Consciousness and Extraversion. This means that, in general, we would expect the relatively few females who do reach high political office to be fairly atypical women: low in mental instability and certainly moderately low in altruism, empathy or both -- think Margaret Thatcher , who according to Keith Patching in his 2006 book Leadership, Character and Strategy, was organizing her impending Bar Finals from her hospital bed having just had twins; or even Theresa May. Neither of these British Prime Ministers have (or had) neither of whom have particularly "feminine" personalities, though they may reflect (or have reflected) very pronounced Conscientiousness, a trait associated with social conservatism. [ Resolving the "Conscientiousness Paradox" , by Scott A. McGreal, Psychology Today , July 27, 2015]
But, sometimes, a female politician's typically anxiety will apparently be " compensated " for i.e. overwhelmed by her having massively high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This likely occurred in the case of Jacinda Ardern, who suffers from intense anxiety to the point of having being hospitalized.
This will become a problem in a time of crisis when, as happened with Ardern, such a politician will become over-emotional. This, combined with very high empathy, would seem to partly explain Ardern's self-identification with New Zealand's Muslims to the extent of donning a head scarf and breaking down in public.
But it also explains why females, on average, tend to be more left-wing than males and more open to refugees. They feel empathy and even sadness for the plight of the refugees more strongly than do men [ Young women are more left wing than men, study reveals, by Rosalind Shorrocks, The Conversation, May 3, 2018
This means that there will be a tendency for females to push politics Leftwards and make it more about empathy and other such "feelings." It also means that, in a serious crisis, they may well even empathize with the enemy.
In that gay men are generally feminized males, this problem help would to explain why people are skeptical of the suitability of homosexual men for supposedly "masculine" professions (such as politics) [ The extreme male brain theory of autism, by Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2002], sometimes including political office. [ The Hidden Psychology of Voting, by Zaria Gorvett, BBC News , May 6, 2015]
Supporters of gay Democrat Pete Buttigieg 's campaign for his party's presidential nomination [ Protester Shouts "Sodom and Gomorrah" at Gay 2020 Dem Pete Buttigieg, by Tyler O'Neil, PJ Media, April 17, 2019] should, perhaps, take note . . .
freedom-cat , says: April 29, 2019 at 7:34 am GMTWhat about Science and Technology? Are they suited for that? Maybe science could use a little more wisdom and conscientiousness.Ray Woodcock , says: Website April 29, 2019 at 6:46 pm GMT
J Robert Oppenheimer, the genius Physics professor, was known to be "temperamental" and not suited for high stress assignment. So, along with several other genius's, some who came over from Germany, he presided over the making of the A-bomb. Hallelujah just kidding.
There's an excellent book that covers J Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the A-bomb called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer".
The guy was totally volatile and emotionally unstable. While in school he left a knife in an apple on his teacher's desk that he did not like.
After the bomb was dropped on JAPAN, in a documentary much later, he is shown with tears in his eyes quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds".
A couple decades or so later there were interviews of some of these guys who were part of the project and they were crying. They had the GENIUS to build such a monstrosity, but seemed to have failed to understand the impact it would make on the world; breaking down in tears when talking about it. They had no clue or ability of Foreknowledge. What would have happened if more women were on the team? Would we all be annihilated by now? Or maybe no a-bomb would have been made? Who knows .Interesting. And I appreciate the citations to sources. But I find that interpretation of psychiatric traits is a bit like reading tea leaves: there is a temptation to cherry-pick one's preferred quotes and conclusions. For me, this article would have been stronger if it had followed a recognized authority's path through the Big Five personality traits.SOL , says: April 29, 2019 at 9:24 pm GMTFeminism is dyscivic.You can't handle the truth , says: May 1, 2019 at 4:29 am GMTIt seems rather unfair to pick a moron like Jacinda Ardern to represent all female politicians. And even though when it comes to foreign policy, I'll take a Tulsi Gabbard over any male politician like Rubio, Graham, Schumer, Pence, Trump, Pompeo, Bolton any day, I will have to say, in general, you're right, the crop of female politicians we've seen today do not inspire confidence in women as politicians, not just in the US but Merkel, May yikes. But women had been good heads of states in the past, like Margaret Thatcher and Queen Victoria. But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.Anon  Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 4:32 am GMT
Also agree that gays make for bad politicians. Even though their moral degeneracy and drama queen antics make politics look like a natural fit, their extreme narcissism means they will always get sidetracked and can't stay focused. The only thing any gay man cares about is his gayness. Plus no one outside the western world will ever give them an ounce of respect. Picture Buttplug showing up in a muslim country as POTUS, with his husband! Either they'll get stoned to death which will get us into war or the US will be the laughing stock of the world. And then of course he'd have to go bomb some country just to prove his manhood, getting us into more unnecessary wars. No gays for politics, ever.Are Homosexuals Suited for Politics?Dan Hayes , says: May 1, 2019 at 4:49 am GMT
Oh, you really meant to ask Are Homosexuals Suited for Governance?@freedom-cat freedom-cat:SafeNow , says: May 1, 2019 at 4:49 am GMT
There has been a very successful effort to paint Oppenheimer as a secular saint. But Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler stated that he never trusted Oppenheimer. So what? Because JAW was notorious for otherwise saying nice things about almost everyone else, especially his academic rivals. Also JAW happily and productively worked on the US H-bomb project which was embargoed by Oppenheimer and his many disciples.I agree with the point made above, that, in our nuclear age, behavior in a crisis is the most important personality trait. I think that men's crisis-calmness can suffer from macho/ego, and with women, from anxiety and panic. Democratic candidate Amy K reportedly throws things when angry, and to me, this is disqualifying. Assuming no nuclear destruction, the analysis is this: We have devolved into a gigantic banana republic/soft dictatorship; whose personality constellation is best suited to politics in a banana republic?Thomm , says: May 5, 2019 at 4:34 am GMTNo female leader of any country, ever, has been particularly good, except one.Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website May 5, 2019 at 4:39 am GMT
And that one was only because she was fortunate enough to be the PM of the UK at the same time as Ronald Reagan was President of the US. He was handholding every single decision of hers. Reagan was effectively running two countries (the #1 and #4 largest GDPs in the world at that time). At least she was smart enough to let him tell her exactly what to do.
Given this dataset, no, women are not suitable for very high political office.Is Ardern still wearing that hijab in order to cynically manipulate her insipid voters? AnywayTeacup , says: May 5, 2019 at 5:03 am GMT
I have come to realize that women, on the whole, tend to be poorly suited to many traditionally male-doninated activities. Politics, for sure. Very few good, dependable female politicians come to mind. But the list at my immediate recall that are emotional, vapid, destructive slobs -- Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Eva Perón, Michelle Bachelet, Isabel Allende Bussi, Annie Lööf, Anne Hidalgo, Ursula von der Leyen, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaïb, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, et al -- seems practically limitless. Not only is the fairer sex not adept at political leadership, but they are ill-suited to even vote rationally. The weakness of Anglo-American men's resolve against the suffragettes was the beginning of the end.
Preeminent excellence seems to elude the grasp of women in a number of other careers. For whatever reason, there are few women writers of prose fiction that can equal the heights men have reached in that field. This despite the fact that the contemporary literary industry is overwhelmingly dominated by women. True, there are the rare instances of female literary transcendence in the guise of a Clarice Lispector, Hilda Hilst, Okamoto Kanoko, Murasaki Shikibu, Unica Zürn, and so on. But they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule. (On the other hand, women seem naturally gifted at lyric expression, with great female poets existing since at least Sappho.)
Orchestral conducting, too, is a field wherein women cannot produce an equal or better of, say, a Furtwängler, Mengelberg, or Beecham. There are plenty of them around today -- all lousy. (To be fair, though, nearly all living conductors today -- male or female -- are lousy.)I'm a university degree holding woman, of the traditional type with XX chromosomes, and since I was a teen some forty years ago, I've thought that men are better suited for politics. Not that a few women can't do it successfully (Thatcher and British Queens for examples) but that it's a profession far more suited to men, being as many are more naturally mentally strong, steady and rational, and not as given to bursts of emotion and utopian fancies as women can often be. In fact, I'd be delighted if only U.S. born citizen male property owners over the age of 25 were allowed to vote. How's that for being a Dissident?
Jan 19, 2019 | www.unz.com
FB , says: April 10, 2018 at 3:29 pm GMTJustin Raimondo has just done a U turn on 'president' Dump
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks '
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria '
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids being abused as props in a macabre stage play
How stupid is Dump anyway ? That's the question
Mar 23, 2019 | blog.usejournal.com
In March 2017, young people armed with baseball bats prowled the parking lots of Evergreen State College. They hoped to find Bret Weinstein, a biology professor, and presumably bash his brains in. Bret had caught the ire of the student body after he refused to participate in an unofficial "Day of Absence," in which white students and faculty were told to stay home, away from the campus, while teachers and students of color attended as they normally would. In prior years, people of color voluntarily absented themselves to highlight their presence and importance on campus. In 2017, the event's organizers decided to flip the event, and white people were pressured to stay away from the school.
In a letter to the school's administration, Bret explained why he opposed the idea:There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away. The first is a forceful call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itselfOn a college campus, one's right to speak -- or to be -- must never be based on skin color.
When word of Professor Weinstein's objection got out, enraged student activists began a hostile takeover of the school, and the college president ordered the campus police force not to intervene. Professor Weinstein was told, in essence, that nobody would protect him from young people with baseball bats. The police warned Professor Weinstein that their hands were tied and that he should stay off campus for his own safety.
Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm.
And its core, the story of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen State College is about a college's descent into total chaos after someone presented mild resistance to a political demonstration.
Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough . Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples.
Before discussing what the Wilfrid Laurier University did to a woman named Lindsay Shepherd, it's important to know about Jordan Peterson.
Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic. He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Dr. Peterson objected to the bill because it set a new precedent -- requiring citizens to use certain pronouns to address people with non-traditional gender identities. Dr. Peterson calls transexual people by whatever gender they project , as long as he feels like they're asking him to do so in good faith, but he's wary of people playing power games with him, and he saw something dangerous about the government mandating which words he must use. He believed that under C-16, misgendering a person could be classified as hate speech, even it was just an accident.
Having spent much of his life considering the dangers that exist at the furthest ends of the political spectrum -- Nazi Germany on the far right, the Soviet Union on the far left -- Dr. Peterson has developed a tendency to see things in apocalyptic terms. In bill C-16, he saw what he considered the seeds of a serious threat to the freedom of expression -- a list of government-approved words -- and decided it was a hill worth dying on.
He's controversial, verbose, discursive, sometimes grouchy, and almost incapable of speaking the language of television sound-bites. He makes it easy for critics to attack and misrepresent him -- and ever since he took a stance against C-16, he's been subjected to student protests and journalistic hit-pieces.
One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked inside.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his opinions, Dr. Peterson should have the right to express them without other people suggesting that he be murdered with fire. Furthermore, people should be able to talk about what he says.
Enter the case of Lindsay Shepherd.
While working as a teacher's aid at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsay Shepherd showed students two clips from public access television featuring Jordan Peterson debating someone over bill C-16. After showing the clips, she asked her students to share their thoughts.
Days later, the school called her into a meeting with a panel of three superiors. They said that they had gotten a number of complaints from students. Lindsay asked how many complaints they had received, and was told that the number was confidential.
The panel claimed that she had created a toxic environment by showing the clips and facilitating a discussion without taking a side against Dr. Peterson's view. They said it was as if she had been completely neutral while showing one of Hitler's speeches. The panel thought the clip probably violated the Human Rights Code, and they demanded Shepherd to submit all of her future lesson plans ahead of time so that they could be vetted.
Although one student expressed some concern about the class, the number of formal complaints that the administrators had received was actually zero.
During their discussion, Lindsay said:The thing is, can you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away from this? Is that what the point of this is? Because to me that is against what a university is about.
Lindsay found herself at the mercy of school administrators whose brittle spirits couldn't bear to present students with opinions that they might have found offensive. She had believed that universities were places where people could explore ideas. On that day, the panel showed her just how wrong she'd been.
And she caught it all on tape.
Over the past few years, the news has become littered with stories of schools overrun by children while hand-wringing professors and administrators do everything possible to placate them. Recently, a group called "The Diaspora Coalition" staged a sit-in at Sarah Lawrence. Their demands included, among other things, that they get free fabric-softener. The origin of their grievance was an op-ed published in the New York Times about the imbalance between left-leaning and right-leaning school administrators.
Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business, sums the phenomenon up tidily :You get kids who are much more anxious and fragile, much more depressed, coming onto campus at a time of much greater political activism -- and now these grievance studies ideas about, 'America's a matrix of oppression,' and, 'look at the world in terms of good versus evil.' it's much more appealing to them, and it's that minority of students, they're the ones who are initiating a lot of the movements
Every day, or at least every week, I get an email from a professor saying, 'you know, I used a metaphor in class and somebody reported me.' and once this happens to you, you pull back. You change your teaching style
What we're seeing on campus is a spectacular collapse of trust between students and professors. And once we can't trust each other, we can't do our job.
We can't risk being provocative, raising uncomfortable ideas. We have to play it safe, and then everybody suffers.
To understate it, President Donald Trump is a deeply troubling human being. However, he may have done a good thing on Thursday, March 21st, when he signed an executive order that requires public schools to "foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate."
Schools that don't comply may lose government-funded research grants.
In theory, the order will compel colleges to prevent scenes like those at Evergreen State and Sarah Lawrence. Schools will have serious financial incentives to protect their professors from mobs of unruly children. If all goes well, students will learn to engage with controversial opinions without resorting to baseball bats or demanding Snuggle Plus fabric softener.
One would be remiss if they didn't consider the hidden or unintended consequences of the new policy, though. The executive order is vague, and it gives no criteria for judging whether an institution complies with its requirements. Instead, the specific implementation is left for structures lower on the hierarchy to decide. Hopefully, nobody decides that Young Earth theories must be taught alongside evolution.
The policy could very well become a tool by which the dominant political party punishes schools that lean in the opposite direction. Since there is a 12-to-1 imbalance between liberals and conservative college administrators right now, it would be a Republican administration punishing liberal colleges.
This is hardly a perfect solution -- but at least it's an effort to address the problem. The stability of our society depends on an endless balancing act between the left and the right. The political landscape of academia has tilted too far left, and it's clearly becoming insular and unstable. Now it's necessary to push things back toward the center.
Hopefully, this recent executive order does more good than harm.
After the events at Evergreen State College, the school was forced to settle with Bret Weinstein and his wife, who was also a professor there. The college paid the couple $500,000. Enrollment at the college is said to have dropped "catastrophically."
After the events at Wilfrid Laurier University, the school released several letters of apology. It is being sued for millions of dollars by Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson.
Forty professors endorsed the demands made by the Diaspora Coalition at Sarah Lawrence, and several others endorsed challenging Samuel Abrams's tenure -- Abrams being the person who wrote the op-ed that appeared in the New York Times.
Feb 18, 2019 | www.rt.com
As the narrative of a 'racist, homophobic attack' on actor Jussie Smollett in Chicago continues to collapse, politicians and celebrities who fueled the outrage over the incident are quietly backing away and hoping no one notices.
Feb 02, 2019 | www.nbcnews.com
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation on Thursday mandating that every school in the state teach students about "the political, economic, and social contributions" of LGBTQ people and people with disabilities.
The legislation, which will apply starting in the 2020-21 school year, requires that the boards of education for middle and high schools ensure that instructional materials, such as text books, include accurate portrayals of the contributions made by LGBTQ people and those with disabilities.
Jan 04, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
ChiGal in Carolina , , January 4, 2019 at 6:01 pm
The University of Michigan Has At Least 82 Full-Time Diversity Officers at a Total Annual Payroll Cost of $10.6M.
so applying some crude arithmetic, 8 cost $1M meaning they are paid upward of 100k apiece? Or if it's differently apportioned the Chief Executive Officer of Diversity makes some unimaginably astronomical salary and the others are in the 60-80k range?
Maybe they are including a travel allowance as part of "payroll"? I know much of what they do is recruitment since back in the 90s my then-bf was one of only two -- count 'em, TWO -- Blacks in the entire graduate physical sciences division at the University of Chicago. He was in Computer Science (machine learning) and the other was in Chemistry. They would send him back to Atlanta where he gone to school at Morehouse and the University of GA.
a different chris , , January 4, 2019 at 6:18 pm
>they are paid upward of 100k apiece?
Don't forget that medical is a good 15K, prolly more like 18k, so "paid" is a fluid term here.
Not that there is anything wrong with your post, I just want to make sure our ridiculous medical costs get into every possible discussion :)
Dec 31, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
From time immemorial, it was understood that women, especially young women, needed to be shielded from the sexual predations of men. Camille Paglia, the radical/conservative cultural critic, has been arguing for decades that key institutions in society, often derided as "patriarchal" -- from marriage to single-sex education to exemption from military service -- were mostly the result of a desire to protect women, not to pinion them.
Not surprisingly, legends and parables reinforced this cultural wisdom. For instance, there's Little Red Riding Hood. After many centuries of telling and retelling, the origins of the story are obscure. Yet it doesn't take a Freudian genius to see that there could be more than one meaning to the scene in which Red Riding Hood is tempted into bed with the Big Bad Wolf.
The fact that the story has a happy ending doesn't mitigate its cautionary nature. (Interestingly, a pop song from the '60s, "Little Red Riding Hood," includes lyrics that restate the warning message: "What full lips you have/ They're sure to lure someone bad.")
With these dangers in mind, societies all over the world came up with rituals of courtship, aimed at circumscribing -- if not proscribing altogether -- impulsive romantic love. The bottom line was that parents, matchmakers, chaperones, clergy, and community were involved. Were these social systems confining to women? Perhaps. But they were also confining to men . Suppression was also protection. The overriding goal was for a vulnerable woman not to end up in the lair of a wolf.
Then came modernity, when most of the guardrails were trampled. Or, as Marx said of modern times, "All that is solid melts into air."
We might think of this change, beginning in Europe in the 18th century, as the Great Unleashing, when young people left the farm and mostly ended up in mills and factories, there to meet a new kind of fate.
In 1731, the English artist William Hogarth issued his own form of warning. A Harlot's Progress consists of six engravings showing the descent of a young woman, from innocence to prostitution to death at age 23. Four years later, Hogarth published a companion set of warnings to men, A Rake's Progress .
Two centuries later, on this side of the Atlantic, several novels by Theodore Dreiser also described the new times. Perhaps Dreiser's most famous work, An American Tragedy (1925), began with a look back at the old ways, shaped by family and faith. Describing a stern matriarch, Dreiser writes, "The mother alone stood out as having that force and determination which, however blind or erroneous, makes for self-preservation." And then the family sings a hymn: "The love of Jesus saves me whole/ The love of God my steps control."
The sorrowful message of the book, of course, is that once those restraining strings are untuned -- as when boys and girls end up on their own in the big city -- then hark, what discord comes. (The novel was made into a Hollywood movie twice, once in 1931 and again in 1951 -- the second starring Elizabeth Taylor.)
In this modern vein, it's interesting to note that while "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is closely associated with the Christmas holiday, there's no mention of Christmas, or any holiday, in the lyrics. In these secular times, it seems, "Christmas" is little different from "winter."
In the '50s, '60s, and '70s, the Great Unleashing gained momentum. Indeed, "Baby It's Cold Outside" was sometimes interpreted as a song of women's liberation , a lyric of empowerment -- she being free to make her own choices.
Yet as Dreiser would have predicted, some of those choices were mistakes. Recently, The New York Times published an oral history of Andy Warhol's "Factory," a not-so-homey home for pretty vagabonds:
One day a drug dealer came up. He shot up this girl, and she for some reason passed out. It was in the bathtub. She went under water. We thought she was dead. We panicked because she was not waking up. Finally someone said, "We should send her down the mail chute." We wrote little notes on her body and puts stamps on her forehead. Then we realized she wasn't dead. I don't think she would have fit in the mail chute. But we would have tried.
That nameless girl, of course, was a daughter, and it seems reasonable to assert that society could have done a better job of protecting her -- including, if at all possible, from her own careless impulses. That is, after all, a basic reason that civilization exists.
By the 1980s, sexually transmitted diseases had slowed the pace of the sexual revolution. Many feminists turned more conservative on at least some sexual matters, led by law professor-turned-anti-pornography crusader Catharine MacKinnon .
Today, we can draw a line from MacKinnon's neo-Victorianism to the #MeToo movement, and from there to the monologues of comedian Hannah Gadsby, avatar of a new kind of vengeful anti-humor, perhaps better described as dire sermons against heterosexual men. (Some would say, to be sure, that many males have it coming -- that scorn is the price to be paid for the wolfish life that many have chosen.)
So perhaps now is the right time to put "Baby, It's Cold Outside" in its most socially useful framework: it's a cautionary tale, right up there with Little Red Riding Hood , Hogarth, and Dreiser. Sure, the song is fun and sexy, yet it describes a path that most young women probably don't wish to be on -- at least not in retrospect. And almost certainly, few actively wish that path for their daughters or other female relatives.
Some will insist, of course, that prudential safeguards -- whether as matters of law or just custom -- are inhibiting, even stifling. Others will say there's something dubious about those who dwell too much on the dangers that might befall others. Still others will say that to focus on the harm done to unlucky individuals is to "blame the victim."
Even so, cautionary tales are valuable because, after all, caution is valuable. Society can and should do its part to serve and protect, yet there's no substitute for informed common sense. Oh, and let's not forget: common sense and virtue are good for men as well.
So sure, people will continue to listen to "Baby, It's Cold Outside." Yet at the same time, they should realize that it can be perilous inside.
That's a good synthesis of hard-earned wisdom for the holiday season -- and any other.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Dec 09, 2018 | www.rt.com
Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said.
Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who previously admitted that he would never dine alone with any woman other than his wife. British actor Taron Egerton recently also said he now avoided being alone with women for fear of finding himself in #MeToo's crosshairs.
I remember when a woman I was friendly/kind with perceived me as someone who wanted "more." She wrote me a message about how she was uncomfortable. I'm gay. https://t.co/7z0X7Dwzkp-- Andy C. Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) December 4, 2018
All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say.
Hurting women's progress?
The most ironic outcome of a movement that was supposed to be about women's empowerment is that now, even hiring a woman on Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might take something said to her in the wrong way.Also on rt.com #MeToo's Alyssa Milano accused of hypocrisy over links to 'Sharia law-supporting' Muslim activist
With men occupying the most senior positions on Wall Street, women need male mentors who can teach them the ropes and help them advance their careers, but what happens when men are afraid to play that role with their younger female colleagues? The unintended consequence of the #MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of the workplace to the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door closed.
Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find themselves facing another: Discrimination complaints.
"A Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all cost." https://t.co/TCGk9UzT4R "Secular sharia" has arrived, as I predicted here: https://t.co/TTrWY6ML34 pic.twitter.com/YpEz78iamJ-- Niall Ferguson (@nfergus) December 3, 2018
"If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an employment attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg.
Not all men are responding to the #MeToo movement by fearfully cutting themselves off from women, however. "Just try not to be an asshole," one said, while another added: "It's really not that hard."
It might not be that simple, however. It seems there is no escape from the grip of the #MeToo movement. One of the movements most recent victims of the viral hashtag movement is not a man, but a song -- the time-honored classic 'Baby It's Cold Outside' -- which is being banished from American radio stations because it has a "rapey" vibe.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Nov 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Christine Blasey Ford Thanks America For $650,000 Payday, Hopes Life "Will Return To Normal"
by Tyler Durden Tue, 11/27/2018 - 17:30 171 SHARES
Amid the sound and fury of the disgusting antics of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination process, one of the main defenses of Christine Balsey Ford's sudden recollection of an '80s sexual assault was simply "...why would she lie... what's in it for her?"
Certainly, the forced publicity by Dianne Feinstein and public questioning guaranteed her 15 minutes of fame (and perhaps even more infamy if Kavanaugh's nomination had failed) but now, in a statement thanking everyone who had supported her, Ford is "hopeful that our lives will return to normal."
The full statement was posted to her GoFundMe page :
Words are not adequate to thank all of you who supported me since I came forward to tell the Senate that I had been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Your tremendous outpouring of support and kind letters have made it possible for us to cope with the immeasurable stress, particularly the disruption to our safety and privacy. Because of your support, I feel hopeful that our lives will return to normal.
The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us.
With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete.
Although coming forward was terrifying, and caused disruption to our lives, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to fulfill my civic duty. Having done so, I am in awe of the many women and men who have written me to share similar life experiences, and now have bravely shared their experience with friends and family, many for the first time. I send you my heartfelt love and support.
I wish I could thank each and every one of you individually. Thank you.
Well one thing is for sure - she has almost 650 thousand reasons why life since the accusations could be more comfortable...
non_anon , 41 minutes ago linkPCShibai , 43 minutes ago link
payday, she should be prosecuted for perjury and in prison. Won't happen.Dogstar59 , 1 hour ago link
Nice work when you an get it. Short duration, no education necessary, and all you need to do is read from a script and lie your *** off.petroglyph , 43 minutes ago link
Here's an interesting fact: Her immediate family (siblings and parents) wants nothing to do with her. They refused to sign a petition of support created by "close family and friends", they refused to make any supporting statements and they refused to show up to the hearings.
Very interesting...spiderbite , 1 hour ago link
Any links?chubakka , 1 hour ago link
Hopes Life "Will Return To Normal"
Mindfucking people for the CIAaardvarkk , 1 hour ago link
Sorry doesn't seem like much money to me at all. Put family through all that for that amount? Risk ones families welfare and safety for that amount and a bad name? One would have to be a total idiot or crazy for that.Able Ape , 3 hours ago link
Wanders in, belches out a pack of lies, destroys an entire family's lives, tears a big chunk out of the social fabric of the country, collects a huge payday and hits the beach for the rest of her life, or at least the portion not dedicated to indoctrinating yound minds.
She is at least as much of a Democrat as Obama ever was.keep the bastards honest , 3 hours ago link
Exceedingly unremarkable people always insist on using the title Dr. as if it is a sign of high intelligence and status... They wish...
Disgusting female. Brett Kavanaugh and his family donated the gomfund me set up for his family, to a charity for abused women.
Ford has a second go fund me which raised more, to,pay for legals, she has made a fortune, has a 3 million plus home, and whatever she was given for this charade. And the abortion drug company interest. Plus the google renting illegally events thru the second fromt door.
Kavanaugh has an ordinary car, a simple home worth 1.3 million and a debt of 860,000. Always been an employee so never the big paycheck like Avenatti got.
volunteers for homeless. Plus the sports coaching for school, kids and lecturing...both no more.
Nov 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
BM , Nov 23, 2018 11:36:41 AM | 92 ">link
Gender Politics and the Sinking of the KNM Helge Ingstad
From the article this gem: "It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a natural thing and a completely different environment, which I look at as positive," Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, according to Defense Forum.
Well, if the objective of having many women on board is to keep all the occupants occupied full-time on a one-to-one basis instead of letting them get busy at shooting at people, then I am all for that, they should adopt it for the whole of NATO, especially the US.
Sounds like a good Scandinavian way of addressing NATO policy deficiencies. But when through your distraction you end up crashing into oil tankers, just don't blame it on the Russians or the Chinese.
Also in the article a very nice picture of the frigate (not the one at the top, the one a little further down the page) which makes for an excellent picture of a George-Soros-frigate. It should be renamed KNM George Soros. Anyone for an HMS George Soros Aircraft carrier?
Publius Tacitus on Dr. Ford - posted by PL
With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect most Democrat leaders now realize that their attempt to take out Judge Brent Kavanaugh with false charges that he sexually assaulted someone in High School was a disaster. Their heavy handed, Bolshevik tactics backfired and galvanized a broad spectrum of Americans who were sickened by the spectacle of a verbal lynch mob being led by the decrepit Diane Feinstein. The truth about the sex-fraud, Dr. Chrissie Ford, is now exposed by the voluminous report issued by Senator Grassley's Judiciary Committee staff. Read it here . ( https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf ). Here are the highlights:
that he dated Dr. Ford for six years. He said that she never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or misconduct. He also stated that Dr. Ford did not mention any fear of close quarters or flying, and that the two traveled together, including on a small propeller plane. also said that he witnessed Dr. Ford, drawing from her background in psychology, help prepare her roommate, Ms. Monica McLean, for a potential polygraph examination when Ms. McLean wasinterviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. He stated that Dr. Ford helped Ms. McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. The Judiciary Committee report also details the allegations and findings from others who alleged sexual misconduct by the Judge. It was all a pack of lies. A contrived hit job intended to destroy the man's reputation and try to cow him into backing away from the nomination. That bullying tactic failed spectacularly. It ended up rallying a broad swath of the American public, especially women, who understand fairness and justice. The injustice on display by the Democrats ended up helping the Republicans nail down a bigger majority in the Senate. Look for fewer Democrat seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
- The Committee was informed that Dr. Ford had a fear of flying caused by Justice Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault on her more than 35 years before. That was a lie and the committee staffers discovered subsequently that Dr. Ford had racked up a ton of frequent flyer miles. When asked about her fear of flying and about whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination, Dr. Ford acknowledged that she flew to the hearing and traveled by plane for work and leisure. Indeed, Dr. Ford listed on her CV that one of her hobbies includes international surf travel.
- The Judiciary staffers interviewed 17 people who had information about Dr. Ford's allegations. No one could corroborate her claims about Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, two men testified that they had a contact with Dr. Ford as teen-agers that was in line with the account provided by Dr. Ford except that it was consensual.
- A long time boyfriend of Chrissie testified:
Pat Lang Mod , 21 hours agoIMO a criminal referral on Dr. Ford would be appropriate.Kelli K -> Pat Lang , 6 hours agoAbsolutely agree. With Nadler now openly talking about impeaching Kavanaugh, there is no alternative. The truth must be brought out. The alternative is to leave him exposed permanently and keep this whole plan viable for use against future nominees. With RBG approaching retirement this is critical.Fred W -> Pat Lang , 19 hours agoGetting to the actual facts would be a great good. But we know that will not happen. The administration and the senate have already shown their attitude toward professional quality investigation. That appears to be the last thing they want. If they actually believed any of what they said, they would follow your advice. We will see.Fred -> Fred W , 18 hours ago
On second thought that is probably an unfair standard. Opening up discovery for a trial would have negative effects even for a very solid case.Pat Lang Mod -> Fred W , 19 hours ago"The administration and the senate have already shown their attitude toward professional quality investigation."
You mean the Mueller "Russia" investigation? That is beyond a joke at this point. Dr. Ford should be charged. She's got $1 million or more from the go
bribefund me accounts. She should lawyer up. So should Ms. Mclean.No! Let's see her tried for perjury with full discovery I will be glad to be a pro bone consultant on that trial and i have a lot of experience.Bill H -> Fred W , 3 hours agoI think the lesson to be learned is that getting all the facts simply cannot be done, which is why we have a statute of limitations, and why Dr. Ford's accusation should not ever have seen the light of day 30 years after the purported event.Pat Lang Mod -> Fred W , 4 hours ago
Most liberals seem to think the statute of limitations has to do with the purported offender "living with guilt," but the law does not acknowledge the "sensation of guilt." The statute is because after a period of time the offense cannot be fairly prosecuted because witnesses die or move away, memories fade, evidence degrades or disappears, and so forth, and this shoddy exhibition is proof of the validity of that principle.I do not see how you can fault Grassley's efforts to get the facts. He bent over backward to accommodate the Democrats lies about Kavanaugh and the WH authorized the the additional FBI investigation.Karl Kolchak , 19 hours agoThe Dems COULD have made Kavanaugh's support for torture a principled reason for opposing him. Then if they lost, which they were likely going to do anyway, it would have at least been considered fair politics and it would have placed the spotlight on a very ugly chapter in the country's recent history that needs to be addressed.RaisingMac -> Karl Kolchak , 7 hours agoThe Dems could've raised all kinds of principled objections to Kavanaugh; but tellingly, they chose not to. They chose to take the low road instead.Divadab Newton -> RaisingMac , 4 hours agoThey are complicit. Especially Feinstein. SHe's AOK with torture and 24-7 surveillance. WHat do you expect from an ardent cannabis prohibitionist?FarNorthSolitude -> Karl Kolchak , 3 hours agoShaming, shunning, bullying, threats of violence, and violence are all now accepted as methods by the left. They are totally consumed in a political tribalism. Rather than raising the moral standards of the group they are using the most primitive instincts and you can see this in many of the tweets from the left that use gross sexual imagery to demean their "enemies".blue peacock -> Karl Kolchak , 17 hours ago
The more I read on group psychology such as Freud, Le Bon, etc. the more concerned I become whether the age of reason, principles, and science will survive group psychosis given the powerful tools like social media enabling it. Social media is one of the most dangerous technologies we have developed.
"In order to make a correct judgment upon the morals of groups, one must take into consideration the fact that when individuals come together in a group all their individual inhibitions fall away and all the cruel, brutal and destructive instincts, which lie dormant in individuals as relics of a primitive epoch, are stirred up to find free gratification. But under the influence of suggestion groups are also capable of high achievements in the shape of abnegation, unselfishness, and devotion to an ideal.
While with isolated individuals personal interest is almost the only motive force, with groups it is very rarely prominent.
It is possible to speak of an individual having his moral standards raised by a group. Whereas the intellectual capacity of a group is always far below that of an individual, its ethical conduct may rise as high above his as it may sink deep below it." - Gustave Le BonIndeed. That would have been a principle worth highlighting. And the question put forward - "Should a torture supporter serve on the Supreme Court?" But..Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer were never interested in that. All they were interested in was creating a media spectacle and that's exactly what they did by holding on to Ford's letter for 2 months and unleashing it the day before the vote.william mcdonald , 5 hours ago
Christine Ford, Monica McLean and the others should testify to a grand jury. Isn't perjury what they indicted & convicted Gen. Flynn & George Papadopolous for?Wily old Senator Charles(the Fox) Grassley gave the democrats sufficient rope to hang themselves with, an act they did with gusto.PRC90 , 10 hours agoAnother amateurish mess. One effect may be that the Democrats will be more careful in their next attempt to discredit some opponent.DianaLC -> PRC90 , 2 hours agoThe recent accident that RBG experienced has probably caused both Democrats and Republicans some concern that there may soon be another Supreme Court seat to fill under a Trump administration.akaPatience , 15 hours agoWhy is it that Christine Ford can get away with blatantly and repeatedly lying to Congress about a federal judge but Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos were dragged through court (no doubt at great expense to them) for so-called minor lies to FBI interrogators?Mad_Max22 -> akaPatience , 2 hours ago
Off topic: I'd love to read PT's take on the mid-term election with attention paid to the boxes of suddenly-discovered ballots in AZ that have put (wouldn't you know!) Democratic Senate candidate Sinema in the lead. And in light of the FL recount, I'd also be interested in what he has to say about the flagrant disregard for chain of custody of [the infamous] Broward Co. boxes of ballots.
Why is it that ballots discovered post-election day always seem to help Democrats? I don't recall ever reading or hearing about newly-discovered ballots that benefited Republican candidates.In my experience lying to the FBI, 18 USC 1001, was used very, very infrequently. It was used as an add on charge in the prosecution of some of the Watergate subjects and they had been placed under oath. It was used to my knowledge to prosecute an individual who had made a false accusatory statement in the Ray Donavan investigation in the early 80's, another debacle instigated by Senate Democrats. Otherwise it was rarely used, and it shouldn't be used in my opinion unless the person has been given a separate warning and waiver, or placed under oath.Pat Lang Mod -> Mad_Max22 , an hour ago
Once Big Government has opened the floodgates on prosecuting people for lying to the FBI, especially when it becomes obvious that it is being used selectively, and in isolation in order to hang a charge on somebody in pursuit of manifestly political ends, cooperation with FBI Agents trying to do their job will, and should, dry up. Who needs to take a chance on some partisan operation, such as Bob Mueller, parsing their adverbs and adjectives for signs of deceit when the option is to take advantage of your right to silence.
Launching 18 USC 1001 prosecutions like so many torpedoes might look expeditious in the short term but in the long term, it will be bad for both the working agent on the street and for justice in the bigger picture.Ford lied to the senate judiciary committee under oath. In your scheme of things people like Avenatti and his female tools can slander and libel at will in conformations even if they are interviewed by the FBI? OK, then the FBI should interview them under oath.Bill H -> akaPatience , 3 hours agoWhy isn't the Supreme Court stepping in to stop the unseemly Florida recount as it did in 2000?Pat Lang Mod -> Bill H , an hour agowe're not "there" yet.Ed Lindgren , 15 hours agoIf at least one Democrat is going to be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of the midterm election realignment, I nominate 'Spartacus' as the guy.Greco , 17 hours agoNow that there's a new AG in town--one who isn't either cowed, incompetent, or possibly blackmailed--Mrs.Ford may get her just deserts.blue peacock , 17 hours ago
Kavanaugh's real crime was he went after Bill Clinton and now he paid the price for it. It's too bad in Yale they don't teach them how to watch their backs in Washington."The injustice on display by the Democrats ended up helping the Republicans nail down a bigger majority in the Senate. Look for fewer Democrat seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee."Pat Lang Mod -> blue peacock , 4 hours ago
While this may have held true for the Senate, it didn't in the House.IMO skillful Democrat candidate selection had a great deal to do with the result in the House.DianaLC -> Pat Lang , 2 hours agoI agree with you in the sense that many of the Democrat candidates did not take the ultra progressive (socialist?) path. Many seemed more centrist.MP98 -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
That was the result of state and country Democratic parties.
I think this because I definitely see a difference in the different county Republican parties in my state.
Unfortunately in my state (CO) what happens in Boulder and Denver usually carries. And as we say in CO, Boulder is about 40 square miles surrounded by reality. Denver is becoming a similar alternate reality.
Thus, I am ashamed to say, our current Governor is a person from a quite alternate reality from the one in which I live.And Never-Trumper RINOs who ran as Democrat-lites.Tidewater , 18 hours agoBrian Merrick has been revealed as the boyfriend. He is a realtor in Malibu. His letter states: " Despite trying to maintain a long distance relationship, I ended the relationship once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful while living in Hawaii. After the breakup, I took her off the credit card we shared. But nearly 1 year later, I noticed Dr. Ford had been charging the card and charged about $600 worth of merchandise. When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card but later admitted the use after I threatened to involve fraud prevention." 'Revealed: The Man Accusing Blasey Ford of Lying About Polygraphs.' The Daily Caller, October 3, 2018. https://dailycaller.com/201...Keith Harbaugh , 18 hours ago
A male witness "(Sept. 26): stated that when he was a 19-year-old college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed a girl he believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to- 20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke. The witness said that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself on her. "
A woman who said that she attended UNC with Dr. Ford, identified a third woman, name blotted out, and stated that the three of them "used to purchase drugs" from a male whose name also has been blotted out. The three of them "regularly attended parties with members of his fraternity." The witness said "that she was present at --a blotted out name of an apartment--"one night in April 1987 when Dr. Ford and --someone again blotted out--"arrived to consume drugs." This witness "said that the Dr. Ford she knew had an active and robust social life in college." (Sept.25)PT, thanks very much for posting this. I cannot find any mention of this Judiciary Committee report at the Washington Post web site. They had a ton of coverage of Ford's allegation before the vote, including a lengthy interview with her current husband.
It says a lot about them that they have, unless I have missed something, ignored this report. Could the reason they are ignoring it be that they don't want to publicize anything which contradicts the line that "Women tell the truth"? A line that they have used to great political effect, in particular in the sinking of the Senate candidacy of Judge Roy Moore of Alabama.
Nov 08, 2018 | www.nytimes.com
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 expolit fradulent Swtnick testomy for political purposes), Kavanuch (unability to take punches camly, low quality of some regulations (this supplosed to be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible agressive behvious when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high scool and colledge, possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left her, not vise versa), using questional methods to rent part of her house, and even more qurestionable method to justify this, etc)
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 agoBearn Atlanta, GA 3h 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.Henry Washington 4h 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.Reply 38 RecommendRobinR California 5h ago
I still find Dr. Ford's testimony believable and far more consistent with what else we know about her and her attacker.
And (here comes one of those dreaded "even if" arguments): Even if Mr. Merrick's account is factual, it elides a crucial distinction. When I read the senate question, the only relevant reason I can see why Republican senators would ask it (through their proxy) is to ferret out if Dr. Ford had any experience "beating" a polygraph, which might undercut the value ascribed to her taking that test.
The old boyfriend seems to be describing something different. He writes that Dr. Ford "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam." This seems to describe something along the lines of reassuring a friend nervous about her interviews, including anxiety about the experience of taking a polygraph. It seems much more along the lines of something explaining to a nervous patient what to expect during an MRI scan to reduce their anxiety, not some sort of movie scene where the the evil mastermind explains how to beat the cops' interrogation.
Were I in Dr. Ford's place, I'm very sure that an episode in which I'd calmed down an anxious friend before a job interview would be unlikely to come to mind if asked if I'd "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test," and I'd feel confident and honest answering "never".Ginny Virginia 4h 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?Pono Big Island 2h ago Times Pick
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 RecommendJessica Evanston, IL 5h ago
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.Ralphie CT 4h 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?"Brookhawk Maryland 3h 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.
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.JB Chicago 5h 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?Robin Cambridge 2h 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.freddy 16 harrisburg 4h 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).GWPDA Arizona 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.India midwest 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.Mark Greenwich 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.KBronson Louisiana 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.Melissa Massachusetts 3h 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.Harvey NC 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.Rosie James New York, N.Y. 4h 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."
Someone correct me here as I thought the question was had she ever been given tips or advice by someone on how to take a polygraph test.
Quite a different meaning than asking if she had ever coached someone on how to take a polygraph test.roane1 Los Angeles, Ca 3h 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!Wine Country Dude Napa Valley 2h 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.zb Miami 3h 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.Reply 15 RecommendSoxared, '04, '07, '13 Boston 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.Lee California 4h 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?Son of Liberty Fly Over Country 3h 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.gary e. davis Berkeley, CA 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.XLER West Palm 2h 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 poitical 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.Jonathan Northwest 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?Holly Los Angeles 3h 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.Kristen B Columbus, Ohio 2h 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
Until this week, I often wondered whether the Me Too movement had gone too far- publicly shaming men, rather than going through official HR or legal channels. I thought perhaps some of us women could benefit from pulling out our high school copies of "The Scarlet Letter." But frankly... now I'm fed up.
Just 30 minutes ago, my pleasant afternoon walk was interrupted by some nasty, lascivious cat-calling--directed at me from some men painting a neighbor's house.
Still feeling hurt, objectified and dirty, I sat down to catch up on today's news. Well, that was a mistake. I believe Dr. Ford, 100%. But at the beginning of this whole Kavanaugh controversy, I could still understand why some men might feel uncomfortable with the idea that a tweet, a news story, or even a rumor could turn into a full blown scandal within minutes. But no more!
Kavanaugh is not on trial! He's an applicant for a job! Anyone who has ever had to work at finding a job knows that it is UP TO THE APPLICANT to show (yes, to prove) that they are the BEST person for that job! And you better be double sure that you're squeaky clean before you aim for even a moderately high profile job, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.
So I'm not wondering anymore... I'm fed up with comments like, "I guess now it's guilty until proven innocent" or how men should be "scared" in this Me Too era. Too bad we can't just magic the GOP all into a woman's body for a day, and send them on a walk down a busy city street.J c Ma 1h 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.Chris CT 2h 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 investigstion.
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 undiciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.rick chicago 3h 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??kona ma 2h 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.Reply 9 Recommendkfm US Virgin Islands 3h 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.Randall Bachmann port st lucie 1h 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?Kayle Simon Seattle WA 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.Allen Ny 2h 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.Rolf Grebbestad 2h ago
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.Chico New Hampshire 2h ago
That woman appears to be deeply troubled. She has zero credibility.Scrumper Savannah 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.Murphmurph Murphmurph 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.Jon Boston 4h 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."James Kirk California 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?Rob Campbell Western Mass. 3h ago
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.Charlie Messing Burlington, VT 4h 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?Prof Emeritus NYC NYC 37m 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.Anthony Carinhas Austin, Texas 38m ago
The NY Times and other Democratic organizations are beginning to panic.
Ford's story is ... falling apart.Reply 5 RecommendRegards, LC princeton, new jersey 3h 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.Gerwick New York 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.Mor California 2h 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.javierg Miami, Florida 3h 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.Jacqueline Colorado 2h 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.Gerwick New York 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.nom de guerre Kirkwood, MO 3h 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.Gerwick New York 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.sandy Chicago 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.bored critic usa 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.Mike CT 4h 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.bored critic usa 4h ago
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 3h 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 RecommendPhil NJ 1h ago
but can you explain her lack of memory and the inconsistencies in her story?Ralphie CT 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.Gerwick New York 4h 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 3h 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.bored critic usa 4h ago
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.MB MD 57m 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.Mary Edgerton Houston 58m 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.mike atlanta 1h 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).DZ Banned from NYT 3h 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?Gerwick New York 3h ago
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.Gaspipe Casso Brooklyn 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
@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.
Nov 04, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
LP: You've recently highlighted that this is a tricky time for historians and those who want to examine the past, like filmmakers. Well-intentioned people who want to confront the injustices of history may end up replacing one set of myths for another. You point out the distortion of history in films like "Selma" which offer uplifting narratives about black experiences but tend to leave out or alter meaningful facts, such as the ways in which blacks and whites have worked together. This is ostensibly done to avoid a "white savior" narrative but you indicate that it may serve to support other ideas that are also troubling.
AR: Exactly, and in ways that are completely compatible with neoliberalism as a style of contemporary governance. It boils down to the extent to which the notion that group disparities have come to exhaust the ways that people think and talk about inequality and injustice in America now.
It's entirely possible to resolve disparities without challenging the fundamental structures that reproduce inequalities more broadly. As my friend Walter Benn Michaels and I have been saying for at least a decade, by the standard of disparity as the norm or the ideal of social justice, a society in which 1% of the population controls more than 90% of the resources would be just, so long as the 1% is made up non-whites, non-straight people, women, and so on in proportions that roughly match their representation in the general population.
It completely rationalizes neoliberalism. You see this in contemporary discussions about gentrification, for example. What ends up being called for is something like showing respect for the aboriginal habitus and practices and involving the community in the process. But what does it mean to involve the community in the process? It means opening up spaces for contractors, black and Latino in particular, in the gentrified areas who purport to represent the interests of the populations that are being displaced. But that has no impact on the logic of displacement. It just expands access to the trough, basically.
I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in the revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All campaign that the national organization adopted. The argument is that it's bad because there are disparities that it doesn't address. In the first place, that's not as true as they think it might be, but there's also the fact that they can't or won't see how a struggle for universal health care could be the most effective context for trying to struggle against structural disparities. It's just mind-boggling.
LP: If politicians continue to focus on issues like race, xenophobia, and homophobia without delivering practical solutions to the economic problems working people face, from health care costs to the retirement crisis to student debt, could we end up continuing to move in the direction of fascism? I don't use the word lightly.
AR: I don't either. And I really agree with you. I was a kid in a basically red household in the McCarthy era. I have no illusions about what the right is capable of, what the bourgeoisie is capable of, and what the liberals are capable of. In the heyday of the New Left, when people were inclined to throw the fascist label around, I couldn't get into it. But for the first time in my life, I think it's not crazy to talk about it. You have to wonder if Obama, who never really offered us a thing in the way of a new politics except his race, after having done that twice, had set the stage for Trump and whatever else might be coming.
hemeantwell , November 3, 2018 at 7:27 am
Thanks, Yves. For decades now Reed has set the standard for integrating class-based politics with anti-racism. I only wish Barbara Fields, whom he mentions, could get as much air time.
Doug , November 3, 2018 at 7:33 am
Thank you for posting this outstanding interview.
Those who argue for identity-based tests of fairness (e.g. all categories of folks are proportionately represented in the 1%) fail to think through means and ends. They advocate the ends of such proportionality. They don't get that broad measures to seriously reduce income and wealth inequality (that is, a class approach) are powerful means to the very end they wish for. If, e.g., the bottom 50% actually had half (heck, even 30 to 40%) of income and wealth, the proportionality of different groups in any socioeconomic tier would be much higher than it is today.
There are other means as well. But the point is that identity-driven folks strip their own objective of it's most useful tools for it's own accomplishment.
flora , November 3, 2018 at 6:54 pm
Thanks to NC for posting this interview.
The Rev Kev , November 3, 2018 at 9:18 am
In reading this, my mind was drawn back to an article that was in links recently about a Tea Party politician that ended up being sent to the slammer. He was outraged to learn that at the prison that he was at, the blacks and the whites were deliberately set against each other in order to make it easier for the guards to rule the prison.
It is a bit like this in this article when you see people being unable to get past the black/white thing and realize that the real struggle is against the elite class that rules them all. I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole Trump-supporters-are-racists meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote the way that they did, then they would find common cause with people that others would write off as deplorable and therefore unsalvageable.
Jim Thomson , November 3, 2018 at 11:21 am
Howard Zinn, in " A Peoples' History of the United States" makes a similar argument about the origins of racism in southern colonial America. The plantation owners and slave owners promoted racism among the working class whites towards blacks to prevent them ( the working class blacks and whites) from making common cause against the aristocratic economic system that oppressed both whites and blacks who did not own property.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation owners from slave revolts.
The entire book is an eye-opening story of class struggle throughout US history.
JBird4049 , November 3, 2018 at 2:24 pm
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation owners from slave revolts.
The militias were the bulk of the military, if the not the military, for large periods of time for all of the British American Colonies for centuries. The colonists were in fairly isolated, often backwater, places for much of the time. Between the constant small scale warfare with the natives and the various threats from the French and Spanish military, there was a need for some form of local (semi) organized military. It was the British government's understandable belief that the colonists should pay at least some of the expensive costs of the soldiers and forts that were put in place to protect them during and after the Seven Years War that was the starting step to the revolution; the origins of modern American policing especially in the South has its genesis in the Slave Patrols although there was some form of police from the start throughout the Colonies form the very beginning even if it was just a local sheriff. The constant theme of the police's murderous brutality is a legacy of that. The Second Amendment is a result of both the colonists/revolutionarie's loathing, even hatred, of a potentially dictatorial standing army of any size and the slave holders' essential need to control the slaves and to a lesser degree the poor whites.
jrs , November 3, 2018 at 2:10 pm
people gang up (in racial groups – maybe that's just easiest though it seems to have systematic encouragement) in prison for protection I think. The protection is not purely from guards. There are riots in which one could get seriously injured (stabbed), one could get attacked otherwise etc.. Because basic physical safety of one's person is not something they provide in prison, maybe quite deliberately so.
"I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole Trump-supporters-are-racists meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote the way that they did, then they would find common cause with people that others would write off as deplorable and therefore unsalvageable."
In those for whom poverty caused them to vote for Trump. But some voted for Trump due to wealth. And whites overall have more wealth than blacks and so overall (not every individual) are the beneficiaries of unearned wealth and privilege and that too influences their view of the world (it causes them to side more with the status quo). Blacks are the most economically liberal group in America. The thing is can one really try simultaneously to understand even some of say the black experience in America and try hard to understand the Trump voter at the same time? Because if a minority perceives those who voted for Trump as a personal threat to them are they wrong? If they perceive Republican economic policies (and many have not changed under Trump such as cutting government) as a personal threat to them are they wrong? So some whites find it easier to sympathize with Trump voters, well they would wouldn't they, as the problems of poor whites more directly relate to problems they can understand. But so what?
Todde , November 4, 2018 at 7:21 am
Lol. He went to a minimum security federal prison, or daycare as we call it.
Ots tax cheats and drug dealers, not a lot of racial activity goes on there.
Livius Drusus , November 3, 2018 at 9:50 am
I am glad that Reed mentioned the quasi-religious nature of identity politics, especially in its liberal form. Michael Lind made a similar observation:
As a lapsed Methodist myself, I think there is also a strong undercurrent of Protestantism in American identity politics, particularly where questions of how to promote social justice in a post-racist society are concerned. Brazil and the United States are both former slave societies, with large black populations that have been frozen out of wealth and economic opportunity. In the United States, much of the discussion about how to repair the damage done by slavery and white supremacy involves calls on whites to examine themselves and confess their moral flaws -- a very Protestant approach, which assumes that the way to establish a good society is to ensure that everybody has the right moral attitude. It is my impression that the left in Brazil, lacking the Protestant puritan tradition, is concerned more with practical programs, like the bolsa familia -- a cash grant to poor families -- than with attitudinal reforms among the privileged.
Many white liberals are mainline Protestants or former Protestants and I think they bring their religious sensibilities to their particular brand of liberalism. You can see it in the way that many liberals claim that we cannot have economic justice until we eliminate racist attitudes as when Hillary Clinton stated that breaking up the big banks won't end racism. Of course, if we define racism as a sinful attitude it is almost impossible to know if we have eliminated it or if we can even eliminate it at all.
Clinton and liberals like her make essentially the same argument that conservatives make when they say that we cannot have big economic reforms because the problem is really greed. Once you define the problem as one of sin then you can't really do anything to legislate against it. Framing political problems as attitudinal is a useful way to protect powerful interests. How do you regulate attitudes? How do you break up a sinful mind? How can you even know if a person has racism on the brain but not economic anxiety? Can you even separate the two? Politicians need to take voters as they are and not insist that they justify themselves before voting for them.
Sparkling , November 3, 2018 at 1:16 pm
As a former Catholic, this post is absolutely correct on every possible level. Salvation by works or salvation by faith alone?
flora , November 3, 2018 at 9:54 pm
I thought this reference to the Protestant way of self-justification or absolving oneself without talking about class in the US is true but was perhaps the weakest point. The financial elites justify their position and excuse current inequalities and injustices visiting on the 99% by whatever is the current dominate culturally approved steps in whatever country. In the US – Protestant heritage; in India – not Protestant heritage; in Italy – Catholic heritage, etc. Well, of course they do. This isn't surprising in the least. Each country's elites excuse themselves in a way that prevents change by whatever excuses are culturally accepted.
I think talking about the Protestant heritage in the US is a culturing interesting artifact of this time and this place, but runs the danger of creating another "identity" issue in place of class and financial issues if the wider world's elite and similar self excuse by non-Protestant cultures aren't included in the example. Think of all the ways the various religions have been and are used to justify economic inequality. Without the wider scope the religious/cultural point risks becoming reduced to another "identity" argument; whereas, his overall argument is that "identity" is a distraction from class and economic inequality issues. my 2 cents.
Left in Wisconsin , November 3, 2018 at 10:10 am
The key point is that it is all about shutting down/shouting over class-based analysis. It is negative identity politics – "anti-intersectionality."
J Sterling , November 3, 2018 at 11:15 am
Yes. I'm convinced the reason for all the different flavors of privilege was to drown the original privilege–class privilege.
Carey , November 3, 2018 at 6:11 pm
Yes, as the dissemblings in the Paul Krugman column linked within this essay show so well.
Norb , November 3, 2018 at 11:20 am
Chris Hedges has been warning about the rise of American Fascism for years, and his warnings are coming to fruition- and still, the general population fails to recognize the danger. The evils and violence that are the hallmarks of fascist rule are for other people, not Americans. The terms America and Freedom are so ingrained in the minds of citizens that the terms are synonymous. Reality is understood and interpreted through this distorted lens. People want and need to believe this falsehood and resist any messenger trying to enlighten them to a different interpretation of reality- the true view is just to painful to contemplate.
The horrors of racism offer a nugget of truth that can misdirect any effort to bring about systemic change. Like the flow of water finding the path of least resistance, racist explanations for current social problems creates a channel of thought that is difficult to alter. This simple single mindedness prevents a more holistic and complicated interpretation to take hold in the public mind. It is the easy solution for all sides- the tragedy is that violence, in the end, sorts out the "winners". The world becomes a place where competing cultures are constantly at each others throats.
Falling in the racism/ identity politics trap offers the elite many avenues to leverage their power, not the least of which is that when all else fails, extreme violence can be resorted to. The left/progressives have become powerless because they fail to understand this use of ultimate force and have not prepared their followers to deal with it. Compromise has been the strategy for decades and as time has proven, only leads to more exploitation. Life becomes a personal choice between exploiting others, or being exploited. The whole system reeks of hypocrisy because the real class divisions are never discussed or understood for what they are. This seems to be a cyclical process, where the real leaders of revolutionary change are exterminated or compromised, then the dissatisfaction in the working classes is left to build until the next crisis point is reached.
WWIII is already under way and the only thing left is to see if the imperialist ideology will survive or not. True class struggle should lead to world peace- not world domination. Fascists are those that seek war as a means of violent expansion and extermination to suit their own ends. Hope for humanity rests in the idea of a multipolar world- the end of imperialism.
Agressive war is the problem, both on the small social scale and the larger stage between nations. The main question is if citizens will allow themselves to be swept up into the deceptions that make war possible, or defend themselves and whatever community they can form to ensure that mass destruction can be brought under control.
The real crisis point for America will be brought about by the loss of foreign wars- which seem inevitable. The citizenry will be forced to accept a doubling down on the existing failures or will show the fortitude to accept failure and defeat and rebuild our country. Seeking a mythic greatness is not the answer- only a true and sober evaluation will suffice- it must be a broader accommodation that accepts responsibility for past wrongs but does not get caught up in narrow, petty solutions that racist recriminations are hallmark. What is needed is a framework for a truth and reconciliation process- but such a process is only possible by a free people, not a conquered one. It is only on this foundation that an American culture can survive.
This will take a new enlightenment that seems questionable, at least in the heart of American Empire. It entails a reexamination of what freedom means and the will to dedicate oneself to building something worth defending with ones life. It has nothing to do with wanting to kill others or making others accept a particular view.
It is finding ones place in the world, and defending it, and cultivating it. It is the opposite of conquest. It is the resistance to hostility. In a word, Peace.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 4:53 pm
I don't disagree with many of your assertions and their warrants but I am growing disturbed by the many uses of the word 'Fascism'. What does the word mean exactly beyond its pejorative uses? Searching the web I am only confused by the proliferation of meanings. I believe it's time for some political or sociological analyst to cast off the words 'fascism' and 'totalitarianism' and further the work that Hannah Arendt started. We need a richer vocabulary and a deeper analysis of the political, social, philosophical, and human contents of the concepts of fascism and of totalitarianism. World War II was half-a-century ago. We have many more examples called fascism and totalitarianism to study and must study to further refine exactly what kinds of Evil we are discussing and hope to fight. What purpose is served sparring with the ghosts as new more virulent Evils proliferate.
redleg , November 3, 2018 at 7:10 pm
Start with Umberto Eco and mull it over for a minute or two.
Norb , November 4, 2018 at 9:52 am
You have brought up a very important point. The meaning of words and their common usage. But I have to disagree that "new more virulent Evils" require a new terminology. To my mind, that plays right into the hand of Evil. The first step in the advancement of evil is the debasement of language- the spreading of lies and obfuscating true meaning. George Orwell's doublespeak.
I don't think its a matter of casting off the usage of words, or the creative search to coin new ones, but to reclaim words. Now the argument can be made that once a word is debased, it looses its descriptive force- its moral force- and that is what I take as your concern, however, words are used by people to communicate meaning, and this is where the easy abandonment of words to their true meaning becomes a danger for the common good. You cannot let someone hijack your language. A communities strength depends on its common use and understanding of language.
Where to find that common meaning? Without the perspective of class struggle taken into account- to orientate the view- this search will be fruitless. Without a true grounding, words can mean anything. I believe, in America, this is where the citizenry is currently, in a state of disorientation that has been building for decades. This disorientation is caused by DoubleSpeak undermining common understanding that is brought about by class consciousness/ solidarity/ community. In a consumerist society, citizens take for granted that they are lied to constantly- words and images have no real meaning- or multiple meanings playing on the persons sensibilities at any given moment- all communication becomes fundamentally marketing and advertising BS.
This sloppiness is then transferred into the political realm of social communication which then transforms the social dialog into a meaningless exercise because there is really no communication going on- only posturing and manipulation. Public figures have both private and public views. They are illegitimate public servants not because they withhold certain information, but because they hold contradictory positions expressed in each realm. They are liars and deceivers in the true sense of the word, and don't deserve to be followed or believed- let alone given any elevated social standing or privilege.
Your oppressor describes himself as your benefactor- or savior- and you believe them, only to realize later that you have been duped. Repeat the cycle down through the ages.
DoubleSpeak and controlling the interpretation of History are the tools of exercising power. It allows this cycle to continue.
Breaking this cycle will require an honesty and sense of empathy that directs action.
Fighting evil directly is a loosing game. You more often than not become that which you fight against. Directly confronting evil requires a person to perform evil deeds. Perpetuation of War is the perfect example. It must be done indirectly by not performing evil actions or deeds. Your society takes on a defensive posture, not an aggressive one. Defense and preservation are the motivating principles.
Speaking the truth, and working toward peace is the only way forward. A new language and modes of communication can build themselves up around those principles.
Protecting oneself against evil seems to be the human condition. How evil is defined determines the class structure of any given society.
So much energy is wasted on trying to convince evil people not to act maliciously, which will never happen. It is what makes them evil- it is who they are. And too much time is wasted listening to evil people trying to convince others that they are not evil- or their true intensions are beneficent- which is a lie.
"Sparing with ghosts", is a good way of describing the reclaiming of historical fact. Of belief in the study of history as a means to improve society and all of humankind thru reflection and reevaluation. The exact opposite desire of an elite class- hell bent on self preservation as their key motivating factor in life. If you never spar with ghosts, you have no reference to evaluate the person standing before you- which can prove deadly- as must be constantly relearned by generations of people exploited by the strong and powerful.
The breaking point of any society is how much falsehood is tolerated- and in the West today- that is an awful lot.
Summer , November 3, 2018 at 11:22 am
"I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in the revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All campaign that the national organization adopted "
Check to see how their parents or other relatives made or make their money.
Left in Wisconsin , November 3, 2018 at 12:00 pm
This is quite the challenge. I know a large number of upper middle class young people who are amenable to the socialist message but don't really get (or don't get at all) what it means. (I'm convinced they make up a large portion of that percentage that identifies as socialist or has a positive image of socialism.) But it would be wrong to write them off.
A related point that I make here from time to time: all these UMC kids have been inculcated with a hyper-competitive world view. We need a systemic re-education program to break them free.
Louis Fyne , November 3, 2018 at 12:48 pm
as a complementary anecdote, i know of economically bottom 50% people who are devout anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of free-riders, cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life.
To them, the academic/ivory tower/abstract idea of equality in class, equality in income is an idealistic pipe dream versus the dog-eat-dog reality of the world.
Stratos , November 3, 2018 at 2:16 pm
Interesting that you mention "economically bottom 50% people who are devout anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of [low income?] free-riders, cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life."
I read a lot of their snarling against alleged low income "moochers" in the local media. What I find disturbing is their near total blindness to the for-profit businesses, millionaires and billionaires who raid public treasuries and other resources on a regular basis.
Just recently, I read a news story about the local baseball franchise that got $135 million dollars (they asked for $180 million) and the local tourism industry complaining about their reduction in public subsidies because money had to be diverted to homeless services.
No one seems to ever question why profitable, private businesses are on the dole. The fact that these private entities complain about reductions in handouts shows how entitled they feel to feed from the public trough. Moreover, they do so at a time of a locally declared "homeless emergency".
Yet, it is the middle class precariat that condemn those below them as 'moochers and cheaters', while ignoring the free-riders, cheaters and grand larceny above them.
Norb , November 4, 2018 at 10:11 am
There is no class consciousness. The working stiffs admire their owners so the only people left to blame for their difficult life conditions are the poor below them on the social hierarchy. Or they blame themselves, which is just as destructive. In the interim, they enjoy the camaraderie that sporting events provide, so give the owners a pass. Bread and Circuses.
A capitalist critique is the only way to change this situation, but that would require learning Marxist arguments and discussing their validity.
There is that, or Charity for the poor, which only aggravates the class conflict that plagues our society.
The third way is actually building community that functions on a less abusive manner, which takes effort, time, and will power.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 5:37 pm
I homed in on your phrase "they deal with 'micro-triggers' of free-riders, cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life" and it landed on fertile [I claim!] ground in my imagination. I have often argued with my sister about this. She used to handle claims for welfare, and now found more hospitable areas of civil service employment. I am gratified that her attitudes seem to have changed over time. Many of the people she worked with in social services shared the common attitudes of disparagement toward their suppliants -- and enjoyed the positions of power it offered them.
I think the turning point came when my sister did the math and saw that the direct costs for placing a homeless person or family into appallingly substandard 'housing' in her area ran in the area of $90K per year. Someone not one of the "free-riders, cheaters, [or villains of] petty theft in their everyday life" was clearly benefiting. I am very lazy but I might try to find out who and advertise their 'excellence' in helping the poor.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 5:54 pm
A "re-education" program? That usage resurrects some very most unhappy recollections from the past. Couldn't you coin a more happy phrase? Our young are not entirely without the ability to learn without what is called a "re-education" program.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 6:30 pm
The comments in this post are all over the map. I'll focus on the comments regarding statues commemorating Confederate heroes.
I recall the way the issue of Confederate statues created a schism in the NC commentarient. I still believe in retaining 'art' in whatever form it takes since there is so little art in our lives. BUT I also believe that rather than tear down the Confederate statues of Confederate 'heroes' it were far better to add a plaque comemorating just what sorts of heroism these 'heroes' performed for this country. That too serves Art.
Tearing the statues down only serves forgetting something which should never be forgotten.
This was intended as a separate comment to stand alone. I believe Art should not forget but should remember the horrors of our past lest we not forget.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 9:49 pm
" which we should not forget." -- to replace the end of the closing sentence.
Darius , November 3, 2018 at 1:41 pm
It occurred to me that centrists demonize the left as unelectable based entirely on tokens of identity. Long haired hippies. The other. It works because the political debate in America is structured entirely around identity politics. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal so of course white people in Mississippi will never vote for the Democrats. Someone like Bernie Sanders has a message that will appeal to them but he is presented as to the left of even Pelosi or alternately a traitor to the liberal identity siding with racists and sexists. Actually, all of these oppressions are rooted in working class oppression. But that is inconsistent with the framing of ascriptive identity.
Susan the other , November 3, 2018 at 1:58 pm
This was a great post. Didn't know about Adolph Reed. He gets straight to the point – we have only 2 options. Either change neoliberal capitalism structurally or modify its structure to achieve equality. Identity politics is a distraction. There will always be differences between us and so what? As long as society itself is equitable. As far as the fear of fascism goes, I think maybe fascism is in the goal of fascism. If it is oppressive then its bad. If it is in the service of democracy and equality the its good. If our bloated corporatism could see its clear, using AR's option #2, to adjusting their turbo neoliberal capitalism, then fine. More power to them. It isn't racism preventing them from doing this – it is the system. It is structural. Unfortunately we face far greater dangers, existential dangers, today than in 1940. We not only have an overpopulated planet of human inequality, but also environmental inequality. Big mess. And neither capitalism nor socialism has the answer – because the answer is eclectic. We need all hands on deck and every practical measure we can conjure. And FWIW I'd like to compare our present delusions to all the others – denial. The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance of defeat with deep regret. The acceptance is visible and powerful. What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like?
tegnost , November 3, 2018 at 3:22 pm
What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like?
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 5:42 pm
Smeagol is dead! Gollum lives!
Just a moment let me adjust my palantír.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Do you really want 'equality' however you might define it? We are not born equal. Each of us is different and I believe each of us is therefore very special. [I suppose I echo the retort of the French regarding the equality of the sexes: "Vive la Difference!".] I believe we should celebrate our inequalities -- while we maintain vigilance in maintaining the equal chance to try and succeed or fail. The problem isn't inequality but the extreme inequalities in life and sustenance our society has built -- here and more abroad. I don't mind being beaten in a fair race. An unfair race lightens my laurels when I win. But our societies run an unfair competition and the laurels far too heavily grace the brows of those who win. And worse still, 'inequality' -- the word I'll use for the completely disproportionate rewards to the winners to the undeserving in-excellent 'winners' is not a matter solved by a quest for 'equality'. The race for laurels has no meaning when the winners are chosen before the race and the 'laurels' cost the welfare and sustenance for the losers and their unrelated kin who never ran in the race. And 'laurels' were once but honors and there is too far little honor in this world.
workingclasshero , November 3, 2018 at 8:34 pm
Nothing denotes a naive idealistic "progressive" than the demand for near absolute equality in terms of money and status in their future society.all or nothing i guess.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 9:42 pm
I have read and appreciated many comments by 'Susan the other'. I would not ever characterize her comments as those of a naive idealistic "progressive" demanding absolute equality I should and must apologize if that is how you read my comment. I intended to suggest equality is not something truly desirable in-itself. But re-reading her comment I find much greater depth than I commented to --
'Susan the other' notes: "The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance of defeat with deep regret." In answer to her question: "What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like?" I very much doubt that the post mortem statue of Neoliberalism will show regret for anything save that all the profits were not accrued before those holding the reins, the Elite of Neoliberalism, might gracefully die without care for any children they may have had.
tegnost , November 3, 2018 at 9:56 pm
STO is a real gem
freedomny , November 3, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Thanks for this post. I am really surprised these days by black "liberal" media folks who insist that racism be addressed before inequality/class issues. They are almost vehement in their discussions about this. Are they protecting neoliberalism because it benefits them .???
JBird4049 , November 4, 2018 at 12:52 pm
My previous admittedly overlong reply has yet to show. Darn.
But this question is an important one.
Yes, they do very much.
One of the reasons the Civil Rights struggle died was the co-option of the Black elites, especially of the Civil Rights Movement, by the American elites. After Martin Luther King's assassination, his Poor People's Campaign slowly died. A quiet quid pro quo was offered. Ignore all the various social, economic, political and legal wrongs done to all Americans, and yes blacks in particular, and just focusing on black identity and social "equality" or at least the illusion of campaigning for it, and in you will be given a guaranteed, albeit constrained, place at the money trough. Thus the Black Misleadership Class was born.
All the great movements in past hundred plus years have had their inclusivity removed. Suffragism/Feminism, the Union Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, even the Environmental Movement all had strong cross cultural, class, and racial membership and concerns. Every single of these movements had the usually white upper class strip out everyone else and focusing only on very narrow concerns. Aside from the Civil Rights Movement, black participation was removed, sometimes forcefully. They all dropped any focus on poor people of any race.
A lot of money, time, and effort by the powerful went into doing this. Often just by financially supporting the appropriate leaders which gave them the ability to push aside the less financially secure ones.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 6:44 pm
Reading this post in its entirety I feel the author must become more direct in critique. Old jargon of class or race or a "struggle against structural disparities" should be replaced by the languages of such assertions as: " the larger objective was to eliminate the threat that the insurgency had posed to planter-merchant class rule" or "It just expands access to the trough, basically". Why mince words when there are such horrors as are poised against the common humanity of all?
witters , November 3, 2018 at 7:19 pm
Jeremy, I think Adolf is doing just fine.
Jeremy Grimm , November 3, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Your comment is too brief and too enigmatic. If by Adolf you mean Adolf H. -- he is dead. New potentially more dangerous creatures roam the Earth these days beware.
tegnost , November 3, 2018 at 10:25 pm
Adolph Reed is a power unto himself
I consider currently one of our great intellectuals in that he understands and can use language to make his case in a layman not necessarily friendly but accessible .
and as a southern born white male I think maybe I should watch Glory I remember a '67 show and tell when a black classmate had a civil war sword come up in their sugar cane field, and when I and a friend found a (disinterred yuck) civil war grave just out in the woods in north florida. People seem to have forgotten that times were chaotic in our country's checkered past I was in massive race riots and massive anti war protests as a child of the '60s, but since I was in the single digits at the time no one payed me any mind as a for instance my dad somehow got the counselors apartment in a dorm at florida state in 68′ and I remember people in the the dorms throwing eggs at the protesters. It was nuts.
Tomonthebeach , November 3, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Ferguson's INET paper got me thinking about what triggers racism in us. As a kid, ethnic pejoratives were usually a reaction to some injury. "You stupid Wap, you just scratched my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." I tend to agree with the premise that bailing out Wall Street and letting Main Street lose out offers a powerful trigger for a racist reaction. People might have been softening on their lifelong covert racism when they succumbed to Obama's charm. But when you lose your job, then your house, and wind up earning a third of what you did before the GR, that is the sort of thing that triggers pejorative/racist reactions. That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned Democrat libtards. Then, when a MAGA-hatted Trump echoes those sentiments over a PA system, the ghost of Goebbels is beaming.
Nov 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
A Kentucky woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of rape has been referred to the Department of Justice after she admitted that she lied .
The woman, Judy Munro-Leighton, took credit for contacting the office of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as "Jane Doe" from Oceanside, California. Jane Doe claimed - without naming a time or place - that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her "several times each" in the backseat of a car. Harris referred the letter to the committee for investigation.
"They forced me to go into the backseat and took 2 turns raping me several times each. They dropped me off 3 two blocks from my home," wrote Munro-Leighton, claiming that the pair told her "No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl."
Kavanaugh was questioned on September 26 about the allegation, to which he unequivocally stated: "[T]he whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever -- anything like that, nothing... [T]he whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn't happen, not anything close ."
The next week, Munro-Leighton sent an email to the Judiciary committee claiming to be Jane Doe from Oceanside, California - reiterating her claims of a "vicious assault" which she said she knew "will get no media attention."
Upon investigation, the Judiciary Committee investigators found that Munro-Leighton was a left wing activist who is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh , who lives in Kentucky. When Committee investigators contacted her, she backpedaled on her claim of being the original Jane Doe - and said she emailed the committee "as a way to grab attention."
"I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news." claimed Munro-Leighton.
Grassley has also asked the DOJ to investigate Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, who claimed through her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that Kavanaguh orchestrated a date-rape gang-bang scheme in the early 1980s.
President Trump chimed in Saturday morning, Tweeting: "A vicious accuser of Justice Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you imagine if he didn't become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?"
... ... ...
In a Friday letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote:
on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. Munro-Leighton by phone and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original "Jane Doe" letter .
When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the "Jane Doe" from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: "No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news."
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she "just wanted to get attention"; (2) "it was a tactic"; and (3) "that was just a ploy." She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford's allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: "I was angry, and I sent it out." When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: "Oh Lord, no."
Read Grassley's letter below:
... ... ...
Nov 02, 2018 | www.rt.com
The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims against him.
13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u
Nov 02, 2018 | www.wsws.org
Following the press and television news in the US on Wednesday might lead one to believe that a kind of madness has seized hold of the American media, along with sections of the affluent petty-bourgeoisie.
The media generated new geysers of filth in regard to the controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's candidate for the US Supreme Court. On the same day, the degrading impact of its #MeToo campaign could be seen in the hysterical, semi-fascistic tone of the response to the sentencing of comedian Bill Cosby.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear Thursday from Christine Blasey Ford, who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when both were high school students. But newer allegations against Kavanaugh bumped up against one another on Wednesday. Before the population had time to digest the claim by Deborah Ramirez (reported by the New Yorker magazine September 23) that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a Yale University party 35 years ago, a third woman came forward with even more sensational charges.
Michael Avenatti, best known as the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels in her legal case against Trump, tweeted a sworn statement by Julie Swetnick, 55, claiming that Kavanaugh and others, while in high school, spiked the drinks of girls at house parties so that they might more easily "gang-rape" them.
Swetnick went on to allege that she herself became the victim of one of these "gang rapes where [Kavanaugh's friend] Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."
Avenatti's tweet became the occasion, in the bland phrase of the New York Times , for "immediate, blanket coverage across social media and cable news." The cable news channels did indeed bombard their viewers non-stop with the story -- if they weren't reporting on Cosby's being sent to jail.
MSNBC correspondent Kate Snow, for instance, read the most graphic portions of Swetnick's statement. The other cable channels followed suit, along with the Times , the Washington Post and the rest. CNN anchor John King asked correspondent Sara Sidner to "walk us through" the allegations, which she obliged by providing every salacious detail. Afterward, King expressed appreciation for the "live reporting" on "a very sensitive and dramatic issue."
The Times set the stage for the day's torrent of media smut in its morning edition, which plastered across its front page two lead articles on the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations and a third on the Cosby sentencing. The report on Trump's fascistic and war-mongering rant at the United Nations was relegated to a subordinate spot. The opinion pages featured a lengthy editorial ("Questions Mr. Kavanaugh Needs to Answer") listing detailed questions for senators to ask about his sexual activities.
The American media lowers and demeans itself further with every new scandal.
It is impossible for us to determine the truth of the claims against Kavanaugh. It is certain , however, that the Democratic Party campaign against Trump's nominee is a reactionary diversion and an effort to bury the most pressing issues. Kavanaugh is a zealous right-winger and enemy of democratic rights. But no Democrat on the Judiciary Committee will ask him, "What was your role in the attempted coup d'état, known as the Starr investigation, against Bill Clinton?" or "Why did you support torture and illegal detention as part of the Bush administration?"
None of the Democrats, the supposed defenders of women, will even forthrightly denounce him for his attacks on abortion rights. They've all but dropped the issue.
Speaking on CNN, the Times' Michael Shear inadvertently alluded to the anti-democratic character of the campaign against Kavanaugh: "One of the dynamics that we've seen throughout this entire #MeToo movement is that accusations that start out as a single, a solitary accusation against a man in power, often don't pick up the kind of steam that ultimately forces action until there's a second allegation, and a third allegation, and beyond. And that's what creates often the kind of pressure -- overwhelming pressure that forces some action."
Five, ten or twenty accusations do not amount to proof. Kavanaugh may have been guilty of sexual misconduct, but Shear and the rest apparently need to be reminded that every witch-hunt in history has also operated on the principle of "numbers."
The repressive, right-wing character of the middle-class outrage over sexual misconduct, whipped up by the #MeToo campaign, is on view in the frothing reaction to Cosby's sentencing. The comedian was convicted of sexually assaulting a Temple University employee at his home in 2004 while she was under the influence of a sedative.
The comments on the outcome of the Cosby case in the Times from readers of its article "Bill Cosby, Once a Model of Fatherhood, Is Sentenced to Prison," are overwhelmingly vengeful and vindictive:
Oct 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Marriage is in decline. This fact is by now so familiar to conservatives that they may be tempted to gloss over an interesting shift in the manner of marriage's decline.
Thirty years ago, Americans were getting married but not staying that way . Today divorce rates are down but wedding bells are also in less demand. Growing numbers of young people are simply staying single. There's evidence they're becoming less interested even in casual sex .
Are men and women giving up on each other? It's starting to feel that way. In the vitriol of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the #MeToo movement, and our ongoing discussions of " incels , " " NEETs , " and absent fathers , we see rising levels of frustration and rage, often directed indiscriminately from one sex towards the other. Making relationships work has always been a challenge -- even casual human interactions can sometimes be a challenge. So what if people decide that it's just not worth it anymore?
A few years back, I became aware of that countercultural strain of identity politics known as the "men's rights movement." I first encountered it on social media, of course, and in a quest to grasp its red-pilled logic, I spent some time wandering the fever swamps of male grievance, noting the many interesting parallels between virulent masculinism and the more radical strains of feminism. It added an interesting layer to my perspective on our ongoing war of sexes.
It's well worth noting that both masculinism and feminism, at least in their more extreme forms, are fundamentally materialist in their logic. Feminism draws regularly on Marxist ideologies, reducing complex social relations to an endless war of classes vying for power. For masculinists, sociobiology is the more defining influence, as huge swaths of culture and custom are reduced to mere expressions of the Darwinian imperative to procreate. It all makes sense, on reflection. Aggrieved women, resenting the natural vulnerability of their bodies, are attracted to political theories that call for the leveling of power disparities. Aggrieved men, by contrast, hope to find in the male body a kind of warrant for dominance, which is bestowed by biology and ostensibly crucial to the survival of the species. Peeling back the layers, it seems that gender crusaders of both types are intensely fixated on brute corporeal realities: the strength of man and the comparative neediness of woman.
I noticed something else, too, in my journey through the manosphere. I'd had occasion to note before that militant feminists tended to be disagreeably female in their mannerisms, exemplifying many of the vices that are most characteristic of women. This is particularly obvious in the more misandrist corners of the feminist world (for instance, where people debate whether non-exploitative heterosexual sex is in principle impossible, or whether it might theoretically happen in a radically different sort of society where the patriarchy has truly been defanged). The women in these circles seemed morbidly emotional, catty, and a mess of hair-trigger sensitivities. You couldn't possibly mistake them for men, but calling them "feminine" felt like a disservice to my sex.
Sizing up militant man advocates, I saw a fascinating mirror image. They seemed boorish, rage-prone, and obsessed with one-upping each other. They were everything women find most noxious in men. Girls would never exhibit such behavior, but it surely did not qualify as "manly."
These sad cross-sections of society give us a glimpse of a significant truth about the sexes. We're better off together. Even the apparent exceptions, examined closely, usually aren't. The men of Mount Athos or the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration may appear to live in single-sex worlds. But the former regard themselves as the special servants of Christ's Mother, while the latter see themselves as his Brides. Their methods may be idiosyncratic, but in their own way they do enthusiastically embrace the opposite sex. This is dramatically different from what we see with our resentful gender warriors.Marriage Takes a Village Sex is Cheap and It's a Buyer's Market -- If You're a Man
However we go about it, men and women seem happiest when we are balanced by our sexual complements. Healthy things can still be difficult though. Men and women readily misunderstand one another, and the fact that we do need one another opens the door to many types of exploitation and abuse. Avoiding these pitfalls takes work. Too often nowadays, I hear young people describing family life as a hazard more than a blessing, wondering not "what can I do to be worthy of another's love and commitment?" but rather "what can marriage really do for me? "
Love doesn't easily grow in such a stony soil.
I myself had the good fortune of growing up in the Mormon Church, where teenagers are given extensive instruction in preparing themselves for marriage. There are elements of that teaching I would modify a bit, just based on my own marital experience. Two commonsense lessons still stand out in my mind though.
First, you can't possibly be a good spouse unless you're willing to work on yourself. Your partner will surely have some irritating qualities, but so do you. Also, sometimes marriage will call for things that are not fully congenial to your comfortable, satisfied, long-developed individual self. This can be a problem in a society that is constantly urging us to self-actualize. But be willing to bend a little instead of always insisting that "this is how I am."
For women, I see this manifested in a stubborn reluctance to do things that remind them too much of domestic stereotypes. They're so worried about being pigeonholed as domestic that they don't consider how much the occasional homemade stew or fresh-baked cookie might do to help the men in their lives feel cared for and at home. Is avoiding Donna Reed associations really more important than making your men feel loved?
On the men's side, I often hear gripes about how "commercial America" has made women unreasonably greedy for compliments and ego-stroking. Let's assume this is true (though personally I'm skeptical because I think women have always craved compliments). How hard is it, really, to say some nice things to the women in your life? To me it often seems that resentful men are so allergic to "sensitivity" (which they associate with distasteful images of modern, metrosexual girly-men) that they can hardly be bothered to be kind.
The second point is that living together inevitably involves some putting-up-with and I-can-live-with-that. This is expected, and not a violation of your human rights. If men and women always got along easily, we wouldn't be so good for one another.
The #MeToo movement has given us a remarkable illustration of just how ungenerous men and women can be towards one another. Aggrieved women, in their zeal to punish the patriarchy, sometimes act as though any unwanted expression of interest is an outrageous insult. To be sure, some overtures are improper and deserving of censure. But men and women will never find happiness together if the latter aren't willing to assume any responsibility for attracting and encouraging attention in appropriate ways, or for deflecting it graciously when it is unwanted. If women are unable to distinguish between sexual predation and normal sexual attraction, Cupid will find it exceedingly difficult to find his mark.
On the male side, some men resent women's "invasion" of once-masculine spaces to the point that almost any accommodation feels like a personal affront. The truth is, women do feel more vulnerable than men, in public, at work, or in social gatherings. That's because, in a very real sense, we are. We shouldn't treat all men as likely aggressors, but men should be expected to conform to behavioral standards that serve, among other things, to help women feel safe. That's always been a major function of gentlemanly behavior, without which men and women rarely find one another bearable for very long.
In their better moments, both feminists and masculinists raise worthwhile points. At the same time, the posture of each may be inimical to the happiness of both. For the sake of our children, but even just for our own sakes, men and women need to remember what we used to like about each other. We used to think human society was worth it. Maybe it still is.
Rachel Lu is a senior contributor at The Federalist and a Robert Novak Fellow.
Oct 26, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
The crown jewel of California's Progressive-feminist policy this year was Senate Bill 826 which mandates publicly-held corporations to put women on their boards. It was passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown. California now proudly leads the nation in identity politics. The law requires a minimum of one woman board member by 2019, and by 2020, two for boards with five members and three with boards of six or more.The law's goal is gender parity, but it is couched in financial terms suggesting that companies with women on their boards do better than those that don't. Several studies are cited to back this claim (UC Cal, Credit Suisse, and McKinsey). Catalyst , a nonprofit that promotes women in the workplace, did a widely quoted study that claimed:
- Return on Equity: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 53% .
- Return on Sales: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 42% .
- Return on Invested Capital: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 66%.
This claim doesn't meet the smell test and the overwhelming conclusion of scientific research in the field says that women directors have little or no effect on corporate performance. Much of the data supporting the feminist theory lacks empirical rigor and is coincidental ( A happened and then B happened, thus A caused B ).
Professor Alice H. Eagly , a fellow at Northwestern's Institute of Policy Research, and an expert on issues related to women in leadership roles, commented on this issue in the Journal of Social Issues :
Despite advocates' insistence that women on boards enhance corporate performance and that diversity of task groups enhances their performance, research findings are mixed, and repeated meta‐analyses have yielded average correlational findings that are null or extremely small.
Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of evidence-based policy options. [Emphasis added]
Oct 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick have been referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation for a "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States," according to a statement released by the Judiciary Committee.
While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client's allegations of drug- and alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s. The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.
"When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I take it seriously. It takes courage to come forward, especially with allegations of sexual misconduct or personal trauma. I'm grateful for those who find that courage," Grassley said. " But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee . That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth. It stifles our ability to work on legitimate lines of inquiry. It also wastes time and resources for destructive reasons. Thankfully, the law prohibits such false statements to Congress and obstruction of congressional committee investigations. For the law to work, we can't just brush aside potential violations. I don't take lightly making a referral of this nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future."
Grassley referred Swetnick and Avenatti for investigation in a letter sent today to the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The letter notes potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001 and 1505, which respectively define the federal criminal offenses of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of Congress. The referral seeks further investigation only, and is not intended to be an allegation of a crime . - Senate Judiciary Committee
The referral has an entire section entitled: "issues with Mr. Avenatti's credibility," which starts out highlighting a 2012 dispute with a former business partner over a coffee chain investment in which accuser Patrick Dempsey said that Avenatti lied to him, while the company was also "reportedly involved in additional litigation implicating his credibility, including one case in which a judge sanctioned his company for misconduct."
Swetnick - whose checkered past has called her character into question, alleges that Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, ran a date-rape "gang bang" operation at 10 high school parties she attended as an adult (yet never reported to the authorities).
The allegations were posted by Avenatti over Twitter, asserting that Kavanaugh and Judge made efforts to cause girls " to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be "gang raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys ."
To try and corroborate the story, the Wall Street Journal contacted "dozens of former classmates and colleagues," yet couldn't find anyone who knew about the rape parties.
The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick's account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but couldn't reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations . No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims. - WSJ
Read the referral below:
Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
BDBlue , October 23, 2018 at 8:31 pm
Sorry, but this is going to be a long one. Because I've become increasingly frustrated by the little asides in Water Cooler related to MeToo. So buckle up, buttercup.
Justice for Emmett Till and #Believewomen are only in conflict if you want to pit groups of victims against each other. I'm not surprised to see a GOPer do it, but I'm disappointed it's going on here. What Emmett Till and women of sexual assault (and men and children of sexual assault) have in common is that there is no justice for them. This idea that we need "due process" for the MeToo stuff is all well and good, but where exactly is it supposed to come from? What #Believewomen and #MeToo (which includes men and boys, see, e.g. Terry Crews for a famous example) are really about are holding the powerful accountable and telling the world that the current system does not work for women (or anyone else who has been sexually assaulted). How is that a bad thing? Unless you want to read #Believewomen as meaning that you should literally never doubt a woman, regardless of any other facts. That's like saying Black Lives Matter doesn't care about non-black lives, when everyone knows that's right-wing crap. BLM focuses on a failing of the system. MeToo focuses on a failing system. As for due process -- Larry Nassar, the largest known pedophile in sports history (that we know of) -- was repeatedly reported to the authorities. At one point, a police department made a victim sit down with him so he could explain how she had "misinterpreted" his treatment for abuse. It literally took a victim of his growing up, becoming a lawyer and studying how to prove sexual assault cases, then building evidence and turning it over to the Indianapolis Star to get anyone to do anything. And in the meantime, hundreds of women and girls were assaulted, including most of the last two women's Olympic teams. That's not due process, it is a system that protects the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Not exactly an unknown or rare phenomenon limited to women.
So if people really care about "due process"* for MeToo, then it would be nice to see as much time spent on discussing what that process might look like than just taking potshots at people, many of whom are sexual assault victims, who are demanding society listen to them and believe them instead of naturally lining up to defend the person in power. And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have as much credibility as the powerful. Nothing about that would not deny justice to Emmett Till. A movement is not defined by its twitter hashtag.
* Spoiler alert, they don't. Or, rather, I think lambert does, but most do not. It's just another way to avoid accountability. After all, most of the more notable MeToo allegations are employment or similar situations, where due process does not apply in any other context, but now suddenly bosses want to invoke it for themselves. Please don't try to invoke it when they fire you because you won't work a last-minute Saturday shift. Because you can't. But report the boss for sexual harassment and be prepared for a lot of process. So much process, you may never get through it all. Which is the other joke, companies have tons of process re sexual harassment complaints, almost all of which is designed to protect the harasser.
Which brings me to class. I've seen a lot of picking at #MeToo for being focused on women ("identity") instead of class. This confuses me since, while any woman can be a victim, poor and working class women (and men) have even fewer options of redress (I won't even get into incarcerated men and women). See the recent McDonalds' strike over sexual harassment, a labor action which shouldn't be surprising since as many as 40% of women in the fast food industry experience sexual harassment . Moreover, institutional sexism -- like racism -- has roots in capital accumulation and labor exploitation. For an interesting read on this, see The Caliban and the Witch . Which is not to say it's all about class, it isn't. Racism and sexism exist, they exist for everyone regardless of class, but the effects of them are greatly exacerbated by poor and working class people's material conditions and they are tied directly to the system that creates those conditions. To the extent people want to discuss due process, it should be about creating systems that hold the powerful accountable for their abuse of power, a challenge that extends across society.
Oregoncharles , October 24, 2018 at 2:10 am
"And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have as much credibility as the powerful."
It is wise, when starting a movement, to say what you "really mean." As it stands, #Believewomen MEANS convicting defendants on the sole word of one person – the victim. If we really start doing that, women will be among the victims, along with other powerless people.
" only in conflict if you want to pit groups of victims against each other." What do you mean, "want"? That's a classic straw man. The slogan you're defending pits them against each other – that's Lambert's point.
You also say that enforcement against either assault or sexual harassment is nightmarish and often ineffective. That I'll believe, and it's a necessary point. Actually, law enforcement and "justice" generally are pretty nightmarish. Tangle sex up in that and it only gets worse. The point of #Metoo was to convince us that we have a problem, and it accomplished that. Slogans that mean what you don't mean only detract from the accomplishment.
Yves Smith , October 24, 2018 at 2:42 am
It is simply disingenuous to say that #MeToo has taken up the cause of lower class women. The restaurant industry is one of the biggest employers in America and harassment of women is pervasive. How many #MeToo luminaries have talked up the problems they face? An article IIRC in the Nation by a restaurant worker specifically discussed how #MeToo had ignored waitresses and there was no change in behavior.
And that protest was NOT promoted by the loose #MeToo movement. See this from USA Today:
Hundreds of McDonald's employees, emboldened by the #MeToo movement, demonstrated outside company headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday to draw attention to alleged sexual harassment at work
McDonald's employees only. No show of solidarity by other women. As a result, look how small the protest was. I rest my case.
Lambert Strether Post author , October 24, 2018 at 3:32 am
Most of my thoughts (which are evolving) on #MeToo are summed up in this post on the McDonalds strikers : I think the movement, for both ethical and pragmatic reasons, should and must center working class women. I'm not seeing that. I would be very happy indeed to see it.
My 2015 post on the wonderful Caliban and the Witch is here . I concluded:
However, if one takes the view that "Now is the time" -- however defined -- in the present day, it also behooves one to do the math; it has always seemed to me that a bare majority, 50% plus one, as sought by the legacy parties, is insufficient to do much but perpetuate, among other things, the legacy parties. It also seems to me that sintering together demographics based on identity politics -- Christian, Black, White, Hispanic, Young, Old, Male, Female, Rural, Urban -- can only produce these bare majorities. It also seems to me that a focus on "economic class" can't give an account of the sort of events that Federici describes here. Hence, to bend history's arc, some sort of grand unified field theory that goes beyond 50%, to 80%, is needed (along with the proposed provision of concrete material benefits). Work like Federici's is a step toward such a theory, and so I applaud it.
Setting aside the lack of a unified field theory, it seems to me that without centering working class women, #MeToo remains very much in 50% plus one territory.
Let me address your conclusion:
To the extent people want to discuss due process, it should be about creating systems that hold the powerful accountable for their abuse of power, a challenge that extends across society.
I think that's exactly what due process is for, or at least should be for :
Fundamental to all civilised systems of criminal law is the doctrine nulla poena sine lege -- no punishment without a law. There are hundreds of offenses on the criminal statute books. Assault, sexual assault and indecent assault are serious criminal offenses, attracting heavy sentences upon a conviction.
"Inappropriate behavior," is not a category of conduct known to the criminal law. Nor, for that matter, is making a person feel uncomfortable. Awkward advances without a guilty mind is also not a criminal offense.
Due process rights were hard won over many centuries. If we are to abandon, even with the best of intentions, nulla poena sine lege for one set of behaviors, we'd best believe it will be abandoned for other behaviors, and for purposes less benevolent. Have we thought that through?
That said, if we think back to the Dred Scott case and its fate, it's clear that movements can change law; we will have to see what happens with #MeToo. Feminist legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon urges:
Sexual harassment law can grow with #MeToo. Taking #MeToo's changing norms into the law could -- and predictably will -- transform the law as well. Some practical steps could help capture this moment. Institutional or statutory changes could include prohibitions or limits on various forms of secrecy and nontransparency that hide the extent of sexual abuse and enforce survivor isolation, such as forced arbitration, silencing nondisclosure agreements even in cases of physical attacks and multiple perpetration, and confidential settlements. A realistic statute of limitations for all forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment, is essential. Being able to sue individual perpetrators and their enablers, jointly with institutions, could shift perceived incentives for this behavior.
However, it's clear that the criminal justice system in which due process rights are embedded isn't a justice system at all for this category of offenses. I wrote : " [W]e as a society have no way of adjudicating sexual assault claims that treats the assaulted with a level of dignity sufficient for them to come forward at the time " (The backlog of unprocessed rape kits pointed to by Tarana Burke shows this clearly, even if nothing else did.) I'm personally acquainted both with someone who was sexually assaulted, and someone who was falsely accused of "inappropriate behavior," and I've wracked my brains trying to imagine a system of adjudication under which either could have received justice -- the first never did, the second was ultimately cleared -- but without success. I can't see how MacKinnon's fixes would have helped either one.
I'd certainly welcome different and parallel forms of adjudication that would have achieved justice for my friends; nobody said "due process" had to be achieved only through the court sytem, after all. For example, although this is a limited solution that applies to neither of my friends, an alternative adjudication system that puts the burden of proof on the male if the other party is female and both are drunk would probably brake a lot of bad behavior on campus; this of course speaks to my priors, since I loathe party culture, exactly because it encourages assault.
 For example, a Jobs Guarantee would make it easier for a woman to leave an abusive workplace. A Post Office Bank, by giving every woman her own checking account as a matter of right, would make it easier for women to leave abusive relationships. Sometimes it's more effective to be indirect.
 One way to redress power imbalances in the workplace -- building union power, say through card check -- does not appear on MacKinnon's list of legal transformations. A second way also does not appear: Wages for restaurant workers such that they don't have to depend on potentially abusive customers for tips. A third way also does not appear: Encouraging cooperatives . So the question of whose and which norms are to be transformed remains salient.
UPDATE You write:
And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have as much credibility as the powerful. Nothing about that would not deny justice to Emmett Till. A movement is not defined by its twitter hashtag.
If that's what it really means, that's not what it really says. The hash tag isn't #BelieveThePowerless, after all. I think it's simpler to take the movement at its word. If the organizers wish to change the slogan because it's sending the wrong message, then they will. If they don't, then the hash tag is sending the message they want.
I agree that movements don't totally define themselves by the choices they make with their slogans. But those choices matter. The Bolsheviks won the day under the slogan "Peace, Land, Bread." "Less War, Gentler Serfdom, Access to Bread" just wouldn't have had the same impact.
Oct 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Carol53 , 2 hours ago linkAUD , 1 hour ago link
Gotta say this out loud ZH people- seeing first hand what the Democrats did 2011-2016, getting way to close to government operations in my state, pushed me from left to the right in absolute disgust with the left. Seemed like maybe the right is different and better nowadays. However, general gay bashing and blatant racism on websites like this one scares some and puts some moderates and Independents off the right. I'm all for #hetoo and Corey Booker reaping what he sowed. What they did to Kavenaugh was despicable. A conservative party that disavows racism, gaybashing and misogyny is highly appealing nowadays over the left. I'm a card carrying member of the NRA, but when you start that gaybashing you all get scary and make some reconsider voting red for fear of devolving. Want to change your gender? Knock yourself out; none of my friggen business. But to force the taxpayer to pay for "gender reassignment", and then claim there's no money for stopping and repairing the landslides in Pennsylvania's red counties, and blame it on Trump? That's the insanity of the leftist governor in my state. All you do when you attack a group over race, being gay or being women is create a new class dependent victims for the left to "protect" and give a free ride in exchange for votes. Hope this makes sense. Not as articulate as some here but hope I got the point across.Carol53 , 1 hour ago link
You don't find "Lousy fudge packing deviant..." at all funny?Carol53 , 2 minutes ago link
The right was looking pretty good after Kavenaugh. Maybe this whole post and many of its comments is a ploy to draw in the stupid and the trolls. This post and comments like yours are making the right look like apes last minute before the midterms. Its working. You all could have handled this news with some decency and some class and some tolerance and sealed it for the republicans in the upcoming elections. But no. You let yourselves be drawn into posts like this, for all the world to see that maybe nothing at all has changed about the right. SMH.Harvey's-Rabbi , 3 hours ago link
Some of us who wanted to vote red might have a family member who is gay. Coworkers and neighbors and friends who are black. Now we have to worry, after reading posts like yours, that we'll be plunging loved ones back into a world of discrimination and maybe violence by voting red. Thought all this crap was in the past. Nope. Still raging strong I see after reading posts like thesePeter41 , 7 hours ago link
I should think that there ought to be a change in American law wherein someone making a sexual accusation without proof can be held liable financially and possibly criminally.Revolver2019 , 9 hours ago link
Booker must be sweating bullets now that his secret is out. Maybe he and the anointed one, Obama, can get it on in a steam room in somewhere in D.C. together, with the Wookie looking the other way.
Unless there is a smoking gun in regards to evidence, I do think we should stoop to their lowness - play their game. Kill them with the rule of law. Be sympathetic to the gay man and tell him if there is real evidence they will follow-up, but if not they have no grounds to go anywhere with it. Show them what they SHOULD have done. Then let the rumors and paranoia of potential evidence do the job on Booker. It will eat him up. Mean time, we move forward and ride the Red Wave.
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 amWe 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 amAll 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 pmWe 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 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.
Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
grumpy realist October 15, 2018 at 2:56 pmThis is the liberal arts equivalent of what happened in Soviet Russia with its "revealed truth" ideas.GuyGisbourne , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:03 pm
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.)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 pmAlthough 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.Positivethinker , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:09 pm
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.If you are a conservative – student/staff/faculty in an ivy league university. Be careful what you sayOld West , says: October 15, 2018 at 3:11 pm
Your thoughts are not welcome. And everybody knows that.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 | 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 )alvinrod ( 889928 ) writes:
I've just gotta know has the world always been this batshit crazy and I've just been to self-absorbed to notice?Re: ( Score: 2 )iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 )bobstreo ( 1320787 ) writes:
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.Sorry, I cannot do a presentation ( Score: 2 , Insightful)gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 3 )Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:37PM ( #57404756 )
Truth is not welcome in politics of any kind. It invariably makes a lot of the politicians look really bad.Follow the Scientific Method ( Score: 5 , Insightful)sjbe ( 173966 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40PM ( #57404796 )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.Correct ( Score: 3 , Insightful)WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:08PM ( #57405022 )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.Re:Real problem ( Score: 5 , Insightful)gweihir ( 88907 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:08PM ( #57405606 )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".Re:Real problem ( Score: 5 , Interesting)rsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
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.I don't think the trouble is gender discrimination ( Score: 3 )arth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
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 completelRe: ( Score: 2 )Etcetera ( 14711 ) writes: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.Re: ( Score: 3 )cyberchondriac ( 456626 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:40PM ( #57405328 ) Journalphysics 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.Re:good riddance. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:44PM ( #57405378 )
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.Re:good riddance. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)gosand ( 234100 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:14PM ( #57405072 )
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.Re:good riddance. ( Score: 4 , Insightful)jythie ( 914043 ) writes: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)Re: ( Score: 2 )BrookHarty ( 9119 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:45PM ( #57404850 ) Journal
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!'He talked about the taboo subject, gender. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:46PM ( #57404856 )
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.truth spoken ( Score: 5 , Interesting)rsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
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.It's not a political movement, it's economic ( Score: 3 )byteherder ( 722785 ) writes:
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.So Sad ( Score: 2 )jythie ( 914043 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 )drinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes: < firstname.lastname@example.org > on Monday October 01, 2018 @05:31PM ( #57407218 ) Homepage Journal
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.Re:So Sad ( Score: 5 , Insightful)argStyopa ( 232550 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:08PM ( #57405024 ) JournalYou 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.He's not wrong, but is just being a dick about it ( Score: 5 , Interesting)alvinrod ( 889928 ) writes:
The primary assertions:
- physics was largely invented and advanced by men
- meritocracies are based on results, not on your sex, no matter what society "wants" to see
...are largely indisputable.
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.Re: ( Score: 3 )Cito ( 1725214 ) writes:
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.Fired for telling the truth? ( Score: 2 )DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:19PM ( #57405112 )
That's StrangeThe Overton Window Pushback ( Score: 5 , Insightful)FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:46PM ( #57405394 )
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.Hope he sues the BBC for the article title ( Score: 3 , Interesting)DRJlaw ( 946416 ) writes:
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's slander in the UK.Re: ( Score: 3 )shaitand ( 626655 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:30PM ( #57404706 ) JournalThey 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...Re:And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Interesting)Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:35PM ( #57404744 )
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.Re: And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Insightful)Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected.... imagine that.Re: ( Score: 3 )Presence Eternal ( 56763 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40PM ( #57404800 )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 youI admit I'm curious ( Score: 4 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)WhoEvrIwant2b ( 1165497 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:12PM ( #57405060 )
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 womenRe:I admit I'm curious ( Score: 5 , Informative)sjames ( 1099 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:42PM ( #57405938 ) Homepage Journal
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.Re:I admit I'm curious ( Score: 5 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 , Insightful)shaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 )Etcetera ( 14711 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:32PM ( #57405250 ) Homepage
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.Re:And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Insightful)cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) writes: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.Re: ( Score: 3 )Mashiki ( 184564 ) writes: < mashiki@@@gmail...com > on Monday October 01, 2018 @12:42PM ( #57404820 ) HomepageIt'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.Re:And just like that... ( Score: 5 , Interesting)ISayWeOnlyToBePolite ( 721679 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 , Informative)Mashiki ( 184564 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 3 )Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:31PM ( #57404712 )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.Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)sycodon ( 149926 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:40PM ( #57405350 )
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.Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)Miser ( 36591 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)pseudofrog ( 570061 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:43PM ( #57405942 )
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.Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Informative)OYAHHH ( 322809 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @03:55PM ( #57406526 ) Homepage
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.Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 4 , Insightful)peppepz ( 1311345 ) writes:
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.Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 3 , Informative)shilly ( 142940 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)Merk42 ( 1906718 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @03:04PM ( #57406142 )
A lack of insight coupled with shamelessness is the defining characteristic of the bitter modern misogynist.Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Funny)bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) writes: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 ???Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 3 )arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 3 )Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:32PM ( #57404722 )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!Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:06PM ( #57405582 )
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.Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Insightful)WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40PM ( #57404792 )
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.Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Informative)Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) writes: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.Re: ( Score: 2 , Flamebait)BlueStrat ( 756137 ) writes: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;Re: ( Score: 3 )registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @12:54PM ( #57404922 )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.
StratRe: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Interesting)dbialac ( 320955 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:43PM ( #57405948 )
I would like to see us evolve beyond punishing people for stating views with which one may disagree.Re: Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 4 , Interesting)Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) writes:
We had. It's part of the basis of having the first amendment in the US. We're regressing, though.Re: ( Score: 2 )Anonymous Coward , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:44PM ( #57405380 )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.Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Informative)kbonin ( 58917 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:11PM ( #57405626 ) Homepage
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.Re:Our species needs to evolve ( Score: 5 , Interesting)pseudofrog ( 570061 ) writes:
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...Re: ( Score: 3 , Informative)Mr307 ( 49185 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 , Interesting)mikael ( 484 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 )arth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
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.Re: ( Score: 2 )Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
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.Ever stopped to wonder why? ( Score: 3 , Insightful)mlyle ( 148697 ) writes: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 thinkinRe: ( Score: 2 )butchersong ( 1222796 ) writes:
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 againRe: ( Score: 3 )WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
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 tRe: ( Score: 2 )rossdee ( 243626 ) writes: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.Re: ( Score: 3 )GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) writes:
I am sure that Marie Curie's Nobel Prize was in Chemistry.Re: ( Score: 3 )gweihir ( 88907 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @02:01PM ( #57405546 )
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..."Re:Mme Curie ? ( Score: 4 , Insightful)Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) , Monday October 01, 2018 @01:02PM ( #57404972 )
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.Re:Fool! ( Score: 5 , Informative)arth1 ( 260657 ) writes: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.Re: ( Score: 2 )arth1 ( 260657 ) writes: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.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 | 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'.
[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 | www.theamericanconservative.com
get real October 10, 2018 at 10:47 pmWow. 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.Jennifer , says: October 11, 2018 at 8:54 am
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.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."mrscracker , says: October 11, 2018 at 9:39 am
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.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 | 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 | www.theamericanconservative.comAnother 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 | www.unz.com
Ludwig Watzal , says: Website October 9, 2018 at 7:27 am GMTMr. 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!Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
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.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:19 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.@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.Jon Baptist , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:38 pm GMT
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.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@verylongaccountnameprefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
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.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 DuckSvigor , says: October 9, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
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.@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 Baptistprefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:10 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.
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.@Si1ver1ock @S1ver1ockRichard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
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.@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.).Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
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.@Tiny DuckHyperion , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:45 pm GMT
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.@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 | 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 | 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 | 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 commentedIt 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:
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.
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
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 pmThis 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 themselvesPete from Baltimore , says: October 8, 2018 at 2:21 pm
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 studentIve 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 someoneStephen J. , says: October 8, 2018 at 2:05 pm
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 viewpointsAn example perhaps at link below.
-- -- -- -- --
The Party of Screaming Women
Robert Stacy McCain
October 8, 2018, 12:39 am
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 | 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 | 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 linkOccamsCrazor , 1 minute ago 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=cFL6k5yOAFMChupacabra-322 , 4 minutes ago link
the DEMS, THE CIA, and THE DOJ in particular are up to their rotten stinking eyesballs in this collusion crap...dirty fingernails , 37 seconds ago link
Civil War pits brother against brother...Unbelievabubble , 5 minutes 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.ATTILA THE WIMP , 17 minutes ago link
Gotta love The Kunst. A great distillation of the state of things. This is getting serious folks.
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 | 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 | linkPft 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 | linkkarlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"Grieved , Oct 8, 2018 1:13:32 AM | link
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...@38 Pftdh-mtl , Oct 8, 2018 2:34:39 AM | link
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.Grieved @42 said:Krollchem , Oct 8, 2018 2:42:16 AM | link
"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.dh-mtl@44Anton Worter , Oct 8, 2018 3:06:04 AM | link
"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.@24Anton Worter , Oct 8, 2018 3:34:05 AM | link
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.40
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 | 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.
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 | linkdltravers @4--Greece , Oct 7, 2018 6:45:29 PM | link
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.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 | turcopolier.typepad.com
The mask slips off: Appointing judges is just as political as electing them
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 . 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 | 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 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Clyde Schechter October 6, 2018 a t 11:49 amWhat 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.Pete from Baltimore , says: October 6, 2018 at 12:01 pm
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.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 | crookedtimber.org
likbez 10.07.18 at 2:59 am ( 9 )Two quotes:nikbez 10.07.18 at 3:22 am ( 10 )
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
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.ph 10.07.18 at 1:20 am (5)Nick Caldwell 10.07.18 at 5:05 am ( 14 )
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.
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 _"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 | 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 | 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.
Jul 10, 2018 | ronaldthomaswest.com
- 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
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 | consortiumnews.com
By Joe LauriaOctober 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:
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?
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."
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
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
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
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
General Hayden Lies To The Press
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."
No wonder democrats hate him.
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.
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.:
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:
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.
karlof1 , Oct 5, 2018 8:23:52 PM | link
Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
"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.
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.
Anya , Oct 5, 2018 8:00:44 PM | link
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
anon  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 | 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
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 ?
- MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the -- July 30th of this year.
- MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?
- FORD: I did.
- MITCHELL: And I -- since it's dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?
- FORD: I believe so. I -- it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time . I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed
- MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?
- FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense, because I wrote it from there.
- MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate? FORD: I'll take a minute to read it.
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. "
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  Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT@AbelAnonymous  Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT
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 –
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...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.Bill H , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
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.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 GMTIt 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:Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 5, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
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.@renfro Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.anarchyst , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
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,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.anon  Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
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).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.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
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.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 | www.unz.comBrabantian says: October 4, 2018 at 9:23 pm GMTlysias says: October 5, 2018 at 12:15 am 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 :
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 | 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.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."
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0
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
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 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 theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
That has corollaries:
- 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.
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.
 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 GMTWhat 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 GMTThere 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@KratoklastesRurik , says: October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
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@Kratoklastes This was a beauty of a comment.Carlton Meyer , says: Website October 2, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
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 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.
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 givingFrom my blog:ThreeCranes , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
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.@Carlton Meyer "all this occurred when he was a minor"KenH , says: October 2, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
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.@KratoklastesKratoklastes , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
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?@The Anti-GnosticThe Anti-Gnostic , says: Website October 3, 2018 at 1:11 am GMT
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.@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@KratoklastesBiff , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
>>>>>>>>>>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.@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 GMTRape 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″.Dorian , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
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.I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To PrisonHans Vogel , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:03 am GMT
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!@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.Wizard of Oz , says: October 3, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
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.@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).steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:32 am GMT
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.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' !Heros , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:29 am GMT
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.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.Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:51 am GMT
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.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 GMTI 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.Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
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.@The Anti-Gnostic Said the pinko.Carroll Price , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
Envy as the Foundation of Capitalism
http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/business/envy-as-the-foundation-of-capitalism.htmlIn 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 GMTI 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 GMTIs 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 GMTExcellent 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.