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.
Christine
Well one thing is for sure - she has almost 650 thousand reasons why life since
the accusations could be more comfortable...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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. ..."
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?
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... The Dems COULD have made Kavanaugh's support for torture a principled reason for opposing him. ..."
"... The 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. ..."
"... They are complicit. Especially Feinstein. SHe's AOK with torture and 24-7 surveillance. WHat do you expect from an ardent cannabis prohibitionist? ..."
"... Indeed. 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. ..."
"... 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? ..."
"... Why 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? ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... If 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Brian 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... ..."
"... 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) ..."
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:
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:
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.
Absolutely 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.
Getting 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.
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.
"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 bribe fund me accounts. She should lawyer up. So should Ms. Mclean.
I 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.
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.
The 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.
Shaming, 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".
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 Bon
Indeed. 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.
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?
The 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.
Why 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?
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.
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.
If 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.
Now 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.
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."
While this may have held true for the Senate, it didn't in the House.
I agree with you in the sense that many of the Democrat candidates did not take the ultra progressive (socialist?) path. Many
seemed more centrist.
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.
Brian 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...
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
@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?"
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.
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?
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.
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
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.
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.
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."
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?
@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
"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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
@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?
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.
@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.
@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?
@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.
"... What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like? ..."
"... "You stupid Wap, you just scratched my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." ..."
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
.???
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"... 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." ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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." ..."
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."
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
"... 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." ..."
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:
Burkman told The Atlantic that he has no clue who the woman is, suggesting he represents a
different accuser.
DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores referred all inquiries back to the special counsel,
however we imagine the "all survivors must be believed" standard applies.
The false flags and fake scandals are flying fast and furious in the final weeks before
the election. Let's see if Mueller is able to construct another charge against Trump. The
collusion failed. Obstruction? Failed. Got to concoct something else.
Remember, this is the guy in charge of the FBI during 911. He's good at constructing a
narrative and has a LOT to lose if the house intelligence committee stays in GOP hands.
I am shocked this man is roaming free tonight. We must believe the women, unless and until
Mueller can prove his innocence. There is too much smoke for there not to be some fire. At
this point, he should resign and begin the process of constructing his defense.
Meanwhile, on the Gateway Pundit, they are spinning this way more aggressively at
Mueller....
The Gateway Pundit obtained a copy of the charges.
What we know: The woman is a "very credible witness." Her story are corroborated. The
incident happened in 2010 in New York City. The woman is a professional.
The Mueller apologists are already trashing the accuser -- and don't even know who she
is!
OMG, this story is the best. It keeps giving. So, the phony security company, "Surefire
Intelligence", which Jacob Wohl created and then claimed he had no connection to, but was
registered to his mom's home phone number, has a guy named "Matthew Cohen" as a supposed
founder, who is supposedly ex-Mossad. The profile for "Matthew Cohen" in one place is a photo
of actor Christoph Waltz, and in another place is a photo of Jacob Wohl himself.
Now Jack Burkman, who's the one who has been promoting this story, says he was being
hoaxed by Wohl. When a reporter was talking to Wohl and brought up the fact that "Surefire
Intelligence" is registered to his mom's phone number, he hung up.
So far, no women have come forward with any allegations against Mueller, but several have
come forward with allegations saying Wohl offered them $20,000 to make up phony
allegations.
The special counsel's office confirmed to CNBC that it learned about the "scheme" from
journalists who had been approached by a woman alleging that she had been offered $20,000 by
Burkman "to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert
Mueller." -
CNBC
So con men covering Bad Bob.....as though CNBC has any credibility...
I think FBI and CIA live in strong conviction that they are Rex Mundi. They can do
whatever they want. There is no law for them at all. Typical demokratorship
Let's see. I believe all Victims. Where have I heard that before? Amazing how the Demtards
have fall guys lined up for miles to take the hit for the team. Their spin control is amazing
to watch in action. I so hope this is true. Mueller seems like an evil cat.
These counter claims sound a whole lot like the technique of inserting "confidential
informants" into the Trump Campaign to insert information - or DISINFORMATION - into the
storyline.
what if this whole Pillsbury email was manufactured to create a counter narrative that
people are paid off.....?
see, no one trusts anyone anymore......so, might as well question everything. or not
question ANYTHING and just #believewomen
Mueller is a huge snake; a guy who'll grin widely into your face as he plants evidence to
frame you from the ground up. Ask those who've been released from years of imprisonment
because of Mueller's set ups. They've got a few things to say about Robert Mueller...
A rapist? Who the hell knows but those involved at the time?
I'd put nothing past this uranium mule Mueller. Nothing. Deepest Statist Mueller's career
was made on being a silent and gruesomely pernicious bastard who'd go there for his pals. A
DC Fixer; like his devotee James Comey. Real dirty crums. And they hold a shitload of
blackmail-able secrets.
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.
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.
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]
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 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 ..."
"... Soon after Swetnick's story went public, her character immediately fell under scrutiny - after Politico reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she's lying. ..."
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
"... An article IIRC in the Nation by a restaurant worker specifically discussed how #MeToo had ignored waitresses and there was no change in behavior. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Caliban and the Witch ..."
"... Fundamental to all civilised systems of criminal law is the doctrine nulla poena sine lege ..."
"... "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 ..."
"... I loathe party culture, exactly because it encourages assault. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
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.
"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.
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
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[1]). 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.
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[2]:
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.
NOTE
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
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.
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.
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 these
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.
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.
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.
We have allowed "social justice" types, a tiny fringe minority of unhappy and often unstable
people, rewrite the rules of our entire civilization and culture.
All the way back to Aristophanes comedy has often included a political component or an effort
to "educate" audiences or at least make them think about things. But the actual comedy part
is essential. Otherwise it's just a lecture.
We might just be witnessing the death of Art. As the SJW furies brutally and effectively
enforce The Narrative in literary fiction, film, TV, comedy, etc. they destroy the potential
for creative genius in these mediums and kill off most of the audience. It was already hard
enough for those arts to compete with new media forms. The SJW's hostile takeover of Art just
makes the triumph of Real Life As Entertainment all the more complete.
Whereas twenty years ago I might be spending my free time reading a novel and attempting
to write a short story, today I'm reading articles on The American Conservative and posting
this comment.
"... the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth. ..."
"... 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else." ..."
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.
This is the liberal arts equivalent of what happened in Soviet Russia with its "revealed
truth" ideas.
I suspect it will die at some point as the revolutionaries turn on each other. It will
also die off with further exposure to reality. You can deconstruct the use of gender in the
German language as much as you want and scream loudly about the use of "der, die, das" and so
forth. But you know what? People are going to continue using them.
(In fact, if I wanted to blow up the whole silly mess from the inside, that's what I would
do. Start a movement to "get rid of gender" in the gendered languages and turn all po-mo
arguments into total jokes.)
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.
Although the ID of the university was withheld, while I was reading this piece–and at
the risk of being unnecessarily coy–there was one word used which jumped off the
screen, so I think I have a pretty good idea which school it is. Then again, does it really
matter? This kind of soft-core bolshevism has, to one degree or another, infected all of the
Ivies as well as most, if not all, of the Forbes Top 50.
I have no idea who this gentleman is about whom Rod is writing but it is clear that he is
quite intelligent and is trying to bring something of value to the table. If he has reached
the end of his tether and feels the necessity to bail, then it'll be the university's loss,
not his.
If you are a conservative – student/staff/faculty in an ivy league university. Be
careful what you say
Your thoughts are not welcome. And everybody knows that.
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.
"... It's better to just keep your mouth shut sometimes, even if your teeth grind, and your lips go blue, and you get cobwebs in your mouth. ..."
"... Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to do a conference about gender roles in society? ..."
"... Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender preference. ..."
"... He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people. ..."
"... Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now. As far as whether it's appropriate - he's reacting to a huge political movement that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this. ..."
"... The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished. ..."
"... I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com]. An archive just in case. [archive.is] And enjoy the witch hunt in action. [twitter.com] ..."
"... It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women. Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did the modern version of burning books. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
it's "Locker room talk" and a generally unfriendly work environment.
The nerds I know have very, very little tact. The few who do know what tact
is have to try really, really hard to avoid saying incredibly off color crap.
There are entire books about dead baby jokes and enough jokes about dead
hookers and pedophiles to fill several books over. Being a nerd and spending
a lifetime around other nerds I can tell you they'll cheerfully spout these
gags along with harmless Monty Python jokes and be completel
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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!'
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's
slander in the UK.
He literally said it as one of
two
sentences on slide 17, and they linked to his
entire slide presentation in the article. Pretty sure that that's not slander.
Feel free to describe how it is "out of context," however. I'm sure that this will be
good...
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.
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected
If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled
"High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the
gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something
stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender
conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one
of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from
you
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.
You don't even need to look at jobs that get you killed. No one is seeking gender
equality in jobs that women dominate.
Women dominate teaching below the college
level, veterinarian jobs, and nursing, just to name a few. Yet there are no efforts to
increase the number of men in those fields. You also never see a push for more women
construction workers or farm workers or garbage collectors. It's only well-paying jobs
where a high percentage of men is a problem. Low paying jobs? No one cares. Jobs where
women
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case
though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that
reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made.
Yes, precisely.
For an example more close to home for most of us, consider pretty much every
non-political online discussion forum ever.
If someone posts something that's political but trendy,
that's
fine. But
if somebody
reacts
to it, posts the opposite point of view or even just
tries to be balanced or put it in perspective, he'll get taken to the woodshed for
"being political", "flaming", etc.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men
True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at
physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes,
things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to
not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in
physics or indeed any science.
This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way
that you fix idiotic thinkin
Yah-- everyone needs to have the opportunity. But it may not be "fair" in numbers
afterwards.
Testosterone seems to cause *increased variability* in outcomes. Women
appear to be slightly smarter on average than men (depending on the metric you choose),
but men have a greater variability in intelligence and performance. That is, men are
over-represented at the very dumb and brilliant ends of the spectrum.
Equal opportunity may still result in an excess of men at the very top of many
professions...
(And again
Eh, fascination with systems and ideas are traits that skew to males. This will lead to
imbalances in scientific disciplines.... Attempts to artificially adjust these for equity
will only lead to injustices against more qualified individuals. I don't understand how
people can continue to pretend that biological differences between the sexes stop at the
brain. There are really great female physicists but not of an equal number to males.
Unless you have some sort of agenda this shouldn't be seen as bad t
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.
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..."
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.
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'.
Wow. This is an extremely one-sided, black-and-white view of a complex issue. I don't
understand how you could prepare to write on this subject and not realize that the
#BelieveWomen was, for MANY NOT ALL women, a call to NOT DISBELIEVE the woman right off the
bat. The immediate disbelief and victim blaming and shaming which has been standard treatment
of victims for a very long time is the primary reason that sexual crimes are not reported.
Sure, give the man the "innocent until proven guilty" but do the same for the woman too.
Don't start in with the "what was she wearing" and the rest. Don't make drinking be an excuse
for him and a reason for condemnation for her. In the many discussions I had on this subject
with other women, what the vast majority wanted was a full and complete investigation. They
didn't get it.
And you don't get it either. You are welcome to your opinions but you don't get to put the
words and beliefs into other people's mouths and minds as though you somehow know it all. You
are dead wrong about what I think and believe and about the vast majority of the women with
whom I have discussed this either in person or via text online.
It is easy to write against a straw man that isn't true. Try writing against a real
argument instead of simplifying the other person's position to the point that it is
ridiculous.
This conundrum is what convinced me to abandon the Democrats, registering as an Independent
for the first time: "It holds them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock
back on women's rights. Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous
eras; today it seems like 'believing' takes precedence over equality."
I am married to a man who has been loyal, works long hours to support our family, and
happens to be a white. I am raising a young man and young woman, and my experience has been
that, although they differ vastly in temperament and aptitude, they a both valuable to
society. The sexism and racism of the Leftist Democrats goes against my conscience and
experience.
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.
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."
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?"
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered
the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie
Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me
too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right
because she is a woman!
I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first
thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was
appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95
percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.
For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To
regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is
acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically
corrupt politicians in the US.
@utu
You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh
clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the
Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show
that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people
in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to
enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed
from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than
in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this
cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and
root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team
Blue.
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."
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.
@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.
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.
@utu
Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a
partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an
over-estimation.).
This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less
than 1% of the population we're talking about.
This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when
the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with
George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of
those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.
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.
@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.
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
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.
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 .
Along those lines, a female reader of this blog left this comment on a thread about
Alexis
Grenell's shocking New York Times op-ed denouncing "white women" for worrying that
their sons, brothers, and fathers might be falsely accused of rape. Grenell, who is a white
woman, lambasted them over what she calls a "blood pact between white men and white women." My
reader commented
Many white women have, in fact, made a kind of "blood pact" with white men: we call it
"family" in saner times. The expectation that abstract loyalty to any random person who
shares one's gender should override one's loyalty to their actual fathers, brothers,
husbands, and sons (as well as their actual mothers, sisters, and daughters) is profoundly
sad.
With more and more fatherless homes and very small families, I wonder how many women go
through life with no tight, enduring, loving, secure bonds with a father, husband, brother,
or son. Family is where these bonds that transcend individual identity can form. But if your
marriage can be dissolved for no reason, even the most primary bonds are insecure. Without
that, it's just tribe vs. tribe.
It is worth considering that many of these hysterical activists really do despise
the family, and are eager to see families turn on each other over politics. Consider this
tweet, from the senior art critic at New York magazine:
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
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.
This may seem trivial to some. But I canthelp but notice that whenever there is a photo of
one of these kind of protests,at least 1/4 to a third of the protesters are taking "Selfies"
of themselves
Maybe its because im 50 years old. .Maybe im an old fogie . But it really strikes me how
immature and narcissistic most of these protesters seem .
Its like the NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to yesterday. I may disagree with much of
what Paul Krugman writes.But at least he writes like an adult . The NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher
linked to reads like it was written by a 16 year old high school student
Ive long thought that those surrounded by those that they agree with , tend to not be good at
debating. For instance, a liberal that lives in a conservative part of Mississippi, is
probably good at debating.Whereas a liberal tht lives in Berkley CA probably has never had to
learn how to acutaly debate someone
The same goes for conservatives. Mostof the conservatives that I have met in Baltimore
tend to be good at debating.Because they need to be.They cant simply state a conservative
position and just sit back while everyone around them agrees with them
I think that the problem with liberalism nowdays is that a liberal is far more likely to
be surrounded by liberal media and liberal pop culture. To be in a "bubble" a conservative
has to restrict themselves to only watching FoxNews and reading the WSJ.And they pretty much
have to tune out almost all modern American pop culture.And if they go to college, they have
to go to Liberty University
All a liberal has to do in order to be in a bubble is to watch mainstream media and read
mainstream newspapers[like the NYT] and they just have to go to their local college and watch
and listen to mainstream pop culture
It didn't used to be this way.When I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, igrew up in
extremely liberal areas. And the liberals that I knew were very good at discussing politics.
Nowdays the liberals that I know[and there are many in Baltimore] just repeat and giggle
about, some joke that Samantha Bee told about Republicans. The older liberals that I know are
able to discuss politics.But the younger liberals really cant seem to discuss things in any
kind of adult manner. Since they really seem to have never heard any disagreeing
viewpoints
"... 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. ..."
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"
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."
"... It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. ..."
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.
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:
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.
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...
"... At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter. ..."
"... So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites ..."
"... The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise. ..."
"... This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt" ..."
"... In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness. ..."
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.
Pft has a point. If there was ever a time for the people to take the republic into its hands, it may have been
just after the Civil War when the Dems were discredited and the Repubs had a total control of Congress.
This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century.
So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt"
All manner of political office-seekers devoted themselves to getting on the government gravy train, somehow.
The selling of political offices was notorious and the newspaper editors of the time were ashamed of this.
Then there was the Whiskey Ring. The New York Customs House was a major source of corruption lucre.
Then there was vote selling in blocks of as many as 10,000 and the cost of paying those who could do this.
Then there were the kickbacks from the awards of railroad concessions which included large parcels of land.
If there ever was a Golden Age of the United States it must have been when Franklin Roosevelt was President.
karlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"
The only thing us "common folk" can do is work within our personal sphere of influence, and engage who you can, when you can,
and support with any $ you can spare, to support the sites and any local radio stations that broadcast independent thought. (
if you can find any). Pacifica radio, KPFK in LA is a good example. KPFA in the bay area.
Other than another economic crash, I don't believe anything can rouse the pathetic bovine public. Bread and circuses work...
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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?
"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]
"... Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state. ..."
"... It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC. ..."
"... All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump. ..."
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.
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.
@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..
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?
On Friday, 5 October, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to end unlimited debate and the
possibility of a filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, through a vote
on "cloture", the gimmick allowing Senators to do a filibuster or stop one, without actually
having to stand up and filibuster.
Shortly after Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy announced on 27 June 2018 that he would be
leaving the court, we discussed here on SST the fact that former president Obama, former
Democratic Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, current minority "leader" Charles Schumer,
and Senate Democrats muscled through a new "interpretation" of the Senate rules that allowed a
vote on cloture to require only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, for federal district
trial court and court of appeals judges, and other presidential appointees; but for supreme
court nominees, 60 votes were still required at that time [1]. This allowed the Obama
administration to push through nominees easier.
But when Donald Trump was elected president, the vacancy on the supreme court after the
death of Antonin Scalia remained. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch. A cloture vote was demanded to
end debate on Gorsuch and to proceed to a final up or down vote. But the vote was not
successful and did not get the required 60 votes. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
then followed up on what he said when the Democrats changed the filibuster rule: "You'll regret
this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think". He did what Harry Reid had done, and
with the slight Republican majority, reinterpreted the Senate filibuster rule to remove the
60-vote requirement for supreme court nominees. The Democrats could hardly effectively protest,
as they had unclean hands from their own prior actions. A second cloture vote was taken on
Gorsuch, and it passed, since only a simple majority was required. On the subsequent final
vote, he was confirmed. Had Obama et. al. not been greedy and arrogant, the monkey would have
been on the back of the Republicans about changing the filibuster rule, and I think it is
likely that McConnell would not have changed it. The dynamic in confirming supreme court
justices appointed by Trump would have been dramatically different.
When the Kavanaugh nomination was made, the Democrats again did not think past the end of
their noses, and tried to block him through a three act play with an accusation of sexual
misconduct made by Christine Blasey Ford. Two more accusations then conveniently showed up,
along with obviously coached "protesters". But with no real supporting evidence, the entire
approach began publicly to implode on itself, and behind the scenes, enough votes were put
together to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment.
"... "'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'" ..."
"... 'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'" ..."
"... Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats. ..."
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.
What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this
piece, has been given a pass by all sides. She had the Ford accusations in hand for weeks,
but sat on them. She could have passed them on to the FBI much earlier, and there would have
been adequate time for a thorough, professional, credible investigation of the accusations.
Perhaps that investigation would have been as inconclusive as the one that was ultimately
done. But it would have been done in an unhurried, and dignified manner. Nobody need have
been publicly humiliated. Nobody need have been dragged into Congress to testify reluctantly,
in public, about a painful episode in her life. And, more importantly, the investigation,
having been done in the normal course of background investigation, would have had
credibility–nobody would have called it a whitewash. And the resulting confirmation, or
not, of Kavanaugh would have ultimately been accepted by most people as legitimate.
Feinstein had the ability to make that happen, but she chose instead to sit on this until
the last minute when, surely she knew, it would unleash a sh**storm.
Her excuse that she was protecting Ford's privacy holds no water at all. A regular FBI
investigation could have been conducted discretely: they know how to keep things confidential
when they want to. Moreover, take a look at Feinstein's abysmal voting record on
surveillance: she doesn't respect anybody's privacy, ever.
Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I'm certainly voting for
her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.
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
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.
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.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate
to recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism
and worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no
longer can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying
to compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA
population, including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of
living. They see exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously
supported Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no
political party that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
"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.
As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter
failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to
disqualify him. Instead they used the fake
grievance culture
against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood
(vid, recommended).
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
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
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.
What's clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence.
There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result
of being wrongfully accused.
The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue
reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual
assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the
Home Office
suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected
to be false.
Studies
carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.
I come across information about connection of Kavanauch to Vince Foster before but this is
probably the most complete text of what can be called Internet rumor. The suicide has
nevertheless continued to fuel speculation: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made news in 2016 when he remarked
in an interview with the Washington Post that Foster's death was
"very fishy", and added "I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they
think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair."
Notable quotes:
"... Praised *dissent* in Roe ..."
"... Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare ..."
"... Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants ..."
"... Opposes net neutrality ..."
"... Opposes consumer bureau ..."
"... Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional ..."
"... -- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018 ..."
"... " According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life -- without a warrant" ..."
"... " According to his wife , security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen"" ..."
"... color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply. ..."
"... "Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy" ..."
"... A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald's Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire. ..."
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.
"... 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. ..."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
You do know the architects for those crimes now work for MSNBC and CNN? .they are
democrats new hero's?
CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate. Fire him
Video for brennan lies
? 1:34 https://www.theguardian.com/
/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-sen
Jul 31, 2014
"The facts will come out," Brennan told NBC News in March after apologizes even though he's
not sorry, who
James Clapper Just Lied Again About His Previous Lies About NSA
Video for clapper lies
? 9:28
thefederalist.com/ /james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous
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.
"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."
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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.:
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.
"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.
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
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.
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?
"... Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened. ..."
"... So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ..."
A former FBI agent and lifelong friend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford allegedly
pressured a woman to change her statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by
Kavanaugh in 1982, reports the
Wall
Street Journal
.
Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI
investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate
Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that
she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had
never happened.
The
Journal
also reports that after the FBI sent their initial report on the Kavanaugh
allegations to the White House,
they sent the White House and Senate an additional package
of information which included text messages from McLean to Keyser
.
McLean's lawyer, David Laufman, categorically denied that his client pressured Keyser, saying in
a statement: "Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser's
account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh
is absolutely false."
Ms. Keyser's lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that
she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh
, whom she
said she didn't know.
That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she
believed Dr. Ford
. On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms.
Keyser's attorney sent a letter to the panel saying
his client wasn't refuting Dr. Ford's account and that she believed it but couldn't corroborate
it.
-
WSJ
Keyser's admission to the FBI - which is subject to perjury laws - may influence the Senate's
upcoming confirmation debates. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
said that he found the most
significant material in the FBI report to be statements from people close to Ford who wanted to
corroborate her account and were "sympathetic in wishing they could, but they could not."
In his testimony last week, Judge Kavanaugh sought to use Ms. Keyser's initial statement to
undercut his accuser. "
Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted
by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers
," he
said. "
Refuted
."
Two days later, Ms. Keyser's lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Ms.
Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes
Dr. Ford's account." Mr. Walsh added: "However,
the simple and unchangeable truth is
that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.
" -
WSJ
In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford claimed she never told
Keyser about the assault, saying "She didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the
event and I did not share it with her," and adding that she didn't "expect" that Keyser would
remember the "very unremarkable party."
"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and
getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take
care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et
cetera." said Ford.
About that polygraph
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing
letter to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence
related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took,
after
her ex-boyfriend of six years
refuted statements she made
under oath last week.
Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because
the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr.
Ford's, stating that
he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph
examinations.
When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or
advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph,
Dr. Ford replied, "Never."
This
statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."
McLean issued a Wednesday statement rejecting the ex-boyfriend's claims that she was coached on
how to take a polygraph test.
A closer look at McLean
Enjoying the tastes are In back (l-r) Kelly Devine and Nuh Tekmen. In front,
Monica
McLean
, Karen Sposato, Catherine Hester, Sen. Ernie Lopez, R-Lewes, and Jennifer Burton.
BY DENY HOWETH
An intriguing analysis by "Sundance" of the
Conservative
Treehouse
lays out several curious items for consideration.
First, McLean signed a letter from members of the Holton-Arms class of 1984 supporting Ford's
claim.
Next, we look at McLean's career:
Monica Lee McLean was admitted to the California Bar in 1992, the same year Ms Ford's
boyfriend stated he began a six-year relationship with her best friend
. The address
for the current inactive California Law License is now listed as *"Rehoboth Beach, DE". [*Note*
remember this, it becomes more relevant later.] -
Conservative
Treehouse
Sundance notes that "Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the
Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various
reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI." and that "
After 2003, Ms.
Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field
Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara
:"
Here's where things get really interesting:
Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they
have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as
"roommates" in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former
boyfriend of six years.
Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential
election.
Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
; which
aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.
Now,
where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the
letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh
?
[Transcript]
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.
"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh. ..."
"... in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls." ..."
The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her
own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions. So much
so, in fact, that Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI
investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh.
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0
@SenBillCassidy
A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the
apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was
submitted to the Senate by @MichaelAvenatti.
12:37 PM-Oct 2, 2018
Q? 25.9K Q 13K people are talking about this О
The threat of a probe into his own client did not daunt the pop lawyer, who on
Wednesday morning tweeted that "we
still have yet to hear anything from the FBI despite a new witness coming forward &
submitting a declaration last night. We now have multiple witnesses that support the
allegations and they are all prepared to be interviewed by the FBI. Trump's "investigation" is
a scam."
And, in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti
released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett
Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally
abusive toward girls."
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).
He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with
claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.
In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its
political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of
which, more in a few sentences' time).
I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the
US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
That has corollaries:
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.
[1] Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an
extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol.
I.)
What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes?
We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it
starts to feel like a family member.
There are two things I cant stand:
Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to
lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god
to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
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
I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in
particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1]
theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
Very eloquently and succinctly stated!
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
agree
There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And
that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt,
aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of
existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win,
only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes
women and cruelly mocks their messiah.
Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even
today. It's the gift that keeps on giving
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.
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.
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?
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.
>>>>>>>>>>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.
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who
knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country
secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just
in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS!
I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did
interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their
lips sealed n are completely neutral.
@Anonymous
We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age
15″.
Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and
warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day
One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I
sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character,
but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe
everything will now be alright with their naughty child.
Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely
does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then
they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.
I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To Prison
As I
stated in a previous comment, Ford is just another hysterical man hating wobaby (woman
baby), that has lied in her testimony and public shameful denunciation of Kavanaugh.
As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual
harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of
embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a
case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and
that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and
has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.
Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied
about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is
clear she did!
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.
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).
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.
@Kratoklastes
Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of
theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident
pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of
Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His
little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was
just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I
thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're
talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive
issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It
should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally,
Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that
she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like
a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing
in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations.
She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.
This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions,
it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.
Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current
positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming,
with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as
in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.
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.
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this
country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of
sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that.
Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.
But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly
any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities
and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump
done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white
women.
But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles
with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people
divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy
the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by
the Third World.
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on
the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I
attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I
doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do
practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always
will.
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first
organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal.
Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal
society.
I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange.
Is this happening in US? I do not know!
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's
always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.
Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your
15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end
your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."
And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent
question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the
US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already
is.
Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or
used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly
drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house,
location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form
letter), Klobuchar (trying to exploit fraudulent Swetnick testimony for political purposes),
Kavanaugh (inability to take punches calmly, low quality of defence (this supposed to
be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible
aggressive behaviors when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high school and college,
possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left
her, not vise versa), using questionable methods to rent part of her house, and even more
questionable method to justify this, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... "Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims. ..."
"... We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault. ..."
"... But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans. ..."
"... I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. ..."
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
@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?"
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.
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?
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.
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to
relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve
political interests. It does not serve interest in truth.
Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party
wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.
But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford
indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she
knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident
desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience,
evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.
That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.
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?
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.
@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.
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.
A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's
testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for
sure, barring further investigation.
The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that
this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted
undisciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in
money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.
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??
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
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.
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.
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."
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?
@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
"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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
@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?
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.
@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.
@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?
@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.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a letter from former meteorologist and former
Democratic candidate for Maryland's 8th district, Dennis Ketterer, who claims that Brett
Kavanaugh's third accuser and Michael Avenatti client, Julie Swetnick, was a group-sex
enthusiast that he initially mistook for a prostitute at a 1993 Washington D.C. going-away
party for a colleague.
"Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her
anytmore" -Dennis Ketterer
Ketterer writes that Swetnick approached him "alone, quite beautiful, well-dressed and no
drink in hand."
"Consequently, my initial thought was that she might be a high end call girl because at the
time I weighed 350lbs so what would someone like her want with me? "
The former meteorologist then said that since "there was no conversation about exchanging
sex for money" he decided to keep talking to her, noting that he had never been hit on in a bar
before.
Over the ensuing weeks, Ketterer claims that he and Swetnick met at her residence for an
extramarital affair that did not involve sex.
"Although we were not emotionally involved there was physical contact. We never had sex
despite the fact that she was very sexually aggressive with me.
...
During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me
that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several
at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.
Ketterer claims that since the AIDS epidemic was a "huge issue" at the time and he had
children, he decided to cut things off with Swetnick. He goes on to mention that she never said
anything about being "sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will,"
and that she "never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity."
After Ketterer decided to run for Congress in Maryland, he thought Julie could be of service
to his campaign - however he lost her phone number. After contacting her father, he learned
that Julie had "psychological and other problems at the time."
Last week we reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend,
Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says
he has evidence that she's lying.
"Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and
threatening to do harm to my baby at that time ," Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with
POLITICO. " I know a lot about her ." -
Politico
" I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she's saying is not true at all ," he said. " I
would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more ."
Avenatti called the claims "outrageous" and hilariously accused the press of " digging into
the past " of a woman levying a claim against Kavanaugh from over 35 years ago.
And now we can add "group sex enthusiast" to the claims against Swetnick. Read below:
Neoliberals have transformed themselves into a collection of Trump mini-mes, with guilty
until proven innocent as the new "liberal" mantra. You've got standards.
Notable quotes:
"... I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone. ..."
"... To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted? ..."
"Neocon/neolib alliance is flat out of ideas and leadership, and is now rolling around in
the sexual accusations mud with the pig – and the pig is winning".
likbez 10.01.18 at 3:18 am
72 I believe Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly
damaged. Probably ruined.
Her yearbook said she had had 54 consensual sexual encounters. But apparently only the
alleged encounter with Kavanaugh was the one that traumtized her. Is she kidding me?
Despite those efforts, the Palo Alto University psychology professor's fears have come
true since she came forward over the weekend: Her lawyers say she's facing harassment and
death threats. Supporters and opponents have found pictures of her on the Web and converted
them into memes. And her Palo Alto home address was tweeted, forcing her to move out.
In the age of the internet, what's to keep the same thing from happening to any victim of
sexual harassment or assault who decides to come forward? Can they -- or anyone -- completely
erase their online presences to protect themselves?
"The extremely short and brutal answer is no," said Gennie Gebhart, of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. She does research and advocacy for issues that include consumer privacy,
surveillance and security.
ph 10.01.18 at 5:14 am (no link)
I've been wrong before and a month is an eternity, so the prognosis is subject to revision.
I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a
robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates
the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone.
To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs
to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health
care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are
people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by
Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you
suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have
converted?
Wasn't that the strategy with the access Hollywood tape? How'd that work out?
Good for the Dems isn't good enough. Dems might take the House, which looks very doubtful
to me now, and are unlikely to take the Senate. That's the best case, which still leaves
Trump and the GOP set up well for 2020. Notice how nobody is pinning their hopes on Mueller
at the moment.
"... They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened. ..."
Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the
Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty, as reported in the Hill, on Fox
News and elsewhere:
"HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh. But on Friday night's
show he conceded that a last-minute attempt to smear President Trump's Supreme Court
nominee with accusations of sexual assault is making liberals "look bad."
They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in
the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse
such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened.
But this accusation without substance seems to be standard operating procedure to
justify anything the government, or some faction within the government, wants to do, even
to the point of starting major wars. If THAT is permissible, merely destroying one man's
career and good name might be considered a trivial price to pay for the Dems to get their
way.
If this lynching succeeds, nothing will ever again be decided in a civilised manner
according to a set of standard rules and principles again in this country. Tyranny will
rule when guilt by accusation becomes the new standard. No one will ever again be safe and
secure if a mere denunciation can remove you from the picture. That was called the "Reign
of Terror" during the French Revolution. It was a hallmark of the Nazis, the Stalinists and
the Maoists.
That these women can feign critical memory loss of most details, but just enough to
claim "attempted rape," is preposterous. Fifty years later and I can still remember the
exact details of both wonderful dates and times I was stood up by callous females who
didn't care what those suddenly useless concert tickets might have cost you. You don't
forget when people truly ride roughshod over you.
backwardsevolution , September 27, 2018 at 8:20 pm
Realist – great post! Maher, who I used to always agree with, but hardly ever do now
(amazing how you change), is right here. Kavanaugh with accusations and no real evidence,
Trump with Russiagate and no evidence at all, chemical weapons attacks with fake evidence,
etc.
They just throw stuff out there and hope that it sticks, and their base laps it up. They
don't care about evidence; they're too busy shouting for the lynch mob. This is dangerous
stuff. I'm not exactly the most conservative person either, but I still see the importance of
maintaining the Rule of Law, freedom of speech, sacred and hard-fought-for principles.
Yep, there's mean women out there (just as there are mean men). I remember overhearing
women at work talking about going out for dinner with guys who they openly said they didn't
even like, but it was a free dinner. When I called them on this, they just laughed, could
have cared less. They're probably out there wearing pink pussy hats.
I've got both sexes as children, so I have to stay neutral.
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence
of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in
the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in
pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price
for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden
issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely
invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently
mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse –
most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers,
or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last
night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in
the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual
intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did
believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials
to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement
in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central
and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently
at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within
the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the
whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and
most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly
shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the
mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course.
Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud
seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to
hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted
in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient
reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the
rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both
hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate
the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without
the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly
propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated
to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been
suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian
doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of
the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of
the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component
the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and
the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from
the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger
individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were
the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities,
and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to
a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining
a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which
he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This
was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay
behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their
fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof.
Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded
with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions
women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem
was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't
find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they
are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical
Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation
to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims,
but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of
interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be
the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical
method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated
to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European
and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I
think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it
betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform
to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely
eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of
common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity
to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such,
I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with
the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon
has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in
testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the
Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus
of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and
emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent
some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems
likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was
announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election.
Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly
she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological
injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory,
however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been
exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical
advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the
scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim
into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively
projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along,
often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.
William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics
and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played.
However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual
proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough
information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.
We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we
only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could
prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore
girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older
boyfriend
and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was
a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first
base at the party.
From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone
without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those
were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom
with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her
demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment
into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up.
She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too.
And as a teacher she must be a real screwball.
Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten. Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago
Funny how Democraps are getting their panties in a wad over BK drinking beer in college,
yet were okay with Slappy Sotoro snorting cocaine in college....go figure...
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
Sinophile , 19 hours ago
If the bitch 'struggled academically in college' then how the hell did she get awarded a
freaking P(ost)H(ole)D(igger)?
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
onewayticket2 , 18 hours ago
He is not the first college student to get drunk.
Equating getting drunk to charges in every newspaper and TV news station for weeks stating
he is a gang rapist ring leader etc is laughably idiotic. Nice job. Thx for the laugh.
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
sunkeye , 21 hours ago
T/y Prosecutor Mitchell for conducting yourself w/ professionalism, decency, & honor -
personal traits none of the Democratic senators seem to possess, or would even recognize if
shown to them directly as you did. Again. t/y & bravo.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She allowed Ford to refuse to speak the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. Chris
Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who was Ford's one-time boyfriend. Some speculate that he was the
unnamed final boy at the party and that he may have assaulted Ford and/or dumped her after
she refused to go to the next level with him. Hence the trauma.
Paracelsus , 21 hours ago
I am having trouble keeping these personalities separate as I want to give everyone the
benefit of the
doubt. When I see Justice Kavanaugh, I think of the confirmation hearing as a political
attack on the
Trump administration . Also as an attempt to score points, or make the other side
screw up, before the
upcoming elections.When I see Dr. Ford, I see Hillary Clinton and all the bitterness
from a failed
politician.
The funny thing is I thought all the Trump "fake news" statements were a load of crap.
Turns out he hit the
mark quite often. The lefties are so damn mad because Trump is succeeding and they haven't
been able to
score points against him. So they feel that it is justified to use other
methods,regardless of the fallout.
There is a whiff of panic and desperation present.
I have stated this before, as have others: The loss of the White House by the Democrats
provided a
unique opportunity to clean out the deadwood. This may have seemed cruel and heartless
but the
Obama era is over and the Dem's urgently need to return to their roots before it is too
late. Did they
use this moment of change or did they revert to business as usual? To ask the question
is to
answer it.... This is commonly described as bureaucratic inertia. The Dem's only needed
to get the
ball rolling and they would be moving towards the objective of regaining power. New,
younger
and more diplomatic and law abiding types need to be encouraged to apply. Put out the
help wanted
sign. Do what Donald does,"You're fired!".
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
Well, if others have stated it before, it MUST be true. Republiconarists and Demcraps are
playing the same stupid games. Dems got punked w Garland, and now Reps are getting their
comeuppance w Kavanaugh (who really made it worse for himself by holding up such an obviously
false pious portrait of himself).
American Dissident , 22 hours ago
I believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I believe Rachel Mitchell, Esq. I believe Leland Keyser.
I believe Mark Judge. I believe P.J. Smyth.
I believe the evidence. That's why I don't believe Ms. Christine Blasey Ford.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
But she only had one beer!
Torgo , 11 hours ago
What do you think of the Chris Garrett hypothesis?
VWAndy , 22 hours ago
Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They
have gotten away with it before.
Aubiekong , 23 hours ago
Never was about justice, this is simply a liberal/globalist plan to stop Trump.
Prince Eugene of Savoy , 20 hours ago
Squeaky Ford only testified to what she had written down. She never used the part of the
brain dealing with actual memory. https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
Barney08 , 1 day ago
Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated
ditz.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Right Barney, not an undereducated and-proud-of-it slob like you.
MrAToZ , 1 day ago
You Dims are so willing to just swallow the hook. You idiots have been trained to react,
leave common sense at the door, slap on the vagina hats and start marching in circles.
What a cluster f*ck. Evidently there are suckers born every minute.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
"... Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day. ..."
"... Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members. ..."
"... She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi". ..."
"... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! ..."
"... Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists ..."
"... Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop... ..."
"... Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? ..."
"... Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. ..."
"... She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him. ..."
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said
she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by
name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of
questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up. She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too. And as a teacher she must be a real screwball. Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these
people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn
as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly
not members.
Brazillionaire , 14 hours ago
I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if somebody already brought this up... can
this woman (who was 15) explain why she was in an upstairs bedroom with two boys? Did they
drag her up the stairs? In front of the others? If she went willingly, for what purpose?
Some things reign eternal... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old
drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! Thank you
for paving the road to ruin! Don't forget to breathe in-between. You ARE the FACE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GIRL! Suck it up, Buttercup!
alfbell , 15 hours ago
I BELIEVE!!
... that America's institutions are being torn down by Leftists. The attempt to create a
new totalitarian regime has been upon us for decades and is now perfectly clear.
We will not say goodbye to morality.
We will not say goodbye to science.
We will not say goodbye to democracy.
We will not say goodbye to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Logic,
Decency, etc. etc. etc.
MAGA!
AHBL , 15 hours ago
Morality: Your dear Leader cheated on 3 different wives, one of them with a
prostitute,...while she was pregnant (or had a 4 month old, I forget); filed for bankruptcy 5
times, cheating many people out of money; settled fraud lawsuits; lied about charity
donations; your party nominated an actual PEDOPHILE (Moore) for Senate and now wants to
appoint an angry drunk to be SCJ!
Science: You folks are literally disputing the conclusions of the vast, vast majority of
scientists (97% by my last count) when it comes to global warming.
Democracy: this is a Democratic Republic...if it was a Democracy Trump wouldn't be
President.
The rest of the nonsense you wrote was just filler...obviously.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Still better than the rapist and intern cigarer and Benghazi killer clintons. why do retarded libturds not see that!!
alfbell , 11 hours ago
You are clueless. Have all of your priorities and importances upside down. Have zero
critical thinking.
Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an
end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists. Look at the big picture AHBL. C'mon you can
do it.
aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
NeigeAmericain , 13 hours ago
Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely
or would they ? 🤔
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten.
Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto.
Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
" The episode occurred on a September evening in 1985 after Kavanaugh, Ludington and
Dudley, attended the UB40 concert ."
UB40? Well, there you have it, if that isn't disqualifying, I don't know what is.
Debt Slave , 16 hours ago
She is a cross eyed boobis and we have to believe her because she says Kavanaugh, a white
hetero catholic man without any decent upbringing or engrained scruples raped her like a
monkey savage out of the jungle. Oh sorry, TRIED to rape her. As a teenager. Tried to raped a
pathetic, stupid cross eyed retarded moron that has since been successfully lobotomized at a
'modern' American university.
When is the last time you saw a 'mentally challenged' person being abused? Oh yes I
remember now, it was Chicongo, January 2017. Four negroes shoved a retarded white man's head
in a toilet and demanded he swear that he loved Niggers.
Never heard what happened to the savage fuckers, eh? Not surprised.
i know who and what I am voting for white man, do you?
benb , 16 hours ago
Time for the un-redacted FISA docs and the text messages. That should send Schumer and the
gang into a tailspin.
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
BankSurfyMan , 18 hours ago
Fordy had sexual encounters, she drinks beer and flies all over the globe... One day she
had a beer and cannot remember getting home on time to watch, MOAR DOOM NEWS! Fucktard Fordy!
Doom 2019! Next!
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
Just had lunch with a democrat. He's generally tolerable, so his level of anger at
Kavanaugh and his acceptance of "anything goes" to derail Kavanaugh was surprising to me.
Democrats believe that Roe V Wade is instantly overturned if Kavanaugh gets in. They also
think that if Roe V Wade is overturned, no woman will ever be able to abort another baby in
the US.
I explained to him that destruction of Roe V Wade will only make it a state issue, so
girls in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc will be able to kill as many babies as
they want to. It will only be girls in Wyoming or Utah or some other very red state that
might have to schlep their *** to another state to kill their kid.
Democrats see this as a battle for abortion, and if Kav gets confirmed, abortion is
completely gone in the USA. That's why you have these women freaking out. They think the
stakes are much higher than they actually are. Almost all of the women that are so worried
about this live in states where it won't have any effect on them at all.
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
I think I kind of calmed him down. We need to let them know that their world doesn't end
if Roe V Wade is overturned. I am also not at all sure it would be overturned, even with Kav
on the court, but they insist it will be, so not worth arguing. Reminding them that it
doesn't effect them, if they live in a blue state should calm their fears a little.
The right to abort is their 2nd amendment, God help us. If you explain to them they are
not really in danger, it may calm them down. They'll still make noise about those poor girls
who can't get an abortion after school and still make it home for dinner, and instead, have
to take a bus to another state to kill their kid, but they won't be as personally threatened
and lashing out as they mistakenly are now.
when the saxon began , 17 hours ago
And therein lies the fatal flaw of an elected representative government. The votes of the
ignorant and stupid are counted the same as yours or mine. And there are far more of
them.
VisionQuest , 18 hours ago
Democrats stand for atheism, abortion & sodomy. Ask yourself this question: Who stands
with Democrats? If your answer is "I do." then you'd best rethink your precious notions of
morality, truth, common decency, common sense and justice.
It is undoubtedly true that, in our entirely imperfect world, the American Way of life is
also far from perfect. But it is also true that, compared to every other system of government
on the planet, there is no comparison with the level of achievement accomplished by the
American Way of life.
Democrats hate and will destroy the American Way of life. Have you been a Democrat? Walk
away.
freedommusic , 19 hours ago
At this point the FBI should recommend a criminal investigation to the DOJ for treasonous
actors who are subverting the constitutional process of SC nomination. The crimes of perjury,
sedition, and treason, need to be clearly articulated to the public and vigorous prosecution
ensue.
We are STILL a Constitutional Republic - RIGHT?
Giant Meteor , 18 hours ago
Well, I am betting 27 trillion dollars that the answer to your question is a resounding ,
no ...
eitheror , 19 hours ago
Thank you Rachel Mitchell for having the courage to tell the truth about the testimony of
Ms. Blasey Ford, P.h.D.
Ford is not a medical Doctor but is a P.h.D.
The Democrats seem to have abandoned Ms. Ford like a bad haircut, instead focusing on
other smoke and mirrors.
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
About 35 years ago, at a party in San Francisco where everyone was very drunk, now Senator
Feinstein sexually molested me. Don't remember the date or location or anything else, but it
happened, I swear! Naturally, want to remain anonymous to protect my integrity, but it did
happen! She shoved me down onto my knees and ground her crotch in my face. It was terrible, I
can still recall the horrible smell to this day! The stench was a combination of rotting
flesh and urine. Makes me nauseous just thinking of that sexual assault. INVESTIGATE this
serial molester!
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
American Dissident , 20 hours ago
McConnell on the Senate Floor 50 minutes ago: "The time for endless delay and obstruction
has come to a close.... Mr. President, we'll be voting this week."
xear , 21 hours ago
Brett is obviously innocent. Groping her, holding her down, grinding into her... it's not
like it was rape. And as far as covering her mouth so she couldn't scream... after a heavy
night of drinking who wants to hear screaming? Almost anyone would do the same.
I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 20 hours ago
it's always interesting to see where and why people claim to know things about which they
have literally no 'knowledge.'
Also interesting to see how the same people who would protest assuming the guilt of an
alleged Muslim terrorist or Black liquor store robber now argue it is 'whiteness' and
'patriarchy' to not assume the guilt of a white male regarding decades old uncorroborated
charges... which 4 named witnesses deny having knowledge of, by a woman who lied about a fear
of flying to try to delay the process.
We can all be hypocrites.
But watching the Left embrace hypocrisy as social justice has been, in the pure sense of
the word, awesome to behold.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
FBaggins , 21 hours ago
To fix things if after all of this crap from the feminazis and Kavenaugh simply withdraws
his name, Trump should put forward Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next candidate. It would
really ensure support for Trump candidates in the midterms from women in general and from
social-conservative family-values people in the US and it would perhaps teach the feminazis a
lesson at the same time.
istt , 20 hours ago
No, Kavanaugh deserves better. He has earned his place on the USSC.
Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago
My prediction was, and still is Kavanaugh goes forward. Even the revered CNN is starting
to walk the drinking issue back.
By the way , the Trump presser today was a ******* hoot!
ToddTheBabyWhale , 21 hours ago
Nine page memo, Tyler. Your starting to write like a pro journalist now.
aloha_snakbar , 22 hours ago
Ms Ford, the newly minted millionaire, is probably lying poolside in Mexico, indulging in
her favorite psychotropics and getting pounded by the local brown talent. Wow...having a
vagina is like having a meat 3D printer that spews out money...
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
Was there in 1965, and I can recall what my classmates wore, who could dance, who kissed
great, who had the best music, who got laid and how often...and it was NOT the head of the
football or basketball team.
Her memory is selectively scripted, and I am 20 years older and my memory is just
fine.
charlewar , 23 hours ago
In other words, Ford is a liar
JohnG , 23 hours ago
She's a goddamned sociopathic lying bitch.
arby63 , 23 hours ago
A highly paid one. Gofundme alone is over $900,000.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
Her two *** lawyers doing well for their time and attention. McCabe's lawyer comes to the
rescue for Ford.
Dead how? We already know that these corporation are die hard neo-liberal but name me 2
republicans or ANY federal entity that would EVER go after a corporation like that.
You are not aware of the score if you think anything will be done to them.
HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago
My hippocampus is turgid and throbbing after seeing Chris Ford in those Adrian (Talia
Shire) spectacles.
blind_understanding , 23 hours ago
I had to look it up ..
TURGID - from Latin turgidus , from turgēre to be swollen
peippe , 22 hours ago
nothing better than a confused lady who forgets stuff...........
I'm all over that if she was thirty-six years younger. oops.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
I was the victim of an abuse event when I was 4. I'm 47 now. I know exactly where the
house is, we were in the backyard and I can tell anyone what happened and who was there. It
happened a few days back to back maybe three days, it was during the winter in the
midafternoon. I guess my hippocampus is in better shape than hers.
sgt_doom , 1 day ago
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was poised, articulate, clear and convincing. More than
that, she radiated self-assured power ."
----- So says Robert Reich
Saaaaay, Bobby, have you ever met Wesley Allen Dodd or Ted Bundy? I once came into contact
with Dodd, the epitome of calm, cool and collected --- and he was later executed for
torturing to death small children!
A (female) law professor from Seattle University said:
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (why do they keep referring to a professor of
psychology as doctor --- s_d) was credible and believable. " (Evidently, we don't need
no stinking proof or evidence where a law professor is concerned!?)
Sgt_Doom says: Prof. Christine Blasey Ford sounded credible, believable and completely
unsubstantiated.
Credible Allegations
Over this past weekend I learned three startling facts:
(1) All American women have been raped;
(2) All American males are rapists and liars; and,
(3) "Credible allegations" are accusations not requiring any shred of evidence.
Fake news facts , that is . . . . .
All this was conveyed by high-middle class (or higher) females who worship globalization
and American exceptionalism --- from the same news conduits who once reported on
weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and other similar mythologies!
Not a single so-called reporter --- not a single self-described journalist in American ---
thought to ask that most obvious of obvious questions:
Where in bloody perdition is Christine Blasey Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks?
After all, they introduced Kavanaugh's yearbook, so why not Christine Blasey's
yearbook?
Second most obvious question:
When one searches online for Holton Arms yearbooks, the searcher can find the yearbooks
for the years preceding Ford's last several years at Holton Arms, and the years following ---
why have the last several years when Christine Blasey attended missing? Why have they been
removed --- even cached versions --- from the Web?
Takes some serious tech resources to accomplish this in such a short period of time?!
How very odd . . . .
I do not want Kavanaugh, nor anyone like him, on the Supreme Court bench, but that does
not mean I automatically believe any and all unsubstantiated accusations and am sane enough
to comprehend that credible allegations require proof --- also referred to as
evidence.
It is not enough to state that this person drinks and is therefore guilty or that person
is a male and is therefore guilty.
I fully support an expanded investigation into both Kavanaugh AND Christine Blasey Ford,
including Ms. Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks and any and all police blotter activity/records
for her ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16.
And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . .
. and finally start doing their jobs!
Sidebar : Sen. Chris Coons claimed that Prof. Ford was courageous to have come forward as
she had nothing to gain , yet within several days after her testimony, Christine
Blasey Ford is almost one-half million dollars wealthier --- nothing to gain?
Hardly . . . .
[Next rant: MY elevator encounter with a 14-year-old psychotic blonde student, and her
buddy, many years ago in Bethesda, Md.]
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
She (Mitchell) was there to handle her like the delicate flower. To the pubes defense,
someone was smart enough to realize that a bunch of GOP white guys questioning her was not
going to play well. Enter the female prosecutor and her report.
On the other hand the dem guys and dolls could not genuflect enough , so their questioning
was fine. I mean they had her painted as the courageous hero of the modern era. So brave, so
noble , so, so, utterly awesome!
Puke ....
scraping_by , 23 hours ago
She had an emotional meltdown for a big finish. Note who gave her the run-in for it. (Not
Mitchell).
nicholforest , 1 day ago
Seems pretty obvious that Mitchell could not see a case for prosecution - what we heard
was mostly 'He said ... She said". So an unsurprising conclusion.
And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the
Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their
houses.
But what struck me was the behavior and style of Kavanaugh. He came across as belligerent,
petty, evasive, aggressive and impulsive. Those are not the characteristics that we want in a
candidate for the Supreme Court.
Little Lindsey G would say that Kavanaugh has a right to be angry, which may be so - but
the way that such anger is manifested is critical. In the military we look for leaders to be
cool under fire. The same should be true for a judge in the highest court in the land.
Instead he came across like a fearful, reactive, spiteful, spoilt frat boy. That will not
do.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
Ah, the double bind. Either he's robotic and reciting a script, or he's wild and howling
brat. Nice how that works.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nicholforest - And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the
process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A
curse on both their houses.
Please enlighten us on specifically which Dem. SC nomination the Republicans did a full on
character assassination .... were waiting!
It is mindless comments and a lack of rigorous thinking and moral equivocation like yours
that has led the country into the abyss of nonsense and division.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
Look at the time line provided and then tell me the Democrats aren't a pack of lying
weasles. The truth means absolutely NOTHING to them. Their agenda (to **** over Trump in any
way possible) is all that matters. Could anyone imagine what would have happened if the
Republicans would have pulled just 1/10th of that kind of ******** with the Homo *****??
There would have been continuous MSM inspired riots in the streets.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
They play by Alinsky Rules
rksplash , 1 day ago
I guess the only way this nonsense is going to go away is if the GOP start using the same
tactics. Hire some wannabe spin doctors to go through some old high school yearbooks in a
church basement somewhere in Alabama. An old black and white of some poor pimple faced
senator grabbing his crotch at the prom in 72.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
She did take a polygraph - and passed.
Yeah that's what the lying sacks of **** say, but of course there's absolutely no proof it
happened. She passed? O.k., let's assume they are at least not lying about that . . . what
questions were asked?
Bastiat , 1 day ago
A polygraph with 2 questions apparently. In other words a complete joke. A real poly has
scores if not hundreds of questions.
robertocarlos , 23 hours ago
Two questions were asked. "Are you a woman"? and "Are you a liar"?
Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago
It's amazing what a false memory can do.
Is there a verbatim transcript of the questions asked?
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Mitchell said it was irresponsible to give a polygraph to someone grieving the loss of a
loved one. Grandmother in this case.
peippe , 22 hours ago
rumor has it the exam included two questions.
Two Questions.
you decide what that means.
nsurf9 , 1 day ago
Not one shred of corroboration evidence of Ford's testimony, not even from her friend, who
flatly denied she ever went to such party, NONE, NADA, UNBELIEVABLE!
Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons'
bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with democrat financed malicious intent to defame?
And further, Montgomery County Police has formally stated that, as a misdemeanor, the
statute of limitations ran out on this allegedly crime - 35 frigging years ago.
And lastly, with regard to drinking in college, not one democrat mentions he finished top
of his Yale undergrad class and top of his Yale Law School class.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nsurf9 - Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy
loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with malicious intent to defame?
Please tell me how you or I could possible "safeguard" ourselves from "crazy loon" and
"bald-face lies" ....?
That is why we're supposed to be a nation of laws and innocent until proven guilty.
It is one thing to disagree over a person political position and or ideas but that is not
what is happening here. The Dems are in full assault mode to destroy BK and his family as a
warning to any future Conservative judge who may dare accepts a nomination to the SC.
What the Dems are doing will lead to some type of civil war if they do not stop this. It
will not be pretty if that happens.
nsurf9 , 23 hours ago
Requiring even a modicum of corroborated facts or evidence, outside of mere "words," would
be a good start!
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Yeah what an incredible story. She was at a party with some drunken creepy guys and got
sexually assaulted. Everyone knows that never happens!
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The current sleaze isn't overturning the legal right to abortion, it's making it
impossible to get one. It's a legal right that a woman has to sit through lectures, travel to
specific places, make certain declarations, and get a physician who's usually under attack at
the state level. It's not illegal, it's impossible.
It's not about restricting women, it's about making life harder for middle and lower class
people. Women of the Senator's economic class have always had and always will have access to
safe abortions. It's wage earners who have to depend on local providers.
Whether Catholic K will go along with the sabotage of a privacy right isn't clear. But
he's probably going to be sympathetic to making those working class wenches show some
responsibility.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
To quote famed feminist and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, women can always "Keep
their pants zipped". But then Granholm only extended her authoritarian control freakery to
the male half of the human race when she said that a few years ago. If women lose some
"reproductive rights" then some of them might start to have some empathy for men and our lack
of rights. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to empathize with us.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
I Write Code , 1 day ago
Wasn't there an old SNL skit about the "amygdala"?
YouTube doesn't seem to have an index on the term, LOL.
seryanhoj , 1 day ago
One more example of US governance and party politics on its way down the tubes. There is
no topic, no forum nowhere where the truth is even something to be considered. Media, law
makers, everyone looks at a story and says " Let's make this work for our agenda even if we
have to reinvent it from scratch". Then it is more than easy to find people to testify any
which way you want. Vomits copiously.
mabuhay1 , 1 day ago
The standard for females should be "They are lying if their lips are moving." Any claims
of sexual abuse should require proof, and witnesses that can back up said claims. Many
studies have found that years before the MeToo# lies began, about 60% of all claimed rapes
were false. Now, with the "Must believe all women" and the "MeToo#" scam, I would suspect the
rate of false claims to be very close to 100%
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The standard for any criminal investigation is ABC. Assume nothing, Believe no one, and
Check everything. The current feminist howl is sweep that aside and obey a women when she
points at a man.
Jack McGriff , 1 day ago
And yet every single MSM outlet is claiming she is credible! WTF!!!
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago
Major Hegelian dialectic **** going on with the Ford/Kav reality show.
Women everywhere side with Ford because she's a women, claims she was abused, and "has to
be believed", in order to settle some personal score that they all claim empathy for, even
though she has given every tell in the book that she is lying.
Men everywhere empathize with a man being falsely accused, regardless of his politics and
judicial history, even though he made his bones in the Bush administration, and can probably
be relied on to further the authoritarian state via the Supreme court. Guilty of this myself,
because it could be anyone of us next.
Pick a side, doesn't matter, because we've already lost.
Bastiat , 1 day ago
I "Believe the Women" -- the 3 women Ford named as witnesses who denied it ever happened,
the 65 women who signed the letter in support of Ford, and all the women who have worked with
him and had no issues. I don't believe this one, though.
phillyla , 1 day ago
truly embarrassing answer
were I a self important college professor I might lie and say "Shakespeare" but the truth
will out I learned it from The Avengers movie when Loki called Black Widow a 'mewling
quim'
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
A lot of women have seen their sons and brothers falsely accused. Ford was completely
unconvincing in her "I don't remember the details of a traumatic "sexual assault"
BGO , 1 day ago
Mitchell the "veteran prosecutor" also failed to ask Ford who hosted the party where the
alleged assault took place.
This is an important question. Maybe the most important question.
No one should be expected to remember their high school friends' home addresses, just like
no one should be expected to remember every person who attended a specific high school
party.
One thing ANYONE who suffered a violent attack would remember is WHO OWNED THE HOUSE where
the attack took place.
High school parties generally are hosted by a the same people throughout a students high
school years. It's not like everyone in class takes their turn throwing a kegger.
As anyone who drank to get drunk at parties in high school will tell you, it was always
the same handful of kids, maybe three or four, who let their friends drink alcohol in their
parents' home.
Narrowing down exactly who owned the home where the alleged attack took place should be
easy due to the fact that, according to Ford, it was more of a small get together than a full
blown party.
All investigators should need to do is ask the known attendees, under oath, whether or not
they hosted the party where the alleged attack took place.
The fact that Ford's testimony includes exactly one person whose name she cannot remember
is NOT a coincidence.
The phantom attendee was created out of thin air to give Ford an out if the known
attendees claimed the attack did not occur at their homes.
There are so many things wrong with this political farce. Liberal mental illness, as with
any case, is a given, automatically assumed.
Flip flopping dufuses on the other side, weakness, gross ineptitude.
The entire system needs to be culled via a massive firestorm; no one or thing left
standing.
Cassander , 1 day ago
@BGO -- Re your first sentence, Mitchell notes in her memo "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity".
I think this covers your point implicitly. If she doesn't remember what house it was, how can
she remember whose house it was?
Just thought you were going a bit hard on Mitchell, whose memo seems pretty damning to
me...
BGO , 1 day ago
Asking *what* house and *whose* house are two ENTIRELY different things.
Think about the most traumatic experience of your life. You know EXACTLY where the
traumatic experience took place, right?
FUBO , 1 day ago
She didn't ask one sexual question of her either,bu but dove right in on Kavanaugh.
istt , 1 day ago
And now we find out Leland Keyser was Bob Beckel's ex-wife. Unbelievable. Small circle
these libs run in.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
Actually nothing about the Democrats is surprising. They are predictable in keeping within
their closed ranks.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
They brought the wrong tool to the fight. Mitchell is a sex abuse prosecutor? Her tactics
may well work in the courtroom but the Judiciary Comm hearing was not a platform of
Mitchell's expertise. She apologized to Ms Ford and stated at the onset she would not ask Ms
Ford about the "incident" other than her recollections of location, date and witnesses.
Mitchell then hit Judge Kavanaugh head on with questions of gang rape, rape, sexual assault,
drinking behaviors. All validating Kavanaugh's guilt for the sheeple.
My two Eng Springer Spaniels exhibit better strategy than what we saw here.
Herdee , 1 day ago
Her father was in the CIA. Who was it within the organization that planned this?
aloha_snakbar , 1 day ago
If Fords alleged/imaginary groping is allowed to stand, what about all of the groping that
the TSA dispenses daily?
phillyla , 1 day ago
if touching over your clothes = rape I have several lawsuits to file against the TSA
...
Luce , 1 day ago
How does this ballsy ford bitch keep her PTSD in check when the TSA gropes her for all of
her exotic vacations?
phillyla , 1 day ago
some one should investigate if she signed up for the TSA's skip the line service for
frequent fliers ...
Also telling... nobody from her family (mother, father, brother) has come forward to
support her. Only her husband's family. They likely know she is making it up as it relates to
Kavanaugh. They know who she is.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
That's actually false. However, the muted support from her father is likely due his not
wanting to be ostracized from his upper-crust old boys golf club.
....and the biggest indications of fraud here are 4 go fund me accounts now raising over
$2M for CBF. Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a good gig if you can get it
now days.
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Y'all are being distracted and played, as usual, I am sad to say...
The judge Napolitano video at the end should have been played to Congress.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Yup, this man is not a friend of liberty, or justice.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
His *** is rethinking it now
istt , 1 day ago
"Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person's car without first
obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn't constitute a "search" as defined by the
Fourth Amendment."
I like him more now that I have read this article. Police should be able to legally track
known or suspected drug dealers. You got a problem with that? I suppose you're outraged over
our treatment of MS-13 as well?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Yes, I have a problem with that. Police must have enough prior evidence to get a warrant
to put a device on anyone's property (car, phone, email account, internet router) - any
private property is protected by the 4th.
Once they convince a judge of probable cause and get the warrant, they can plant the
tracking device. Most cops are power hungry, petty, vindictive, control freaks, with too much
time on their hands - one tried to make my life hell simply because I cut him off in
traffic.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
The hypocrisy of ZH posters in favor of this douche is unreal. Where is the libertarian
outrage?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
I think most libertarians have left ZH and this is a predominantly Republican partisan
site now. The internet is quickly becoming a bunch of echo chambers for like minded people,
with trolls appearing from time to time to fan flames if interest and eyeballs starts to
wane. We are lucky if one post out of 50 has any insight or real information.
11b40 , 1 day ago
Once you start down this slippery slope, the next step down is easy.
spieslikeus , 1 day ago
Eye opening, thanks for that. Appoint Judge Napolitano!
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
It would be nice to have a token libertarian voice on the court. Kavanaugh is not only a
statist, but a deep statist.
Golden Phoenix , 1 day ago
If taken completely at her word the gist of her story is someone touched the outside of
her clothes. Prison for tailors! They are all rapists!
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford says she ran from the house, Question, how did you get home? Answer, I don't
remember.
No Time for Fishing , 1 day ago
No one followed her out. No one said where are you going.
She is outside the house, no car, no phone, maybe clicked her heals and was magically at
home, worked for Dorthy.
Walked six miles home but just doesn't remember that? could be.
Knocked on a neighbors door to ask to use the phone and had someone pick her up but
doesn't remember that? could be.
Walked a few blocks to a pay phone and with the quarter she had in her bathing suit called
someone to pick her up, waited for them, didn't tell them what happened and then they drove
her home, just doesn't remember it? could be.
When she ran from the house did she not leave her purse or bag behind? Did she ever get it
back? Did her girlfriend never ask why she left?
Maybe I should just believe her......
Bastiat , 1 day ago
She ran all the way, got home in 35'32" -- she would have been a track star but the coach
looked at her *** at the team tryouts.
Benjamin123 , 1 day ago
Auntie delivers
The Swamp Got Trump , 1 day ago
Ford is a lunatic and a liar.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
so she does not remember how she got to the party or how she left the party but she
suggested she narrowed down the year because she knew she did not drive to the party since
she could not drive yet so she must have been 15.
I beg your pardon!
bh2 , 1 day ago
So does anyone recall Comey giving Clinton a free pass despite her many deliberate and
clear violations of US security laws on the basis that no reasonable prosecutor would take
action against her?
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
Dr. Fraud was a planned hit. Her social media presence was methodically deleted over the
last few months. There is nothing about her anywhere.... it's almost as if her name is fake
too.
Heard on 4chan that her and her husband have a big interest at the place she used to work,
Corcept Therapeutics. Apparently Corcept has developed a new abortion drug and have invested
a ton in R&D.
As always, follow the money.......
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
yeah, yeah. you do realize that her father plays golf with Kav's dad at their local
country club.
don't forget your tinfoil hat your way out, nutjob.
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
And you do realize that Kav's mother was the judge that presided over Dr. Frauds' parents
home foreclosure?
Lots of motives here.
Thanks for chiming in so we can all get to he truth.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Presiding over a foreclosure is not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a strictly
administrative task. The bank is the one foreclosing, you dolt.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
another unhinged, faux compassionate, rude leftist
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Another braindead gaslighting troglodyte
11b40 , 1 day ago
Then what is the judge for?
istt , 1 day ago
Turns out Ford is not even a psychologist. Some of the stupidest people I know carry PhD
titles because they are perpetual students. This just starkly shows the difference between
the two worlds people live in, if they can find Ford credible. She is the face of left wing
hysteria and partisanship.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And angry-boy Kavanaughty is the perfect reflection of unhinged conspi-racist GOP.
istt , 1 day ago
Keep repeating the mantras, losers. I'm sure there are many single mom's out there who
made lousy decisions, who hate their lives, who are willing to buy your whole story. YOU
resonate with them. But they are not here so get lost.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I crap bigger than you.
Got The Wrong No , 1 day ago
That's because you are Crap
Slaytheist , 1 day ago
Real men that live lives of principal and truth, get angry when women (inclues numen like
you) lie like children to get their way.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
So pretty much all of Kavanaugh's old cronies turn out to be degenerate drunkard
misogynist ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist toolbags and somehow Kavanaugh himself is Mr.
Squeaky Clean? <cough>********<cough>
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
No, they were all drunken college kids.
So have you lefties changed it and would like to charge him for partying?
lmao.....
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Lol, drunked college kids? More like degenerate a-holes. Troll harder.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
Yes. Troll harder.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
your being spoon fed a narrative by the msm like rice pudding to a gay cowboy, you make me
sick
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself, please.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
I thought I was being kind with the gay cowboy remark
istt , 1 day ago
Get the **** out of here, wingnut. Switch back to your CNN. We don't need your ilk here,
loser.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I have been here farrrrr long than the vast majority of you pikers. Long enough to recall
what ZH was intended to be for, before it became the cesspool it is today, infested with
russian trolls, nazi-fascist thugs, lunatic fringe d-bags spouting off like they know
anything about anything. So GET the F OFF MY LAWN, punk.
istt , 1 day ago
Anyone who finds this woman and her story credible need their head examined. They are
incapable of critical reasoning.
A political hit job and the stupid, ignoramus Ford was willing to do the hit. She should
be in jail for this disgraceful action.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
So she was communicating on Whatsup with the Washington Post on JULY 6th! How is that
consistent with wanting this whole story to be confidential?
She knew the person she was in contact with since she admitted she was the same journalist
who wrote the article in September. In whatsup you know each other's phone numbers so the
journalist knew her identity from the very beginning. Stop lying about the anonymous tip line
!
Let's call this for what it is: a conspiracy to hijack a supreme court nomination and Mrs
Blasio Ford, the Washington Post, democratic parties operatives (including senator
Fienstein's staff or the senator herself and the Kats legal firm) were co-conspirators).
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Hired by Pukes, no surprise here.
cheech_wizard , 1 day ago
So elections have consequences, right?
I'll bet you didn't miss a single one of Hillary's campaign events in Wisconsin, did
you?
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I really don't get it, there are many qualified conservative judges who would do a much
better job on SCOTUS and not damage the court's honor and credibility. Why Kavanaugh?
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Because he is a political heck and Drumpf likes it that way.
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford doesnt remember much, except when it matters. She doesnt know exactly when she was
raped or where she claims to be raped, but remembers seeing Mark Judge in a Safeway exactly 8
weeks later.
Hell I remember where I was when the space shuttle blew up in the 80s, I remember where I
was and who I was with when Mt St Helens blew her top in 1980.
People will always remember notable events, PERIOD!
Here is a classic, if you believe her story, I have a bridge for sale
Endgame Napoleon , 1 day ago
Back when the Roy Moore thing was keeping MSM ratings up, I, a person in Dr. Ford's age
group, recalled a 100% harmless event from my 16th year. The reason it sprang to mind is: it
echoed things they were accusing him of.
Accusers said he was in the mall, flirting with girls in their late teens and in other
commercial venues, chatting it up girls in that age group.
Although this event had not crossed my mind in years -- so un-traumatic was it -- I
remembered in much greater detail than Ford the specificities of this harmless event.
I was working at a locally owned steakhouse as a hostess, a glorified and very bored door
opener. I was wearing a pink, medium-warm-gray and light-warm-gray, striped dress (ugh, the
Eighties).
After work, I decided to stop at a local grocery store, and I felt pleased that a
candidate for office who later won handed me his card, trying to convince me to vote for him.
He also mildly flirted with me, not knowing how old I was, and I did not tell him my age,
enjoying the feeling of being older, sophisticated and attractive enough to get his
attention.
He put his phone number on the card, not that anything happened as a result. I knew that I
would not be allowed to go out with this man who really wasn't that much older than me,
anyway, probably about a decade older.
If this man ever ran for another office, or was appointed to a high office, I could call
this sexual assault, I guess, in this insane world. But I would never do that, nor would
almost any woman that I have met.
There must be something in the water, producing more barracudas with a mission to
criminalize things that earlier generations would have called flirting.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
was she on valium for funeral and polygraph test ?
this explains why test was done after funeral and her passing this test,
FBI must check this
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And while they're at it, they should also check all the stories from Yale classmates who
can attest to the fact that Kavanaugh was often spotted late at night stumbling and slurring
his words, and sometimes aggressively starting sh*t.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
inconsequential, nothing will come out of this,
opposite of her being on drugs for polygraph test, this just ends her story
"... The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up? ..."
"... Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis . ..."
"... Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep. ..."
"... Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill. ..."
"... My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen. ..."
Hey, John Brennan said to dig deeper, so we are. Keep peeling the onion and expose more
and more layers. She had a second door put in to improve the house's curb appeal, but you
can't see the door from the curb. The door helped with her claustrophobia but it only allows
egress from living space separate from her main residence.
As the commenter above said, "look squirrel"!
The whole point of discussing door #2 was to
bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford,
suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be
tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a
clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of
acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up?
The only pacifier evident here is the one up your ***.
Beatscape , 1 hour ago
Follow the money... it almost always takes you to the real motivating factors.
Sounds more like hubby didn't want strangers in the house, and she wanted the extra income
or potential. Perhaps, he was scared of the consequences of getting busted, after spending
the money...doing something non code compliant.
Builder here.
This starts to make sense...in a fucked up way.
digitalrevolution , 2 hours ago
Too far in the weeds on this one.
Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis .
NoPension , 1 hour ago
Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep.
PGR88 , 2 hours ago
Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad
acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill.
ChartRoom , 2 hours ago
My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the
field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
Can confirm
45North1 , 2 hours ago
A floor plan would be instructive.
NoPension , 2 hours ago
Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In an area where that setup probably
commands $2000 a month.
The gotcha moment for me was Ford's response to a question in which she declared that she
wanted Sen. Feinstein's office to know about her story while there was still time to find another
candidate. Not political at all.
Notable quotes:
"... after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of fatal attraction for him. . ..."
...In recent days I've seen teenage photos of both Ford and Kavanaugh. His handsomeness was
obvious. And he was evidently a leader in his school when it came to sports and academics.
I'm beginning to suspect, after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled
youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of
fatal attraction for him. .
Except for claiming she's 100% certain that Kavanaugh assaulted her, I
wonder if she's been vague enough to prevent any perjury charges?
There is this interesting passage, here as cited by the WP:
***************************************** Feinstein: How were you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh] ?
Ford: The same way that I am sure that I am talking to you right now: It's basic
memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that
sort of, as you know, encodes that neurotransmitter, encodes memories into the
hippocampus. And so the trauma-related experience then is kind of locked there whereas
other details kind of drift.
Feinstein: So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken
identity?
Ford: Absolutely not
*****************************************
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
Being Free , 23 hours ago
Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy
foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...
Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus
skewing the results.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
Blasey-Ford's squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child voice was both poor acting, and creepy.
If it wasn't acting, then its a clear sign of a deranged mind.
Blasey-Ford resides at 3872 Duncan Place in Palo Alto CA. Her house (according to Zillow)
is currently valued at $3,000,000.00+. There must be a lot of idiots out there contributing
to her GoFundMe account. She will need a lawyer, soon. I believe that there will be a trail
leading back to witnesses who will admit the entire thing was a hoax. And, the band played
on.
morongobill , 1 day ago
Saw this over at Burning Platform. Interesting that Ford's address is reveled.
Philip Rolfes
Leader
Philip Rolfes
@PhilipRolfes552
Leader
View Profile
3d
She can recall the number of beers she consumed but she cant recall the date or place?
Such a traumatic event and yet she did not tell police, parents?
Reply
Share
78
Likes
roc993
Leader
Philip Rolfes
3d
Somewhere in Maryland :-) "Good luck disproving my story!"
Reply
Share
23
Likes
Mason Williams
Philip Rolfes
3d
Very easy to see why she didnt tell as a 15 year old. But I agree with the rest of your
statement.
Reply
Share
9
Likes
Philip Rolfes
Leader
Mason Williams
3d
If she was honestly assaulted by him in 1982 she should of come forward then if nothing
more to remove the danger to other girls and women.
alan wong
Leader
3d
Edited
OMG. Feinstein not only cheapened the meaning of rape. She cheapened our Constitution. Shame
on her. What is fair about this process. Feinstein weaponized rape. Shameless!!
alan wong
Leader
3d
Edited
This is the same Senator that hired a spy and employed him for decades because she and
hiusband enriched themselves from China. Shameless!! Hey Senator Feinstein those women you
mentioned are not credible. Even NY Times are doubtful. I hope Kavanaugh's children are not
watching this tawdry hearing.
Reply
Share
11
Likes
Le Modele Francais
Leader
alan wong
2d
I hope Kavanaugh's family retains competent council and sues a mess of people into
bankruptcy...
roc993
Leader
3d
She talks and handles herself like a 20-year-old valley girl. She's what, 50+?
I for one see her as a political operative, may be crusader for abortions right (which I
support) and very troubled human being, possibly on antidepressants or something similar (her
facial expression, and kind of "permanently glued smile" are not natural at all and she looks
like a female of over 60 biological age while being 51 years old)
Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure." And his former colleague, James
Comey, has urged investigators to "dig deeper."
So begin at the beginning of her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony :
" I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couple's counseling
session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very
extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that
he and others disagreed with and could not understand.
In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in
detail."
Under questioning
from Sen. Diane Feinstein, Ford described an agonizing after-effect of the alleged Kavanaugh
attack that caused her to demand that second door :
"Anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I've been coping
with," Ford said. "More specially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."
FEINSTEIN: "Is that the reason for the second front door? Claustrophobia?"
FORD: "Correct."
The trade-off, apparently, was evident in Ford's statement that "our house does not look
aesthetically pleasing from the curb." From the view on Google Earth, or Redfin, one can't see
the second door easily and the house appears no uglier "from the curb" than it ever did, if it
did. But a glance at the real estate databases about Ford's house are instructive.
The Fords bought the house on June 20, 2007. And the "very extensive, very long remodel,"
including the second front door, were completed under a building permit granted in 2008.
So a natural question is why, four years after the remodeling, which also added two rooms
and a bathroom, is the installation of that second door still such a bone of contention between
the couple that it was an issue in the counseling they were undergoing in May 2012?
One key may be Ford's continuing testimony to Feinstein, after describing the aesthetic
difficulties "from the curb."
FEINSTEIN: "I see. And do you have that second front door?"
FORD: "Yes."
FEINSTEIN: "It "
FORD: "It - it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we
get to have - other students can live there."
Now that she mentions it, the additional remodeling in effect added a self-contained unit to
the house, with its own entrance, perfect for "hosting" or even possibly renting, in violation
of the local zoning . Perhaps a
professional office might be a perfect use, if an illegal one. And in the tight Palo Alto real
estate market, there are a lot of games played for some serious income.
And that may
answer another strange anomaly.
Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what
is now the Ford property . It is listed as this person's residence from 1993 to July 2007, a
week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.
Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed
practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in
2007.
Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a
talented artist as well.
But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall's address listed at what is now the
Ford residence.
Which raises other questions.
Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive
about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can't seem to recall much
about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the
therapist's summary? Who was the psychologist?
In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back
how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would
not answer yes or no, replying, "I am a couples therapist."
So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting her
terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the
second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for
the primary resident, how did the door's existence ameliorate Ford's professed
claustrophobia?
None of this means that her charges against Kavanaugh might not be perfectly valid, but her
explanation for the "second door" looks like it could use more investigation. At the very least
it appears to be a far more complicated element of Ford's credibility than it originally
appeared.
lulu34 , 3 minutes ago
It's a simple property tax scheme. Rent out the spacw to offset the taxes. You don't
report this income to the "authorities".
hannah , 22 minutes ago
first...******* NO ONE STATES THAT THERE ISNT EVEN A DOCTOR MUCH LESS THEIR NOTES...?
everyone wants to see the doctors notes yet no one has even mentioned the name of the doctor.
i dont think there are notes about a door. that is all ********. feinsteins people typed up
'the notes'.......also if she is renting the remodel area is she paying taxes on that income.
in california it could be $24,000 to $48,000 a year easily........
lulu34 , 2 minutes ago
Bingo...it's a cost $$$ collection to offset property taxes
Automatic Choke , 34 minutes ago
Illegal and unzoned apartment added to a house? Watch out, here comes the tax collector.
She just might have talked her way into a tax fraud conviction.
Seal Team 6 , 47 minutes ago
Randall ran a business from her home so I would wonder if she put the door in in the 90s,
as businesses run from homes typically have alternate entrances. Ford and husband listed it
on the permit in 2007 to cover it up otherwise it could be used as a basis to walk on a real
estate deal...no building permit was granted. Happens all the time. Boy if someone has a
picture of Ford's house from the 90's and see's that second door, she is done done done.
"... " The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles ..."
"... "The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive." ..."
"... Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system? ..."
" The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class
in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to
spoils and not to principles ."
(The Socialist Party and the Working Class". Eugene V. Debs' opening speech as Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in
Indianapolis, Indiana, www.marxists.org . September 1, 1904. )
I haven't paid any attention to the "Kavanaugh hearings" other than reading some headlines and some comments here and there. It's
not that I don't care about the Supreme Court, although my paying attention to this bullshit won't change a damn thing, it's more
that the entire spectacle of watching this country's political system in action, with or without sex crime accusations, makes me
sick.
I'm writing this because I clicked on an article titled,
"More Like a
Hijacking Than A Democracy, Senator Graham" because the reference to democracy interested me (we don't live in one for the ten
thousandth time). I scanned the article, which has a photo of Lindsey Graham and some suits against a wood grained background of
political importance, and saw it contained information about the process and system being followed by the oligarchy controlled duopoly.
At this point in my life, I'm adamantly against having a "Supreme" court with nine One Percenter assholes appointed for LIFE by
the duopoly unrepresentatives having the power of life, death or misery over hundreds of millions of people, and beyond when it comes
down to it. What bullshit. As with everything else in our national political system, the system and process has become so warped,
corrupt, partisan and ideological it's pathetic.
Plenty of people are asking why the process is unfolding the way it is, with the sex allegations as the focal point, but very
few are asking why we have a system like this at all. Why do we need this? Who and what is this for? Aren't there better options?
Why are we letting all these assholes do this to us? WHY do we let the corrupt and oligarchy controlled democratic and republican
parties completely control this process? In the end, isn't this just another example of how fucked up our political system is at
the national level?
"The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics
Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni
people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive."
Kind of the same old, same old Paul. I think the real question is why can't enough of us organize together to challenge those that
rule us. I mean really challenge, like revolution type challenge. Overthrow these motherfuckers type challenge. This isn't new. Look
at that Debs quote, 1904. Nothing is new, we keep doing the same shit over and over. Maybe that's just the way it is, but then again,
we're smarter than that aren't we? Why aren't more people calling for/demanding radical change to our fucked up political system
completely controlled by the rich? Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering
how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system?
They're doing all this shit and then we're going to have another election. Shit.
The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to
face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and
wrong.
Kavanaugh's career as
a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security
state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have
provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the
domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of
these.
Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately
aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an
era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong
nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps
the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political
activist.
The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture
A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet
activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough
enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance
as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the
Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the
government to conduct searches.
Kavanaugh
explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy
occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should
have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the
court.
Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the
power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people.
He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for
broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views
on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible
way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search
without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump
out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the
wrong nominee and should be disqualified.
Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US
and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as
a justice but
should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who
once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than
waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting
prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of
torture.
Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so
Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006
confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about
Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to
the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed
Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear
now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush
Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the
controversial Haynes nomination."
Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with
Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the
documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are
rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions
about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of
perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being
confirmed.
This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal
Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and
as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been
complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone
accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.
Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop
this nomination?
Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet
In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader
describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of
federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and
planet.
This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored
reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled
in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against
protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water.
If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the
damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.
Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of
anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruledin favor of the Trump Organizatio
n throwing out the results of a union election,
sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the
casino's First Amendment
right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which
they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate
the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed
Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the
right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and
mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.
Kavanough
opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality,
which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality
violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the
power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a
free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the
Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a
very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges
the mainstream narrative.
Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the
Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to
regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.
On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the
use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where
Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth
control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free
exercise of religion.
Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to
resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial
chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing
women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.
Multiple accusers
have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify
– it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by
the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI
investigation. It is unclear
whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses.
As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St.
Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director
Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After
graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush
Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"
Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader
suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating
evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.
During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they
were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He
demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to
serve on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral
arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying,
torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and
corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted,
but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process
undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.
The potential payoff is exaggerated. There's nothing stopping a lame-duck Senate ramming
an equally-conservative alternative justice through before they're gone. The SCOTUS payoff is
for seating someone like Kav , not for seating Kav. The payoff for seating Kav is
far narrower. And the seating of a Kav-or-equivalent justice ahead of the election is
an entirely and unevaluated different matter
What are the odds? No, the question should be: what are the ends?
cian 09.26.18 at 7:41 pm (no link)
More on Anita Hill:
"But conservative members of the State Legislature, led by Representative Leonard E.
Sullivan, a Republican from Oklahoma City, have called Professor Hill a perjurer, said she
should be in prison, demanded her resignation, tried to cut off matching money for the
professorship and introduced legislation to shut down the law school."
Post-Thomas, nobody made any claims of sexual misconduct, true or false, against Stephen
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Harriet Meyers, Sonia Sotomayor, or
Elena Kagan (though there were some whispers about matters that, in decent circles, don't
count as "misconduct"). Let's add in perhaps the only people who have a higher profile than
Supreme Court nominees: No one made any claims of sexual misconduct against Al Gore, George
H.W. Bush, whoever-the-hell was his VP candidate, Bob Dole, whoever-the-hell was his VP
candidate, Joe Lieberman, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom
Kaine, or Mike Pence. There were claims of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton, John
Edwards, and Donald trump, but they were true. It just doesn't look s if claims of sexual
misconduct, true or false, are that likely.
@Rational It seems to me that the FBI investigation should include an investigation of
who leaked the Ford information, over her stated objections.
On the other hand, the Dems were VERY interested in having the FBI do a further
investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, the same FBI that got a FISA warrant to "wiretap" Trump
under false pretenses. Can we really be sure that there aren't arrangements already in place
to frame Kavanaugh?
Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure."
national treasure
Is CLEARLY a code word.
Payoff? Bribe?
silverserfer , 22 minutes ago
Creepy as **** that a former CIA diector would say soemthing like this.
surf@jm , 18 minutes ago
Fords father was CIA....
Dont forget that.....
thebigunit , 42 minutes ago
Very curious.
So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting
her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances?
What I find MOST curious is the fact that Dr. Ford's internet persona has been completely
"sanitized".
Someday, the master conspiracy will be revealed, and it will look something like this:
The main plotter and organizer of the anti-Trump coup d'etat was former CIA director
John O. Brennan.
Venture capital funding for Google was provided by CIA venture capital operation
In-Q-Tel.
Google was started by Stanford University grad students Larry Page and Sergey
Brin.
Stanford University is located in Palo Alto, California
Palo Alto is a company town for Stanford University
Stanford University is a captive technology incubator for the CIA
One of the biggest technology companies in Palo Alto is CIA contractor Palantir
Palo Alto is a company town for the CIA.
Dr. Christine Baseley Ford was a professor at Palo Alto University and also taught at
Stanford University.
Overy 1750 Stanford University graduates work at Google.
The CIA developed the plan to take out Judge Kavanaugh using radical feminist
operatives associated with Stanford University and Stanford Law School to claim sexual
misconduct.
The CIA used its control of the technology industry and Google in particular to
sanitize Christine Ford's internet personna and to obscure or suppress any information that
might disclose her radical history and associations.
The CIA, Stanford, and Google are joined at the hip.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
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.
