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
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.
Deschutes says:
September 29, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT 400 Words John Derbyshire – another shitty,
adolescent article from the angry white conservative man child who blames everybody whose not
white and male for his own failings and problems. The way you portray women in this article
reveals a man child who never matured beyond 16 years of age. It is little wonder you portray
women as nothing more than angry children's book characters who vomit if they don't get their
way: a man child can't see it any other way. Not once in this diatribe do you mention abortion
rights. It never occurred to you that losing abortion rights might piss off some women. If
Kavanaugh is put on the court, abortion will be made illegal in USA. Debryshire, you remind me
Jeff Sessions: you're a couple of bookends from the 1940s. Same racist mind set, same 'war on
drugs' reactionary bullshit, same 'women belong in the kitchen' nonsense etc. What's more,
anybody who actually likes Lindsey Graham is a total complete asshole. There is nothing to like
in that self-righteous reactionary, war criminal piece of shit from the Old South. If you've
enjoyed the last 17 years of wars without end and the wretched 'war on terror' and all that has
come to pass since 9-11, then Lindsey Graham is your man. Like McCain, he never saw a war he
didn't love starting. And watching Graham's temper tantrum meltdown in the congressional
hearings the other day made for rather uncomfortable viewing, like watching a 5 year old in a
toy store who didn't get his GI Joe doll. Since when is losing your temper, foaming at the
mouth and screaming at the entire caucus because you are not getting your way acceptable
behavior? It isn't. But it is a sure sign of a person who is a total, complete egotistical
asshole. I always hated Scalia, and was really happy when he died. That Obama and the dems were
too spineless to stick a replacement on the bench when they had the chance only reinforced my
total lack of respect for the dems. The tragedy in waiting was that now we will have a
reactionary conservative majority scotus headed by Kavanaugh, and abortion will be made
illegal; more laws passed to favor giant corporations like Citizens United; more anti-worker
legislation passed; more war and more police state measures domestically: that's your
Trump/Kavanaugh/Lindsay Graham/John Derbyshire shit stain USA coming yer way!
@Deschutes Ah, ah, the main issue here is not where Kavanaugh will stand on abortion laws
but whether the campaign of slander against him could have any possible truth.
The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the
helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have
traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago. Well, where on earth
was she all these years? She ended up with a Ph.D. in psychology so she could not have been
ignorant of laws and remedies surrounding rape and attempted rape through her years in
university. Where was her "great courage" all these years? A tad too much of a coincidence
this, her finding her memories and courage right on the eve of Kavanaugh's proposed
appointment. Kavanaugh may or may not be a good choice for the Supreme Court; opinions can
differ legitimately. But putting him on a show-trial where he comes out looking unclean no
matter what is a travesty of natural justice and a grave injury to common decency and common
sense.
@anon I know all of this woman-howling is covering up his role in the Vince Foster
'suicide' making him a George HW Bush CIA (Iran-Contra, cocaine trafficking) lap-dog. Oh, and
he ruled the USA can kidnap American citizens abroad and hold them at black sites
Kavanaugh hearings are just another episode of bad political theater.
Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him,
always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.
I find the charge that Kavanaugh was acting like a spoiled baby because he defended himself
outrageously shabby and undeserved.
So, trying to defend himself against the utter devastation of his character and reputation
is considered petulant? Absolutely not! He defiantly denied the allegations most indignantly
after Democrats made him and his family their outhouse floormat on which they continuously
wiped their feet. Instead of trying to defend his honor, his family, and his life, I guess he
was supposed to take it with groveling submission and withdraw his name in humiliation? To
the chagrin of the left he did not. He called Democrats out for what is patently obvious to
anyone with a thinking brain, this was a carefully orchestrated political hit job and he was
spot on in leveling the indictment.
As for Dr. Ford? I found her not credible. Her allegations were just plausible enough to
smear Kavanaugh, but Kafkaesque enough to deny the possibility of any exculpatory evidence to
clear Kavanaugh. Wouldn't it be nice if we could question the driver who took her home? They
could testify as to her state of mind, the location of the house, possibly the time, and
date. Or did she walk? She left without warning her best friend she could be in danger? Did
her sudden exit raise eyebrows? She remembers how many beers she had but not the house she
was drinking in? Was there not a down stairs bathroom? If you're going to put the mark of
Cain on somebody, you had better have something damn more credible than just a free-floating
assault story, because the bare allegation itself is not proof of truth no matter how
believable she tells it after thirty years.
And there are other troubling inconsistencies. She seemed confused by some of Ms.
Mitchell's questions. She could not arrive in Washington earlier in the week because she said
she had a fear of flying, but she flew to Washington and flies all the time. It's clear that
she was being heavily managed by her liberal handlers. She wasn't even told that Grassley had
proffered to come to her in California to take her statement. Of course, this would have
upset the objective to delay as long as possible. Her own witnesses cannot corroborate her
story. We can't check the veracity of her questionable lie detector test because her lawyers
won't cooperate in turning over any recordings. She supposedly turned over her medical
records to the WP, but refused to make them available to the Judiciary Committee. Just out of
curiosity, what PhD doesn't know the meaning of "exculpatory?" What PhD doesn't know how to
get in touch with her elected representatives? Meanwhile her social media accounts have been
scrubbed So we can't see the true extent of her political activism. A proper FBI
investigation of these allegations could have been done in due time had not Feinstein been up
to her skullduggery.
Now that they have their one week FBI investigation, look for the goalposts to move yet
again. Only an anencephalic would be fooled into thinking Democrats are operating in good
faith.
As someone (male) who has helped victims of sexual crimes, I did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's
accusation to be credible, nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation
will never reach the level of a charge because it lacks basic evidence. Further, the
accusator's tale remains just that without a proper interrogation. For instance, it is
improper to assume that Ms. Blasey Ford's demeanor is evidence of her "truth". Sure, she may
be convincing to a naive person, but how often have we been convinced by a sincere victim,
only to find out later that the accused was innocent?
The facts are:
At best Ms. Blasey Ford is a willing stooge, at worst she is a co-conspirator in a
political scheme to destroy the nomination of an innocent man to be a SC Justice. It is she
and her Dem. allies who need to be investigated.
All this could have been avoided if they had gotten the FBI to investigate from day 1. The
investigatin should be conducted by professionals not by amateur cops and lawyers who learned
it from TV. That would keep the theorizing at bay "We are waiting for their findings" is the
kind of response that does not raise hackles.
It would take a bit more time, of course, but it would not turn into a three ring
circus.
The greatest irony is that all those indignant Democratic Senators voted to return alleged
serial rapist and sexual predator, Billy Jeff Clinton, and his enabling wife, Hillary, to the
White House.
Like commenter Randy S Williams I "did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation to be credible,
nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation will never reach the level of
a charge because it lacks basic evidence."
Victor Davis Hanson (National Review, Sept 28) gives this succinct summary of the Ford
testimony: "The "process" of memorializing Ford's testimony involved a strange inversion of
constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate
testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity;
the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated
to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered
proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant;
the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state's investigation of the allegations; and
the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar
allegations."
The endless sympathy, empathy, claims of "sincerity", given to Dr. Ford are mystifying to me.
What, if anything, ever happened to her I don't know, but the possibility that NOTHING of
this nature, a sexual assault, has ever happened to her is certainly not one I can rule out,
and, as a adult woman, a citizen in this republic, that she should be showered with so many
calls of "respect", and hosannas to her "bravery" is bizarre and inexplicable. She has
PERMANENTLY damaged, irrevocably, the reputation, up to now a sterling one, of a sitting
United States federal judge with this reckless allegation of criminality of the most serious
sort. She has no sympathy from me whatsoever, no matter what her motives were, which I care
not at this point after watching such a sickening display of politically-motivated character
assassination in America.
Sure, concentrate entirely on the Democrats. Republicans are the soul of honor in this. They
know that former drunken frat boys have to stick together.
Here and there, but certainly not here at TAC, one can find posts which actually state
what is wrong with both sides in this typically American bipartisan idiocy. Here is one
--
Personally, I don't care a hoot who Americans appoint to their Supreme Court but the
political game is amusing to watch. Clearly, the target is Trump and the prize is the
midterms but what's amusing is that the Republicans have left themselves no choice but to
shoot themselves in the foot. The only choice being which foot they're going to shoot
themselves in! If they confirm Kavanaugh, they will alienate middle-of-road swing voters. If
they fail to confirm him, they will alienate Trump's core supporters. The latter aren't all
that numerous. Trump got only about 25% of the registered electorate in 2016 and part of that
will have been Republican loyalists. The loss of either of those groups could swing the
election. Trump needs a massive "October surprise" to overcome that and another "I'll
denuclearize when you do" meeting with Kim Jong-un will hardly surprise anyone. A war,
perhaps?
It is hard to believe that the shy, shrinking violet, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, could stand
before students at Stanford and Palo Alto and teach them. She came off as a case of arrested
development, hiding behind oversized glasses, like a 6th grade girl, so demure, timid, and
afraid of flying. Give me a break! She deserves an academy award for that performance!
For the Republicans and Trump to buy into her little act makes me gag.
@33 Jerry Springer and politics, true, and I'm glad we're finally getting to the nub of your
pieces: politics – and the mid-terms?
Meanwhile, I did a little more background reading on the latest round of accusations.
Witness number 2 confirms that BK was an obnoxious drunk at Yale, and very much a "man's man"
in the infantile sense of the expression. From CNN
"James Roche, Kavanaugh's roommate in the Fall 1983, also issued a statement saying that
Kavanaugh was a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time."
"(H)e became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk," Roche said.
One classmate who attended many of the same parties as Brett Kavanaugh but did not want to
be identified, says he was "aggressive, obnoxious drunk, part of the crowd he hung out
with."
Roche added that he became close friends with Ramirez in the early days at Yale and while
he "did not observe the specific incident in question," he did remember "Brett frequently
drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."
BK whipped out his male parts on at least one occasion, seems hopelessly immature, and
could be grabby and inappropriate. First time I've heard of that kind of behavior, ahem.
My own narrow experiences in this community as a youth were limited to middle-school
athletics. Members of the rugby team liked to pull down their pants when drunk. Even at
sixteen I could see that kind of behavior wasn't going to lead me to the promised land. That
said, after migrating into a much more mixed community, I distinctly recall being dragged
into a totally dark bedroom at a party and thrown down onto a bed in a manner quite different
to Ms. Ford. Lines blurred. I've known a number of women who owned to intimate contact with
two or more partners in an evening in high school and after, and who are now successful
parents and hold good jobs. People do grow and change.
Yet, it's clear BK and I would never have been at the same parties, but I'm not sure I've
read anything that makes him a sexual predator, (a charge you withdrew), or guilty of rape.
He seems guilty of nothing more than being an asshole to both girls and boys as a high-school
student, and an entitled and ugly drunk at Yale.
Rob
Holston Rachel Mitchell failed to cross examine properly.
Dr Ford gave credible testimony in her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and was seemingly
made more credible by an almost non-existent cross examination by Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell had
many failures but I'll just mention a couple. Dr. Ford testified that her life was so disrupted
after the alleged "attack" on her that she had a very difficult time with her first two years
of college. Here is where Mitchell dropped the ball. She had no idea of where the ball was, how
to pick it up or which direction to run with it.
Her immediate line of question should have been:
What grades did you earn in math, science, english, history during your freshman year in
high school. What was your freshman GPA. Could you please tell me the same answers for your
sophomore year? Your junior year? Your senior year? If the attack happened as you allege,
wouldn't your GPA in high school take a drop during your junior and senior year?
Of course I would recommend that Mitchell would know the answers before asking the
questions. The point is IF the attack happened as alleged between Ford's sophomore and junior
year then one would expect a dramatic change in her academic and social life during her junior
and senior years, NOT 3 & 4 years after the alleged attack. And IF Ford's GPA and social
life in high school DID make a dramatic change after the next two years, Ford should be able to
present teachers and high school classmates to testify as as to Ford's dramatic change IN HIGH
SCHOOL not 3-4 years latter in college.
Another line of questioning should have been questioning Ford's drinking habits: When did
you begin attending parties with boys and drinking beer. Did you ever drink to excess? Did YOU
ever drink so much that YOU didn't remember much about the previous night's party? Did your
drinking habits increase through the years? What years of your life has your drinking of beer
been the greatest. Were your drinking habits perhaps responsible for your failure at college
during your first two years?
I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford's testimony was NOT credible. It was in ways incredible, in
the positive meaning of the word. But I AM saying that Mitchell was obviously not the right
choice for the job of cross examination. Paul Dent I actually think Mitchell's questioning
was on the right track. She did not ask questions on the practiced lie, but rather on
peripheral details that the lying brain would not have stored in the hypothalamus. All of the
answers "I don't know" etc are proof that the main story is a big lie because it has no anchor
to surrounding realities. I would have loved to have asked how she dried her bathing suit after
swimimig
KCMark
Leader
2d
Mitchell's questioning was actually very good. She attacked Ford's credibility without
attacking her personally. Examples:
Ford alluded to a fear of flying caused by the alleged incident (PTSD), yet Mitchell
highlights how Ford has flown professionally any numerous times on vacation.
Mitchell demonstrated Ford's lack of recall when Ford could not remember if she
provided her therapist notes to the Washington Post.
Ford could not provide specifics in the polygraph test, and even had trouble recalling
the actual day.
Say It Ain't So
Johnny
Leader
Randall Dornier
2d
All this NEVER should have happened
It should have been dealt with weeks ago in private
This is a circus
And the democrat clown car was in full display
These are evil despicable clowns
Chuck Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Gillibrand ...... -evil, disgusting, skivey, rotten, despicable, CLOWNS!
RichardC
Leader
2d
Dershowitz has his strong opinions, and both the knowledge and experience to back them up.
That doesn't make him right in all cases, though. Would it have been better to push harder
and give Ford yet more sympathy? Would a different line of questioning have gotten her to be
more open? We will never know. All we really know now is that it is still an accusation
without supporting evidence.
Reply
Share
9
Likes
Say It Ain't So
Johnny
Leader
RichardC
2d
Calling for more investigation is nonsense
Tell you what though
The republicans better hire a private investigator to find out EVERYTHING about this accuser so that when the clown
democrats continue there are FACTS about what she has been doing for 30 years
Reply
Share
5
Likes
Wisconsin ex-Democrat
Leader
RichardC
2d
Agree that it was theater. But even if it was not, what 51 y.o. professional woman affects
a childish and sex-kittenish façade for any reason besides parody? And clearly, she was
not trying to present a parody of victimhood in this venue.
Then there is her appearance. A prudent, moderate lifestyle won't make you look ten years older than your chronological age,
no matter who your parents were.
Steve Scale
Leader
2d
But you are not allowed to question women. They are to be believed above all logic and
reason. Sic.
Reply
Share
8
Likes
Rumpelstilskin
Leader
2d
Edited
I thought Rachel Mitchell was effective in interviewing Ms. Blasey Ford. I'm not a lawyer,
but she was easy for me to follow, and she didn't offend anybody, and she stayed focused. I
felt like she disarmed Ms. Blasey Ford. I thought she got a lot more information out of her,
(in the time available) than the Republican Senators would have. (We saw how ineffective the
Democratic Senators were).
I felt sorry for Ms. Blasey Ford, she was a total mess.
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time,
not decades later. Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later,
but because real sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
If Blasey Ford was really attacked, she's in part responsible for the next attack,
having enabled it by her silence.
Not that, after the hearing, I believe she was really attacked.
Do you think the leadership of the Democrat Party care any more for women than Trump?
The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding
the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement
in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have
been sealed. Why?
Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.
The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding
the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement
in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have
been sealed. Why?
Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.
This of course is the way the whole "elite" in the Democratic Party is behaving towards
Russia in the accusations of interference in the 2016 election. The dozens of "sanctions" to
punish Russia for its alleged transgression are based on no real evidence. It is even more so
in the completely fabricated story of the Skripal poisonings in the UK, where no evidence has
been presented which would have any chance of standing up in a court, and the punishments
have been inflicted in droves on the "guilty party" which "everyone knows" is at fault.
Innocent until proven guilty????not in the 21st century, it seems.
backwardsevolution , September 26, 2018 at 11:26 pm
I don't even know what to say. Do we no longer believe in the presumption of
innocence?
"When political animus spills over into action in the real world such as repeated criminal
assault, as has been happening now with regularity and is being increasingly documented in
video form and in their own voices by the political left, there is a major problem.
When that sort of activity is intentionally amplified and permitted by major corporate
firms such as Facebook and Twitter while suppressing any sort of pushback whatsoever, you now
add an attempt to con the public into believing this is some sort of 'organic' series of
events -- when nothing of the sort is the case.
When Chuck Schumer states on CSPAN that "There is no presumption of innocence", then the
Rule of Law and due process are both dead and he is inviting, provoking and in fact inciting
civil war.
The conduct alleged is criminal; whenever one makes such an allegation due process rights
attach. If one cannot find recourse in due process before the law, then the only remaining
recourse is to the law of the jungle.
There are also those (Hirono) who have gone even further and stated that Kavanaugh is
presumed guilty because she does not like his written judicial opinions. This is exactly
identical to the Salem witch trials where one was presumed a witch because they had a black
cat and were unmarried, which certain people found 'distasteful'.
The media, specifically but not exclusively CNN, is even worse -- they are intentionally
lying and when the civil war they are inciting comes they are and should be first on the list
of parties held responsible for the outcome.
As just one example, in the context of Ramirez they have intentionally lied about the fact
that her attorneys have ignored and deflected seven separate attempts to obtain some sort of
formal statement of facts and allegations made under penalty of perjury; instead her
attorneys continue to insist on a trial in the media where there is no penalty for outright
lies. Why is this?"
What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?
Ford is a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. A
biostatistician, she "specializes in the design and analysis of clinical trials and other forms
of intervention evaluation,"
according to the university .
Her work has also been published in several academic journals, covering topics such as 9/11
and child abuse.
Ford has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, according to a
Holton-Arms' alumni magazine, the Bethesda, Maryland, school from where she graduated,
The Wall Street Journal reported . She teaches at both schools in consortium, according to
the newspaper.
The magazine also noted she is an "avid surfer, and she and her family spend a great deal of
time surfing in the Santa Cruz and San Francisco areas."
Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged
assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. During therapy, he said his wife talked
about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned
her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.
He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh's name. She said during the
session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme
Court.
Ford provided a copy of the therapist's notes to The Washington Post, which detailed her
recollection of being assaulted by young men "from an elitist boys' school" who would become
"highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."
Additional notes from a later therapy session said she discussed a "rape attempt" that
occurred when she was a teenager, The Washington Post reported. Ford is a registered Democrat
who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington
Post.
She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive
candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Once it was clear that Kavanaugh was President Trump's pick to replace retired
Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Ford contacted The Washington Post's tip
line, according to the newspaper.
She also contacted her representative in Congress, Democrat Anna Eshoo. She sent a letter to
Eshoo's office about the allegations that was passed onto Feinstein.
After she retained the services of Debra Katz, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, she
took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. According to the results shared
with The Washington Post, the test concluded that Ford was being honest.
(1) Kavanaugh is telling the truth and Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are lying.
(2) Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying.
Of course with four witnesses testifying there are many other possibilities, but I don't
think anyone here (me included) has patience for more than two hypotheticals.
Which of (1) or (2) one believes is largely subjective, the outcome of a life's worth of
cognitive experience. Myself, based on the balance of probabilities, Occam's Razor,
yesterday's testimony, and my personal political biases, I go with (2). Many others here go
with (1); I don't have a problem with that, individuals' beliefs cannot be adjudicated.
I think the problem is the people in general and the political sphere in particular have
never come to terms with unresolvable doubt. We may never know "beyond a reasonable doubt"
which of (1) or (2) is closer to the truth, and yet we must make a decision soon on whether
Kavanaugh should be appointed to the SC.
But it is not necessary for those who believe (x) to demonize those who believe (y).
Frank , September 28, 2018 at 3:22 pm
Andrew,
I agree with you about the need to stop demonizing friends and neighbors because they
disagree with us. I don't agree with your other point. There is actually quite a bit of
evidence out there already. Trained investigators face the problem of older evidence all the
time. Although the FBI does not have a good record with regards to objective and depolitized
work, I do think it is possible for them to reach a conclusion about who is telling the truth
here. Whether they will do an honest investigation is an open question for me, but they could
do one and we would have a well reasoned conclusion.
Realist , September 29, 2018 at 4:30 am
So, you say there are basically two possibilities with no way to objectively decide
between them.
What consequences should therefore follow from such uncertainty?
1. Destroy the man's career and reputation because???? Or
2. Ignore this undecidable issue with respect to his qualifications and appointment?
Now, which makes more sense and is closer to an approximation of justice?
Punish a potentially innocent man for??? Or
As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one
innocent be punished?
Miranda M Keefe , September 29, 2018 at 6:38 am
"As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one
innocent be punished?"
Uh, if he is not confirmed to SCOTUS he will go free. This is a job interview, not a
criminal trial.
Realist , September 29, 2018 at 9:49 am
Really, it's more than that. It's an attempted character assassination to achieve a
political goal. Don't pretend otherwise. Moreover, it's still a form of punishment to have
his reputation ruined even if he is confirmed.
Kim , September 29, 2018 at 10:30 am
What your equation ignores here is the harm to others that would ensue were the guilty man
to be free to impose his warped views on the nation's justice system.
Andrew Dabrowski , September 29, 2018 at 11:26 am
There are multiple evidentiary standards used in different contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
In the US, criminal cases use that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil cases the
standard is preponderance of evidence. That was why OJ Simpson could be held liable in the
civil case after having been acquitted in the criminal one.
Confirmation hearings seem much more akin to a civil case than to a criminal one; in fact
even less is at stake here than at many civil trials, where multi-million dollar penalties
are often sought. So I believe the correct standard should be preponderance of evidence, if
not an even weaker one.
You are so soaked in Rachel Maddow type kool-aide it is probably pointless to post this
for you but I will for others to read.
It is astounding to try to tie Russia and Putin as behind every perceived wrong in the world
,they ARE two separate things ya' know as in Trump is not America. However he does represent
it but with mask off, no charming words unlike Obama who spoke so well while bringing about
the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Libya or funding terrorists in an attempt at
another regime change so the U, UK and France can't loot the resources.
i guess you missed this "On Tuesday of this week, in a story that's almost impossible to
find anywhere, Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, agreed to cave in to Republican majority
leader Mitch McConnell so that they could fast-track 11 of the pro-corporate, anti-consumer
judges that Republicans are wanting to ram through the courts, or through the nomination
confirmation process, before the midterm elections. This is why people get mad at the DNC,
and the establishment Democrats, and at the Democratic Party itself in general. There was no
reason whatsoever for the Democrats to cave on this issue, none." https://trofire.com/2018/08/31/democrats-cave-agree-to-fast-track-trumps-corporate-judges/
I agree with your statement that "[the FBI] will try to figure out what will best serve
their interests. I believe in Michael Avenatti, however, and that he and his client will
prove to be Kavanaugh's undoing.
backwardsevolution , September 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Diana – Ms. Ford WAS NOT RAPED. She was GROPED.
If the incident occurred at all, could it have been done in jest? Ms. Ford, by her own
admission, said that the two guys who did this were maniacally laughing and very
intoxicated.
The groping probably lasted for all of about one second before the other boy jumped on top
of them, and they all fell off onto the floor, laughing. There appears to have been no
"seriousness" involved here.
Ms. Ford was not challenged at the hearing. In fact, Ms. Mitchell, the prosecutor brought
in specially to question her at the hearing, specifically said that she would not be asking
her about the allegations at all, and she didn't. What? She should have been strenuously
challenged.
The only things Ms. Mitchell brought out were:
– she established a potential political bias
– she established that even though the hearing was held up from Monday until
Thursday because Ms. Ford stated she was afraid to fly and needed more time to get to the
hearing, this turned out to be a lie. Ms. Ford DID fly.
Ms. Ford was not challenged. I say bring her back and put her under some serious
cross-examination.
"If he is rejected -- although his confirmation seems to be a substantial likelihood at this
point -- my only disappointment will be that Democrats think they won."
Illya's post on job interview vs. criminal standard is good
I respectfully disagree. Illya's post is naïve because the key problem with
this nomination is that it tips the scale in the Supreme Court. That's why we see torture
supporting female senator assaulting torture supporting nominee and rebuffed by the best friend
of Senator John McCain.
But I agree that the discussion is good and illustrate various point that are missing from
this thread, especially the fact that this creates a new standard that Dems will now face, if
they have a chance to nominate a new member of Supreme Court. They might regret about
elimination of filibuster. Now it is about vicious attacks in the personally of the nominee
with no stone unturned in his/her personal history.
I will provide some interesting quotes below. Not that I agree with them all (I would like
Kavanaugh to be derailed due to his participation in justifying torture in Bush II
administration)
No, but this isn't a job interview. A better analogy would be more like a TV interview. If
the interviewer is reasonably fair and asks sensible questions, it would be foolish to get
angry with him / her. But if the interviewer is obviously biased, asks loaded questions,
constantly interrupts your answers, and paraphrases your answers into the opposite of what
you said, then rather than sit and take it meekly, it may be more sensible to push back and
call the interviewer out.
Senators and Congesscritturs in committees have been allowed to get away with the pretense
that they are owed deference for their showboating and that people up before them must meekly
submit to the most egregious abuse. A nominee who tells them where to get off, in no
uncertain terms, is very welcome.
Miguel Estrada's comment that he would never accept a nomination because it might require
him to be civil to Chuck Schumer is one way out. The other is to accept the nomination and
forget about being civil to people like Schumer.
The discussion also raised the importance of the fact that the supposed assault
was reported so late and that there is a possibility that 2012 therapist session served as a
justification of creating a separate entrance to the master bedroom in order to rent it to Dr.
Ford students, the hypothesis that is now circulating at alt-right sites:
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time, not decades later.
Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later, but because real
sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
Another interesting point is that the potential benefits for Dr. Ford create a
perverse incentive in the future to come forward with false accusations with the expectation of
a huge monetary reward from "Me too" funding sources :
"I'm becoming convinced the only thing that will actually deter such unsupported accusations,
is to abolish the "public figure" rule for libel. Blasey Ford is already better than a half
million dollars richer having made this accusation, and faces a future of lucrative speaking
fees and possibly even a movie. And having carefully avoided any claims specific enough to be
proven false, she has no need to fear perjury charges."
"As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether
the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the
Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will
ask that of Christine Blasey Ford "
That's right: "No one will ask that of Christine Blasey Ford."
But why will no one ask that of her?
She knew that her accusation had the potential -- no, the certainty -- of tainting forever
the good name and the good reputation of another human being. But she was still willing to go
forward with her accusation.
And that's all there was, and all there is: Her accusation. To this day there is no
corroborating evidence. None. As Peter Van Buren lays it out:
"Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been
refuted by everyone she said was present at the party Ford admitted not remembering specifics
that could have formed the basis of exculpation, including how she got home from the party,
that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's condition and thus support or weaken her
story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged assault, Ford did not allow for
Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact couldn't say where they both
were supposed to be to begin with, apart from 'a suburban Maryland house'."
Again, there is only her accusation. There is no corroborating evidence at all.
Regardless of whether Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Ms. Ford's
accusation has tainted Judge Kavanaugh's good name and his reputation -- forever.
How does Ms. Ford get away with making an entirely unsubstantiated accusation that forever
taints a man's good name and his good reputation – yet not herself have to answer the
accusation that she is lying? Because the accusation that should be made -- that Ms. Ford is
lying -- is well-substantiated.
I believe, in this country, when an accusation is made we follow the evidence. Sometimes the
crime cannot be proven. Yesterday's hearing showed two troubling facts that no one seems to
think much of but I believe they lend credence to the Democrats making this a political hit
jobrather than trying to get at the truth. Mrs. Ford said at the end she wished she could
have done this in California as she would have welcomed the committee. Well, Chairman
Grassley offered her attorneys' that option for her. Her attorneys also said they couldn't
make the Monday hearing because Mrs. Ford was afraid to fly and would have to drive to
Washington. Another lie as she flies often. So who were the attorneys really representing,
Mrs. Ford or the Democrat party?
A DC Wonk said: "There might be corroborating evidence. But GOP refused to ask the FBI to
re-open the investigation."
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC, Thurs, Sept 28) to Judge Kavanaugh: Did you meet with Senator
Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?
JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein
GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?
KAVANAUGH: I did not know that.
GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this -- allegations for over 20 days?
KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.
GRAHAM [turning to the Democratic members]: If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could
have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope
you win in 2020. You've said that, not me This is the most unethical sham since I've been in
politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done
what you've done to this guy.
"... There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences. ..."
Identity politics is going to get us all killed or worse.
CitizenOne , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 am
Transactional politics or the nomination or promotion of any entity which supports the
political ambitions of political leaders has become a replacement for deliberative
jurisprudence of the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of government under
the rule of the Republican Party. The entire force of the Republican Party has become
focused on supporting special interests with one goal which is the disestablishment of
government. The Constitution of the United States is despised by the leadership of the
Republican Party and their aim is to make The Constitution null and void like a bad check
bounced by the banks which declare our constitutional democracy is a debtor to be
foreclosed on.
Every effort from shutting down the government to anointing a plenary president with
extra-constitutional powers to end our system of laws and replace them with a president
with plenary or absolute authority hinges on preserving the current president and his
powers to dismantle the government and all of the constitutional law which preceded.
Make no mistake. We face a constitutional crisis where our president backed by
republicans will seek to permanently control the three branches of government for the
benefit of the wealthy and the money interests. The banks and the stock market and the
billionaires in industry, securities and high finance see an opportunity to wrap up control
of the government which is a long sought after goal using the current administration to
close the deal to end all social programs. But that is not their real intent.
Their real intent is to end government abolish the defense budget along with social
spending, collapse the government by abolishing the income tax and establishing themselves
as the rulers of the land by controlling all of the levers of power which they will use for
their personal gain. Does this mean they will diminish our ability to defend the nation?
Yes.
There is nothing but profit for themselves if they are able to do it. How better to
clean up if there is a war in which the economy is collapsed and the nation divided just
like the Great Depression where labor is forced into servitude for the preservation of the
nation and all monies flow to the wealthy defense contractors and the investors as the
entire nation is plunged into a new global war.
This is a very old plan. Render the nation defenseless and filled with ignorant
propagandized paupers and wait for the inevitable external threat to attack. Then the
populace will be willing to rise against the foreign threat and sign up for war to preserve
their "freedom".
Here is a suggestion. Use the power of the vote to get rid of these plutocrats because
they don't give a damn if you live or die and elect some politicians who care about
preserving our nation and its Constitution before it is too late. When the next financial
collapse comes as it will and has done before many times do not fall prey to the propaganda
that it is our Constitution and our system of laws and our system of justice which is to
blame but focus efforts on removing the billionaires who wield too much power in government
and in our supposed free press to be able to spin us all to the "fight for the right" and
have us fight their battles and die for their monetary gain.
Already we have failed and the propaganda is winning. We need to see our current
situation for the ancient monster of unbridled greed in search of power that it is and vote
to protect our democracy and its Constitution founded on the principle that everyone is in
charge of where we go from here.
Where we go from here is up to the populace of this free nation.
Blame republicans all day long and it won't change the fact that democrats are and have
been accomplices to it all and worse.
Obama had the only chance we had to correct it and did what?Let the bush criminal cabal
walk and legalized their crimes.Worse he expanded their crimes and wars and let the
criminal banks keep their loot and continue their crime spree.
And then we get Hillary?Who is worse?
Democrats long ago abandoned any pretense of caring about the country or working people
who they are supposed to represent.They don't even pretend anymore.
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two
moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and
Illinois and Wisconsin."
Chuck Schumer
And you wonder why we have Trump?
Republicans control both houses and 2/3rds of the states?
And you blame republicans?
Democrats love republicans rule.Its empirical since they even rule like republicans when
elected.
We even got Romneycare instead of single payer healthcare that 80% of Democrats
wanted.
There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in
office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by
some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I
see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences.
Aw man, McGovern went full SJW .but don't believe me, I'm an evil white male.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm
Marc – this is what I said further down the page:
"The Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship. Unbeknownst to the Left, the
Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and conquer – get women, blacks
and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't look our way, says the Deep State.
Look over there to that "white man".
The white man is the new villain in town.
The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil."
O Society – the Left – or the Democrats, if you want to call them that
– are playing Identity Politics. The mainstream media is almost exclusively pro-Left
(or pro-Democrat).
Their aim is to get everybody focused on blaming the "white man". It's all over the
media – have a listen. You'd be surprised at how many times the "white man" is being
blamed for everything wrong in the country.
I know the Republicans and the Democrats are joined in a single uniparty, but the
average person doesn't know that. They think they're are on the Left or the Right.
The Democrat side of the uniparty is playing up Identity Politics in order to drum up
campaign contributions and get votes and take everybody's eyes off Clinton, Comey, McCabe,
Strzok, Page – the criminals involved in conspiracy.
This Kavanaugh business is being used to hide what's going on behind the scenes –
the unraveling of the criminal conspiracy to oust the President of the United States.
Mustn't let the Democrat voters hear about that!
Don't look at the conspiracy; look over here at Kavanaugh, the "white man".
In America, people use the terms "Democrat" and "Liberal" and "Left-wing"
interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing.
But if they mean the same thing, why would we need 3 different words for the same thing?
That's redundant.
Is this pedantic or semantic or picky? Well, no.
No because Americans lack the words to say what is wrong. If we don't have the words to
say what is wrong with America, we have a difficult time thinking about it and fixing the
problems.
The Ds blame it on the Rs and the Rs blame it on the Ds.
They are both wrong.
The problem is both the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt. The politicians
pretend there is no other way except the D way and the R way. They are lying.
Here's an example of actual left-wing people (socialists) calling out the Democratic
party for being in bed with the CIA:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as
Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history."
It is understood by the Super Rich that it is in their interest to corrupt, control, and
purchase every important institution of our society and government. They have been busy
doing that from the founding of America, and they have by now nearly perfect control of all
our affairs. There remains only the struggles between competing Mafias for dominance. But
they remain united in the goal of stripping our country and it's citizens of everything
they can get their hands on, by whatever means are necessary. If we don't stop them, there
will be nothing left soon but a ravaged planet and it's murdered human population.
mike k , September 30, 2018 at 11:27 am
I fully approve of the nonviolent harassment of senator Rubio, and whitehouse
spokesperson Sarah Huckabee in restaurants and public places. I think these criminals
should be called out whenever they appear in public. Let them cower together in their gated
enclaves with others of their sickening kind. We need to let them know what we think of
them. The rich do not deserve the deference they seek from others. In light of their crimes
against humanity, they deserve only our contempt. If you see them in public, let them know
how you feel about their despicable actions.
Ditto Clinton's who stole the nomination and gave us Trump who looked decent next to
them.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:32 pm
Ditto Maxine Waters, who doesn't even live in her own constituency. Ditto Pelosi, Diane
Feinstein, Chuck Schumer. But it's interesting that only those on the Right get
targeted.
Mild -ly - Facetious , September 30, 2018 at 11:15 am
This link posted by O Society is a disturbing indicator of a dire American future.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:26 pm
ML – with respect, you must have known different girls in high school than I did.
The majority were nice, but there were some who would do "anything" to be popular, even if
that meant having sex with the jock. They were bragging rights. I remember hearing them in
class, "I slept with so and so," and then they'd giggle. Years later, maybe feeling guilty,
they want to blame the guy.
I also remember hearing, "So and so got her pregnant." I used to speak up and say,
"Unless she was raped against her will, she had a lot to do with it." The guy always got
the blame, though, and I could never figure that one out.
How about we all take responsibility for what we've done, the situations we've gotten
ourselves into, instead of blaming someone else.
In Ms. Ford's situation, we don't even know if what she is saying is true as she can't
remember details. Again, if it did happen, was it done in jest? Was it done to take her by
surprise and scare her, as teenage boys would do, with no intention of rape? What was she
doing upstairs to begin with? Why didn't she use the bathroom downstairs? Did she continue
going to parties after this occurred? So many questions, but unfortunately she was not
questioned at all about what happened.
Ms. Ford was responsible for having the hearing postponed from Monday until Thursday
because she needed time to get there as she was afraid to fly. Then we find out she flew,
and she apparently flies a lot.
The Judicial Committee offered to fly out to California (where she lives) in order to
interview her there (to save her from having to make the big drive). She did not inform the
Judicial Committee that she was already back East, had been for quite some time, and was
only a few hours away from Washington by car.
These last two paragraphs add up to lies or omissions. What else does?
"Dr. Ford's poignant story"– that's exactly what it is–a story, unless there
is evidence to back it up. Dr. Ford is definitely a good story teller.
ML , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Nancy, Dr. Ford is believable, credible, and I and millions of others believe her
recounting of what happened to her. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is telling the
truth about this lying, arrogant, belligerent misogynistic man. But what we all should be
focusing on as well as his bad character, are his judicial opinions meant to lay waste to
what is left of worker's rights, women's rights, not to mention his disregard for
environmental protections. His position that the executive branch is infallible and
untouchable is also a grave threat to the country. I am neither a Democrat nor a
Republican, for the record. I dislike very much, both diseased and rotten parties.
Whether she is credible, believable or that you and others believe her is irrelevant;
she has no evidence or corroborating witnesses!
I agree that there are many reasons to oppose Kavanaugh, but he is right– this
spectacle is a circus. It just serves to distract the population from the real issues
Just like Russiagate.
Sifting , October 1, 2018 at 1:53 pm
Why not an FBI check on Ford, too? Unbelievably one sided!
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 3:30 am
The Rubin Report had on Claire Lehmann. She said that our educators are not teaching the
importance of institutions like due process and the presumption of innocence. There is no
history being provided as to why these institutions came into being and why they are so
important, or how they go against our instincts, our human nature.
She said there appears to be a collective punishment in society, that it's almost an
instinct to want to desire retribution and vindictive justice. It's part of our nature to
want to punish people and punish groups. If we've been wronged by a member of a particular
group, then, hell, they're all guilty and they're all going to pay!
Presumption of innocence becomes: just shut up, you're guilty.
How about the false resistance active at CN, pretending that Trump is protecting us from
the Deep State?
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:03 pm
Andrew – ha, the Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship.
Unbeknownst to the Left, the Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and
conquer – get women, blacks and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't
look our way, says the Deep State. Look over there to that "white man".
The white man is the new villain in town.
The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil.
The thing about the Trump family grifters is they are so blatantly corrupt. They flaunt
their graft and debauchery, so it cannot be ignored. We have to see it and talk about
it.
Therefore, we begin talking about the corruption of John Brennan, Paul Manafort, and so
on too. Obvious criminals whose social positions would keep them from being arrested in
normal circumstances.
These are not normal circumstances, so people begin hoping the whole building will come
down. Yes, Al Capone is a gangster. But so is Herbert Hoover.
Trumps, Clintons, Adelesons, the Mercers, the Kochs, the Pelosis, Ryan, Clapper,
Brennan, Kavanaugh they're all evil sons of bitches.
There are no good guys. People want to see them take each other out.
The real problem is Brett Kavanaugh's record as a judge shows "reverence for
authoritarian war powers, protecting government corruption and violence, and denying
justice to citizens and noncitizens alike."
9/11 war criminals, corporate malfeasance, unconstrained growth of the police state it's
all there.
"What I don't understand is: how did Kavanaugh's candidacy get this far? How did his bid
last long enough to get to the point where it was imperiled by #MeToo-related personal
misbehavior? Why didn't it founder first on the rockier shoals of his insane ideology?"
"Supporting torture. Undermining Congress and the rule of law. Contempt for habeas
corpus. Giving the president the powers of a king. Any of these are more than enough reason
to oppose Kavanaugh but Democrats ignored or barely mentioned them during judiciary
committee hearings. There were no rants, no floor speeches. Liberal protesters did not
gather to condemn Kavanaugh on torture. Liberal groups did not air ads about it."
Of course he is .All the more reason democrats should have picked a less despicable
candidate and risk it.Elections have consequences and democrats are to blame.
I think both the accused and the accuser exaggerated in their testimony. Ford did
everything possible to make sure her accusations were made public, and her use of the word
"terrified" rings hollow, given that she was coached on her testimony by the same woman who
coached Anita Hill. Ford does not seem, given her current academic position and family
life, as someone who has suffered emotionally for 35 years. As for BK, I doubt that he was
the altar boy he claims he was in high school. And his diary was not likely to include that
he went after Blasey during a drunken night in Silver Spring. Millions of boys, in the
past, have encountered alcohol in high school for the first time and have undoubtedly done
things they later became ashamed of. I can understand BK's emotions. He's forever tarred,
whether or not he's confirmed. The GOP, meanwhile, has learned how to handle things.
Sympathize with Ford while pushing the nominee slowly toward confirmation so as to offend
fewer women voters.
Now we're taking this to rape level, Dennis Rice? That's what I was saying, we have
reached absurd levels of discourse in America, and I wonder if 'God' can save America. What
I find astounding is that the #metoo women seem to have little or no interest in the wars
caused by the US, which have wrecked lives of millions of women and children, yet it's all
about 'me, me, me'. We're talking about white, privileged teenagers, sent to expensive,
exclusive private schools. This is a 'he-said, she-said' case about teens, no DNA, no
statement of rape, 36 years later, in the age when a women's 'sexual revolution' occurred.
Ms. magazine debuted about that time. Has rational thought disappeared? Looks like it to
me. And I am certainly not impressed with Trump's rational thinking, either. Nor Clinton's,
as she has blood of Libyans and Hondurans on her hands.
Groping someone over their clothes is not rape. Trying to remove their clothes while
groping is not rape. Agreed Mrs. Ford supplied little in the way of facts but those she did
supply do not constitute rape. Be careful.
My comment went down the rabbit hole again. To me, Jean's points are most important,
Kavanaugh has been part of coverups including Foster's 'suicide', Bush stealing the 2000
election and lying in runup to Iraq invasion. However, Ford made it through the rigors of a
doctoral program in psychology to become a professor at Stanford and published
biostatistician, so her story does not compute, either. The rest of the world must be
laughing at the teenage level of American discourse.
Mild -ly - Facetious , September 29, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Gregory Herr , September 30, 2018 at 7:48 am
Yep, and the circus that is the U.S. Senate "provides the ideal cover for a Democratic
elite that colludes with the Republicans on nearly every issue of corporate dominance of the
polity (both major parties oppose public financing of elections), coddling of the corrupt
financial elites, job-draining investor-rights ("trade") pacts like WTO/NAFTA, the omnivorous
national security state, the bloated military, and disastrous imperialist aggressions abroad.
Frantically wave the distracting handkerchief of concern over a high school party in 1983,
and then hope that the electorate won't notice your treachery on every other issue that
affects their economic and ecological well-being."
A short quote: "Kavanaugh seized the opportunity provided by the Democrats to portray
himself as the victim of a left-wing crusade. In fact, there is nothing left-wing about
either the use of sexual allegations to discredit an opponent, or the claim that all victims
must be believed regardless of evidence. The Democrats are embracing the arguments that were
traditionally those of the extreme right."
There are plenty of reasons to be against Kavanugh least of which is his enabling Bush to
steal the election.
Kavanaugh is a Bush criminal who stood by while Bush shredded the constitution and
illegally spied on us.
Why not go after his proven crimes?
Could it be democrats are complicit and are left with nothing but unprovable
accusations?
backwardsevolution , September 29, 2018 at 3:34 am
Dr. Ford's Go-Fund-Me account is now sitting at $530,000.00.
Her lawyers stated on record at the hearing that they are working pro bono (for free).
He is a qualified Bush criminal.He was part of the Starr investigation and helped Bush
steal the election for Bush in Florida and stood by Bush as he lied us into war and shredded
the constitution.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against him as a Supreme Court Justice .
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
anastasia says:
September 28, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT 300 Words They were too afraid of the women's movement,
and therefore could not bring themselves to challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the
prosecutors questions which did not have the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by
the democrats to the honoree.
But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean
up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her
handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little
girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later and
expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not
remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if
she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips
– all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to
see.
She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently needed
explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to explain her
inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later politicized the
confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her several go fund me
sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.
She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid
to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to
remain anonymous.
Ludwig Watzal says:
Website
September 28, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT 400 Words As a foreign observer, I watched the whole
hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up
by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As
their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will
do everything to prevent his confirmation. They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford,
not to speak of the other two disgraceful women that prostituted themselves for base motives.
Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which
seemed to make a great impression on the CCN tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks
of the hearing committee. It was a great TV-propaganda frame.
Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15,
and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart
from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after the
"incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as it is.
Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American youths should
not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of Penn for my M.A.
degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great experience. Every
weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed around like hell.
Nobody made a big fuss out of it.
On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a
state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions and
accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which only
happens in totalitärian states.
Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth and
humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in advance
of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham with his
outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they ought to be
ashamed of themselves.
This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence,
men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant
was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more
tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get
my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable.
Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM”
;
Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and
that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide
at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None
of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's
character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end
it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive,
because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas –
because that's what those people are."
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed
Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their
President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person,
but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement,
wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact
that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently
disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted
to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that
mold, IMHO.
One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended
rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to
me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e.,
molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once
more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not
remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not
remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself.
No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
@anastasiaI think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a
few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman.
The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix,
who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to
praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and
Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham
they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick
Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the
Senate.
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist.
Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.
It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking
bleak.
Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until
I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not
abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh
will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The
kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and
brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.
"... Christine Blasey Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak? "Deak is said, for example, to have handled CIA funds in 1953 when the agency overthrew Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne. In that instance, the money went through Zurich and a Deak correspondent office in Beirut. During the Vietnam war, Deak & Co. allegedly moved CIA funds through its Hong Kong office for conversion into piastres in Saigon on the unofficial market." ..."
Christine Blasey Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak? "Deak is said, for example, to have handled CIA funds in 1953 when the agency overthrew
Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne. In that instance, the
money went through Zurich and a Deak correspondent office in Beirut. During the Vietnam war,
Deak & Co. allegedly moved CIA funds through its Hong Kong office for conversion into
piastres in Saigon on the unofficial market."
It is all theater.
mike k , September 28, 2018 at 8:56 pm
What are you trying to imply, that Dr. Ford being someone's granddaughter makes her
somehow suspect? Isn't that a little ridiculous?
Deniz , September 28, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Not quite at the WMD or Gulf of Tonkein scale, but yes, a little ridicoulous is a fair
comment.
irina , September 28, 2018 at 10:40 pm
It has also been credibly stated that Dr. Ford runs
the CIA internship program at Stanford . .. .
"... If there is, say, a 25 or 30 percent chance that the nominee committed a crime as serious as sexual assault, that may be too much ..."
"... "In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them." ..."
But the problem is that these allegations are so vague, so far after the fact, and
lack any sort of substantiation, that what is to prevent EVERY candidate from having these
sort of allegations flung at them at the last second. If we set the precedent that you can
stop filling this job by waiting until the last second and then making accusations with no
way to even corroborate them, will we ever get the Supreme Court vacancy filled?
Presumption of innocence is more than a right or a legal standard, it's a principle. I
don't require everyone I interact with daily to prove that they aren't a rapist, I'm
willing to presume they're not a criminal without asking them for evidence. Basic trust is
the fabric of a functioning society.
What a lot of people don't realize, is that memory is malleable . The
first time you remember something, you're remembering what happened. The second time?
You're remembering some mix of what happened, and of having remembered it. The third time,
the original memory is even more contaminated.
Basically, when you obsess about a memory, keep recalling it over and over, you're
playing a game of "telephone" with yourself. The memory becomes more of a story you're
telling yourself.
It's sad, but people don't really remember the events of their long ago childhoods. They
just remember the stories they've told themselves about it.
If there is, say, a 25 or 30 percent chance that the nominee committed a crime
as serious as sexual assault, that may be too much
What is the percentage we assign to allegations when:
• the complainant cannot remember when or where the event took place (or even the
year)
• four witnesses (the number keeps changing) she names (including her "lifelong
friend") all deny any knowledge of it
• at one point she says she was in her "late teens" but then later that it happened
when she was 15
• she cannot remember how she got home
• her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of
support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband's side of the family
• she has demonstrated political opposition to the alleged perpetrator
• her memories are 35 years old, a period known for rendering memories suspect
• she denies knowing that she was offered the chance to testify privately, resulting
in greater delay (such testimony being rejected and even boycotted by the Democrats, who
want greater delay)
• she insists on greater delay by claiming a fear of flying but has a history of world
travel by air
• she has a Ph.D. but says that she didn't know how to contact the Senate Judiciary
Committee
• she says she wanted confidentiality but contacted the Washington Post with her
allegations
• the defendant has lived an exemplary life and supplies the names of 65 women as
character witnesses at the relevant time
What is the effect when Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor, said in her
report
that:
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly
difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other
witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to
corroborate them."
Mitchell cited details supporting these major issues:
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault
happened
• Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name
• When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to
become less specific
• Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question
• Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she
identified as having attended -- including her lifelong friend
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault
• Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her
allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her
memory
• Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions
• The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected
Dr. Ford's account
The job interview vs criminal trial meme is Dem/liberal misdirection to divert
your thinking away from what is actually happening, personal destruction. The Dems,
including those on the Judiciary Committee, stated from the moment Kavanaugh's nomination
was announced, that he needed to be defeated by any means necessary. Surfacing events
thirty years plus in the past, for which no actual evidence exists, is a technique to put
Kavanuagh in an impossible situation.
In a job interview, presumably the personal doing the hiring begins with an open mind
and a willingness to consider the candidate's point of view. Not so with Kavanaugh's "job
interview" the Dems have only one objective: prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed "by any
means necessary". Let's not dignify what is at work here by characterizing it is a good
faith job interview. There is/was no good faith here.
You seem to be comfortable with the proposition that a man's life can be turned
into a dumpster fire on a basis of an uncorroborated, unverifiable complaint going back to
his days in high school by an acknowledged political opponent, augmented and indeed
supervised by senators who not only prevented the charges from being presented in a timely
fashion but who have already vowed to do anything to prevent the nominee from being seated.
I wonder how quickly you'll be changing your sorry tune if you're ever picked for high
office with such enemies lying in wait.
The last few weeks and Kavanaugh's behavior during that time have led me to conclude that he
should not be confirmed, and the main reason for that is that he has lied repeatedly
under oath. Everyone that watched his testimony on Thursday was witness to it, and the
evidence
that he lied to
the Judiciary Committee
many times seems to me to be
overwhelming . For the purposes of determining whether he should be a Supreme Court
justice, it doesn't really matter why he lied or what he lied about. The fact that he knowingly
gave false statements under oath should disqualify him.
The hearing on Thursday was a spectacle and an embarrassment for the nominee. Judge
Kavanaugh comported himself poorly throughout, and during his angry opening statement he gave
the committee members and the public ample reason to doubt his fitness for the Court before he
answered any questions. Kavanaugh's anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who
aspires to sit on the highest court, but the real problem lies with the
multiple lies he told during his testimony. The judge has sought to present himself as
someone beyond reproach both now and in the past, but he has gone so far to whitewash his
excessive
drinking habits and crude yearbook references that he has blown up his credibility in the
process. Kavanaugh has gone to such lengths because he stands credibly
accused of sexual assault when he was 17, and so he has attempted to eradicate anything
from his past that might make that accusation seem easier to believe. His evasions and
misrepresentations on these other points have only made his fervent denials of the very serious
charge less believable, and in the process he has torched his reputation and rendered himself
unworthy of the Supreme Court.
"Almost twenty years ago, the House impeached then-President Clinton for perjury and
obstruction of justice."
Indeed. At that time, Brent Kavanaugh was working for Kenneth Starr. He wrote a legal memo
that argued forcefully that the President should be impeached for lying under oath to deny
allegations of sexual misconduct. Which is to say, the EXACT thing Kavanaugh did right in
front of the Senate last week.
By his OWN standards, Kavanaugh should be rejected.
And judging by the votes of Mike Crapo, Mike Enzi, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, James
Inhofe, Jon Kyle, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Roberts during the Clinton impeachment trial, they
agreed with Kavanaugh's position. So they should vote to reject him now.
I agree that there are plenty of reasons to reject Kavanaugh. Yet as it stands, if he is
rejected, it'll be because of vague allegations of sexual misconduct over three decades ago.
Now, it sounds like Kavanaugh was the sort of drunken, rich frat boy I could easily imagine
going too far under the influence of alcohol, so the accusation is plausible. However, the
basic details are lacking, not to mention anything resembling proof, so I wouldn't call it
credible. I bet the FBI investigation won't turn up anything either, because to really look
into "he said, she said" cases this old would take a time machine. People can be questioned,
but if they don't want to answer the question, it's trivially easy to claim they don't
remember, and very hard to call them out on that.
Depressingly, the way things are is that people need to choose between rewarding an unfit
candidate or an unworthy accusation. Both choices have bad consequences and will anger a lot
of people, for very understandable reasons. Pox on the house of Trump for putting up this
candidate, and pox on the house of liberalism for trying to take him out in this way.
I despise the idea that we are going to hold a grown adult liable for what appears to be
offenses in his high school year book. It really has no bearing on one's qualifications for
anything that I can think of.
And the lady making her claims of sexual molestation brought forward no evidence of same,
and it should be rejected out of hand. Because she could just be lying. There's no way to
know.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh's nomination should be rejected out of hand due to his
rulings on any number of topics which empower both government and corporations against the
best interests of the people. Of course this cannot be discussed in public.
However, our Republican Senators will approve of Kavanaugh's nomination. Because of those
rulings noted above. They could care less about the rule of law. And they know, without a
doubt, that their voters are so intellectually corrupt that they will vote them right back in
power, and do it with pride and joy. And I say that as a life-long, and disgusted,
Republican.
Seemed appropriate to me for someone falsely accused of sexual assault. Kavanaugh has a
wife and kids, coaches his daughters basketball team. What alternative did Kavanaugh have
other than assertively calling a spade a spade?
Moreover, apart for her own tearful histrionics, Ford's testimony was anything but
"credible" because she has not produced even one scintilla of evidence that she ever met
Kavanaugh and ever told anyone about the alleged assault before she told a therapist years
later.
Moreover, Kavanaugh presented implicit evidence of not being at some party attended by
Ford with his calendar. He noted parties he was to attend and they people we met with. If
those entries were listed as prospective, then Kavanaugh's attendee at the vague party in
question should be on the calendar. Where is it?
Hating on Kavanaugh is fine with me. But implicitly validating the rancid (hypocritical)
political machinations of the Democrats is not. Accusations are not evidence. Hysterically
confronting a Senator in an elevator is not evidence. That Kavanaugh drank too much is not
evidence that he assaulted Ford. Note that almost everybody in that environment drank too
much.
What Daniel Larison apparently does not get, is that Kavanaugh was correct when he said
that "advise and consent" has morphed malignantly into "search and destroy". If Kavanaugh is
rejected by the Senate, expect a repeat of Total War by pathetically sanctimonious Left for
the next candidate and the next candidate after that.
The Democrats assembled their M.O. with the targeted destruction of the women assaulted by
that sociopathic sexual predator Bill Clinton. 25 years later, everything and everybody is
fair game.
Kavanaugh's anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who aspires to sit on
the highest court
I admit never to understand this charge. If someone is accused of being a serial rapist
including being a gang rapist, wouldn't you expect them to get a little angry? Anger seems
the natural emotion to have. If a man didn't get angry over these accusations, I would
question his fitness for the court, and maybe even his innocence.
the main reason for that is that he has lied repeatedly under oath.
This is spoken of, like it's a fact. I have a hard time jumping from "yes, I drank in high
school" and references to drinking in high school to "this man was an alcoholic who blacked
out and couldn't remember events."
The emptywheel article linked to ("The Record Supports Christine Blasey Ford") cites as
evidence the fact that Blasey Ford was calm during her questioning. (Why wouldn't she be? Who
couldn't take 3 questions at a time of bland, trivial facts interspersed with 5 minutes of
Democratic senators stroking your ego? What would have constituted "breaking down"?) More
evidence is Ford's "normal amount of time" versus Kavanaugh's "45 minutes". Gasp! Practically
a confession! More assertions that Kavanaugh has admitted to "blacking out". (Not true, but
also wouldn't establish the "credibility" of the accusation. Just that he had blacked
out.)
Additionally, the proof of Kavanaugh's drinking problem on weekdays is the fact
that Mark Judge drank on weekdays. (How does the fact he drank on weekdays mean this is a
"credible" accusation again?)
Oh, and he attended a party that summer with the more boys than the party that
Christine Blasey Ford attended.
To cite accusations that he lied under oath as reasons for why his accuser is
"credible", then using that established "credibility" for why he would lie under oath is a
little circular, to say the least.
I'm not saying Larison's wrong for believing in Blasey Ford or that Kavanaugh lied
under oath. (Two different questions of course). But it's not exactly a slam dunk case. And
there's no reason to go around acting like it is.
It would be helpful to specify which lie is he guilty off. He said he is innocent (perhaps
he is not, but no evidence provided yet he did not say he doesn't drink, blackouts are hard
to prove) angry ok, is that deal breaker? vs 20+ years of service Still confused "
***************
I think I'd be a wee bit angry, too if I was accused falsely of a violent felony .
I don't know any of the individuals in this case & can't read hearts but as we must
first presume innocence under the law, Mr. Kavanaugh would have seemed far less credible to
me had he *not* reacted in the manner he did. Not that my feelings about either party amount
to anything.Due process isn't about feelings.
Has anyone here visited a college campus recently & observed what kind of drinking
goes on? I remember back in the 1980's students were drinking cheap grain alcohol &
falling off balconies. Beer was considered pretty mild stuff.
@SteveM What happened to "advise and consent" for these same Senators when President Obama
Nominated Merrick Garland for Supreme Court? Different standards for different parties?
Kavanaugh has at no point been accused of rape, gang or otherwise. He's been accused of
drinking too much and committing sexual assault, but never of rape. Ms. Ramirez described
gang rapes in her affadavit, but very specifically never claimed Kavanaugh (or Judge)
participated in them, just that they were at parties where they happened.
Just look at the lies he's told before this hearing about his actions in the Bush
administration. Exclude the ridiculous little lies about "boofing" "devil's triangle" and the
"Renate club" boast. Those previous lies about his work in the Ken Starr years disqualify him
here's just one example:
"Kavanaugh was asked if he was involved with a scheme to steal Democratic staff e-mails
related to judicial confirmations. He lied about it. E-mails showed that he was
involved."
Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been
refuted by everyone she said was present at the party when Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. Her "evidence" was she had told a similar story earlier to
her husband, friends, and her therapist (without mentioning Kavanaugh by name), repetition, not
corroboration. When asked about the possibility the assault took place but that she
misremembered the assailant as Kavanaugh, Ford just said no and things were left there.
Ford admitted not remembering specifics that could have formed the basis of exculpation,
including how she got home from the party, that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's
condition and thus support or weaken her story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged
assault, Ford did not allow for Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact
couldn't say where they both were supposed to be to begin with, apart from "a suburban Maryland
house."
The attorney speaking for the Republicans gently pointed out multiple inconsistencies
between Ford's previous statements and today's testimony, walking Ford back from assertions to
assumptions. The questioning was consistent with what is done in sexual assault prosecutions to
help evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Ford in the end presented a heartfelt but
ultimately general accusation, backed only by the hashtag #BelieveWomen that precluded any
serious questioning.
Brett Kavanaugh made clear Thursday none of what Ford (or his later accusers) said happened,
had happened. He was unambiguous. He left no wiggle room. He could add no additional details to
describe something that had not taken place. Clever lawyers created the appearance of a he
said/she said. These are typically a case of two contradictory versions of a single event, as
in date rape cases where sex is acknowledged by both parties who differ over the presence of
consent. Kavanaugh's situation is different; for the past four decades there was no "she said"
until a handful of Democratic senators standing behind a victim they may have outed themselves
forced Kavanaugh to deliver another round of "he said" denials today.
Kavanaugh showed real emotion in today's testimony, describing how he has been treated as a
political hit, before finally breaking into tears. He called out the media for slut-shaming one
of his female friends based on a vague high school yearbook reference. No mind, multiple
Democrats returned to the same accusations later anyway. Some women it seems testify, and
others play their role as sluts off stage.
About the only real question was whether 99.99% or 100% of the people watching today had
already made up their minds in advance. Ford was unable to prove the positive and Kavanaugh
could never prove a negative. Truth became in the end extraneous to what was really going on.
Ford was a prop used against Kavanaugh by Democrats seeking to change a confirmation hearing
they would likely lose into a referendum on mistreatment of victims they might win.
The strategy was clear as Democrats used their questioning time to make speechlets everyone
could agree with about sexual violence. Nearly every Democrat ceremoniously entered thousands
of letters of support for Ford "into the record." To make sure everyone really, really got the
point, Senator Dianne Feinstein invited #MeToo activist Alyssa
Milano to attend Thursday's hearing (and speak with the media, of course.) This was
theater.
At times things seemed one step away from bringing in Handmaiden's Tale cosplayers.
The once great Senator Patrick Leahy engaged in an argument about the meaning of slang terms
used in a 40-year-old high school year book with a nominee to the Supreme Court, as if proof of
immaturity was proof someone was also gang rapist. Another exchange focused on whether a word
meant puke or fart. For every careful courtesy shown Ford, Democrats treated Kavanaugh like a
punching bag.
A strategy seemed to slowly emerge after Feinstein failed to coerce Kavanaugh into
requesting an FBI inquiry. Senator Durbin next demanded Kavanaugh turn to the White
House Counsel present and demand an FBI investigation on live TV. Durbin told Kavanaugh
if he had nothing to hide, he had nothing to fear, a line often attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
Senator Klobuchar then tried playing good cop, trying to persuade Kavanaugh in a sisterly way
to call for the FBI. Kamala Harris went in as bad cop, shouting down whatever was said to her.
It was pathetic; Kavanaugh had been to law school, too, saw the trap, and refused to give the
Democrats the opening they needed – why even the nominee wants the FBI in, put the brakes
on this confirmation, maybe until 2020. To call it all a circus is a disservice to real
clowns.
How did the very serious business of #MeToo end up a political tool?
Only days ago, without the votes to reject Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats started throwing stuff
against the wall hoping something would stick. It started with Cory Booker's failed Spartacus
stunt. Kamala Harris demanded more documents, likely hoping there might be a perjury trapplet
buried in those 100,000 pages. Kavanaugh was accused of having a
gambling problem , and of being an alcoholic
(Senators Hirano, Klobuchar, and Booker accused him of having a drinking problem again today,
Klobuchar explaining she knew one when she saw one because her grandpa is in AA.) And how
had he paid off his debts after buying baseball
tickets for friends? The goal wasn't to show Kavanaugh was unqualified as a jurist. It was
to show he was unqualified as a human being. Yet in each instance Kavanaugh coolly denied the
accusations. Until
Until a 2018 strategy emerged. One can still these days deny being a drinker, or a gambler,
or stealing money, but one is no longer allowed to simply say no when accused of sexual
assault. The Democrats would box Kavanaugh in, demanding he #BelieveWomen and withdraw, or
somehow prove a negative to escape.
Ford was a near-perfect accuser for the Democrats' purposes, the archetype Clinton voter,
down to a photo circulating of her in her pink pussy hat. And when idea emerged really
"credible" cases had multiple accusers, the always-reliable Ronan Farrow and Michael Avenatti
dug around until they found more, upping the charges to
gang rape along the way.
The counter-narrative this was not a Democratic set-up with Ford as an unwitting victim is
everything emerged organically and righteously, albeit right on time. The accusers were never
compelled to speak up during Kavanaugh's years in the White House or on the Court of Appeals.
And the FBI, which conducted six full background checks on Kavanaugh over his decades of
government employment, had just plain missed it all. And Feinstein didn't request an FBI
investigation weeks ago because something, and Ford's identity was leaked by someone else, and
Feinstein never questioned Kavanaugh at his earlier hearings when she had the information
literally in hand because.
Something terrible happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she was in high school, there
seems little doubt, but it is quite unclear that that also involved Brett Kavanaugh. Ford,
despite her doctorate, came off as almost naive, claiming not to know what exculpatory evidence
was, testifying she didn't know why she took a polygraph test and had know idea who paid for
it. She appeared a bit mystified by the vast forces swirling around her, and seemed to trust
so-called honorable people would empower her, not use her.
As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether
the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the
Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will ask
that of Christine Blasey Ford.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He is permanently
banned from federal employment and Twitter.
mrscracker said: " As a Christian, I'd like to think there's the possibility Mrs. Ford's a
troubled soul rather than a cold hearted liar. I don't know how much she believes about her
accusations or how much consent she has had "
If someone is shown to have been actually coerced into committing a crime, we take that into
account when determining if charges should be laid. If someone has "a troubled soul" -- I take
that to mean is suffering from a certain type of severe, diagnosable mental disorder -- we take
that into account in determining if charges should be laid and, if charges are laid and there
is a conviction, in determining sentence.
Why are there so few conservative posters on The American Conservative?
As an attorney myself, Fords case is garbage. She has no case. It's old allegations with no
evidence, witnesses that don't back her and she's really hazy on the details. Its literally the
worst plaintiffs case ever. Yet democrats are trying to gaslight everyone and say that she's
credible, and brave, and truthful, and explain away all the inconsistencies and lack of
detail.
If this were a civil case it would be kicked out of court and her attorneys would have to
pay for kavanaugh's lawyers for a bad faith filing of a meritorious case. Instead of
acknowledging the utter deficiencies in her case the D are acting like it's a slam dunk. But
it's not.
It's a lie that everyone sees and half the population believes because they don't want Roe
overturned. It's a complete charade.
Chapter XX
Eighth Commandment
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Article II. – Respect Due To Reputation
1. Defamation.
#56. Is there not another kind of detraction besides slander and calumny?
Yes; it consists of those reports, true or false, which are spread secretly and, as it were,
in confidence, as to what some one has said or done against another. The purpose of these
reports is to sow discord between friends and embroil families. This species of detraction is
called tale-bearing.
#57. Is tale-bearing specially malicious?
It is the worst form of detraction, since it not only ruins the reputation of another, but
also destroys friendship.
But Republicans said they see signs that Kavanaugh's defiant testimony brought the GOP
together and fired up apathetic base voters the party needs to stave off a disaster in
November.
Conservatives cheered the judge's Trump-like denunciations of "the left," "the media," and
his claim that he was the victim of a "political hit" from opponents who wanted "revenge on
behalf of the Clintons."
"I think the Democrats' campaign to smear Kavanaugh has united Trump and Bush Republicans as
never before," said Cesar Conda, a former chief of staff to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. "The GOP
base will be energized to stop the Democrats from taking over the Congress."
Conda and other Republicans who spoke to NBC News pointed to recent polls by Gallup
and others that showed that the GOP's enthusiasm matched that of Democrats after months of
imbalance.
Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster with Public Opinion Strategies, said he'd seen a similar
trend, but couldn't predict whether it would last.
"There hasn't been any lessening in Democratic enthusiasm, but the gap between Democrat and
Republican enthusiasm has gone away," Bolger said.
While he acknowledged that women's antipathy toward Republicans, especially in the suburbs,
is giving a boost to Democrats around the country, Bolger argued that it would be hard to push
their turnout beyond its current highs.
"They're already angry at the president, they're already angry at the Republican Party," he
said.
...Josh Holmes, a former aide to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said the treatment of Kavanaugh
was a "grenade" that internal polls suggested could take out Democratic incumbents.
As was reported yesterday, a lawsuit against Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was filed by her former employer, Webtrends. The
documents from the case have been obtained and published by Big League Politics
. The accusations by Webtrends include Swetnick lying about attending Johns Hopkins University, fraudulently claiming unemployment
benefits, defaming the company, and that Swetnick herself was engaging in sexual harassment. The case was filed in 2000 in Multnomah
County, Oregon, home to everyone's favorite unhinged liberal paradise of Portland.
Brett Kavanaugh's third accuser Julie Swetnick was the defendant in a defamation case filed by her former employer, WebTrends.
Big League Politics has obtained the court documents from this case.
Webtrends, represented by Perkins Coie, sued Swetnick, who has multiple liens against her including a federal tax lien, and
whose ex-boyfriend filed a restraining order against.
"Swetnick began her fraud against Webtrends before she was hired. On her job application she claimed to have graduated
from Johns Hopkins University. That university has no record of her attendance. She also falsely described her work experience
at Host Marriott Services Corp Since this initial fraud and despite her brief tenure, Swetnick has continued over the last several
months, to defraud, defame and harass WebTrends and its employees, " the complaint reads.
"Shortly after becoming employed with Webtrends, a co-worker reported to WebTrends' Human Resources department that Swetnick
had engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct. Rather than accept responsibility for her actions, Swetnick made false and
retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her . Swetnick then began a leave of
absence for suspicious and unsubstantiated reasons and from which she has never returned. During her absence, Swetnick has engaged
in a campaign of false and malicious allegations with the intent to harm the reputations of WebTrends and its employees and in
the hope that WebTrends would pay her money rather than uphold and defend its reputation," the complaint reads.
The original complaint also includes:
Beyond deceiving WebTrends, Swetnick applied for an began collecting unemployment benefits from the Washington D.C. unemployment
office based on the untrue statement that she had voluntarily left WebTrends in September of 2000
Huetter receiver a complaint about Swetnick from Larry Hountz, a co-employee of Swetnick in June of 2000. At this point, Swetnick
had been employed for approximately three weeks and had worked only three days at customer sites. Hountz stated that Swetnick
had engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct directed towards himself and David Anish, another co-employee,
during a business lunch. Swetnick's inappropriate conduct occurred with customers present.
Swetnick also allegedly went on to claim a temporary disability for health problems while employed with WebTrends, but when she
failed to provide necessary information, she instead sent a "confrontational letter" to the HR department.
Kavanauch confirmation brought a very interesting set of female charaters (as his accusers). One of them is Julie Swetnick.
In her resume out of 12 former employers that are listed there are only few places where whe worked for more then a year.
Julie Swetnick_IDC.docx - Google Drive
. Despite more then two decades in Web business she does not list any scripting skills in her resume but lists "server tuning, hardening,"
which are impossible with shell scripting knowledge.
Notable quotes:
"... After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint. ..."
Swetnick's alleged conduct took place in June 2000, just three weeks after she started working at WebTrends, the complaint shows.
WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in "unwelcome sexual
innuendo and inappropriate conduct" toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint said.
Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, "in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate
behavior [made] false and retaliatory allegations" of sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.
"Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating
evidence existed to support Swetnick's allegations against her coworkers," the complaint said.
After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment
allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint.
In July, one month after the alleged incident, Swetnick took a leave of absence from the company for sinus issues, according to
the complaint. WebTrends said it made short-term disability payments to her until mid-August that year. One week after the payments
stopped, WebTrends received a note from Swetnick's doctor claiming she needed a leave of absence for a "nervous breakdown."
The company said it continued to provide health insurance coverage for Swetnick, despite her refusal provide any additional information
about her alleged medical condition.
In November, the company's human resources director received a notice from the Washington, D.C. Department of Unemployment that
Swetnick had applied for unemployment benefits after claiming she left WebTrends voluntarily in late September.
"In short, Swetnick continued to claim the benefits of a full-time employee of WebTrends, sought disability payments from WebTrends'
insurance carrier and falsely claimed unemployment insurance payments from the District of Columbia," the complaint states.
Swetnick allegedly hung up the phone on WebTrends managers calling to discuss why she applied for unemployment benefits, according
to the complaint. She then sent letters to WebTrends' upper management, detailing new allegations that two male co-workers sexually
harassed her and said that the company's human resources director had "illegally tired [sic] for months to get privileged medical
information" from her, her doctor and her insurance company.
WebTrends also alleged that Swetnick began her fraud against the company before she was hired by stating on her job application
that she graduated from John Hopkins University. But according to the complaint, the school had no record of her attendance.
An online resume posted by Swetnick
makes no reference to John Hopkins University. It does show that she worked for WebTrends from December 1999 to August 2000.
It's unclear what transpired after the complaint was filed against Swetnick. One month after WebTrends filed the action, the company
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.
"... "Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations," ..."
The Senate Judiciary Committee asked the FBI Saturday to
investigate a man who made an unfounded rape claim against Supreme Court nominee Judge
Brett M.
Kavanaugh and then later recanted, saying the man had acted in bad faith.
Chairman Charles E. Grassley said the committee had to waste resources tracking down the
claim by the man, who said Judge Kavanaugh raped one of his
friends back in the 1980s. The man said he and another friend went to beat Judge Kavanaugh up --
then said he recognized him recently when television showed Judge Kavanaugh after he was
nominated to the high court.
Mr. Grassley didn't name the man, but after reporters tracked him down he recanted.
"Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make
materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is
illegal to obstruct committee investigations," Mr. Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.
"... Frankly, observing the two parties under interrogation, Kavanaugh had the red eyes and facial contortions that suggested a true pain. Ford's eyes were cold throughout, and she maintained the simple character of a 16-year-old girl at her first job interview. ..."
"... I had to laugh at the moment that Kamala Harris called for the specially trained and effective FBI to investigate the matter. So, the noble FBI, "an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement" that produced Comey, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the Russiagate team more than likely has the investigation in the can, ready to be rolled out in 7 days. I guess we'll see. ..."
"... "Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including "surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands and French Polynesia to surf." Her response was to giggle inanely and nobody pressed the issue. ..."
"... Christine Ford testified she went to the country club frequently to swim. She may have forgotten how she got home after the alleged assault, but there is no way she could forget how she routinely got to the country club. Did she walk or ride a bike? Did she take public transportation or a cab? Did someone drive her there? If someone drove her to the country club, why didn't that person bring her home? This person was most likely her brother or her parents who have not come forward in a meaningful way. ..."
"... 'theater of dramatic distractions'... well said. all i continue to see is the political version of professional wrestling. no matter who 'wins' this or that match, the wwe always wins :) ... ..."
"... Brett Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team when Slick Willie was being investigated for consensual sex with Monica. Does anyone recall his position on these matters then? ..."
"... The omnipresent hysterical media is seductive; gossip appears elevated to the status of news. ..."
"... Enhanced protections for men from such a weapons in the post #MeToo age are badly needed. ..."
"... Am I to be believe that a women her age, a Prof, mind you, does not seriously reflect on the consequence of her letter and her accusation? Confidential or not given the context. ..."
"... And then, Leland makes a formal statement. She doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh! Party pooper! And she can't remember any such occasion. And the two of them never talked about any such horrific thing happening. All these years. ..."
"... But Ms. Blasey Ford does not think her best friend should be that concerned about her disappearing from a party, and is not surprised that she does not remember it happening. Why do I smell a strong odor of rat? ..."
Ford's pro-bono attorneys paid for the polygraph. She received advice on finding attorneys
from Sen. Feinstein and her social network. It was Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell who in
the end made the golden point that a) the 5-minute format for the panel's hearing was the
wrong way to go about getting testimony from a sex-crime victim and b) the right way, which
would have been a forensic interview, was not recommended by Ford's attorneys. So the expert
in the room in the end somewhat invalidated the proceedings.
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. So, while she implores the senator's office to
protect her privacy, she runs around telling her friends who, in turn, leak the story to the
press. Consistent more with willingly participating the orchestration of her outing. If so
many girls were subjected to the ravages of this roaming pack of predatory jocks, where is
the Weinstein effect of the numerous victims coming forward to support the courageous
one?
Frankly, observing the two parties under interrogation, Kavanaugh had the red eyes and
facial contortions that suggested a true pain. Ford's eyes were cold throughout, and she
maintained the simple character of a 16-year-old girl at her first job interview.
I had to laugh at the moment that Kamala Harris called for the specially trained and
effective FBI to investigate the matter. So, the noble FBI, "an agency of men and women who
are sworn and trained law enforcement" that produced Comey, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the
Russiagate team more than likely has the investigation in the can, ready to be rolled out in
7 days. I guess we'll see.
Perhaps you can answer some questions I have.
1 Was she told beforehand what questions would be asked
2 How many times did she take the polygraph
3 Did she take any medication the day of the polygraph
4 Have the raw results of the polygraph been released
5 Who was the psychiatrist that treated her in 2012
6 What techniques did the psychiatrist use to help elucidate her memories
7 Did these techniques involve hypnosis or "age regression"
8 Were any of the techniques similar to those used to "prove" alien-abduction
9 Were any tape recordings of the psychiatric sessions made
10 Will any of the relevant portions of the psychiatrist's note be made public
Ford also claimed to have a fear of flying. She refused to fly to DC and only did so when she
was told that her no show would not prevent Kavanaugh testifying and the committee
authorizing a vote on his nomination.
Then it emerged she has more frequent flyer points than than the pope:
"Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including
"surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands
and French Polynesia to surf." Her response was to giggle inanely and nobody pressed the
issue.
I agree that the FBI won't find much without additional witnesses. But I believe you are
overthinking the geography. (I know. That's what intelligence professionals do.) Teenagers
with beer and cars can turn up almost anywhere. I have (parental) experience of that.
Also, a key question the non-brilliant prosecutor neglected to ask: "You say you swam at the
country club. Then you went to a party at which you were still wearing your bathing suit.
Didn't it get wet while you swam? If so, why were you still wearing a wet bathing suit?"
Christine Ford testified she went to the country club frequently to swim. She may have
forgotten how she got home after the alleged assault, but there is no way she could forget
how she routinely got to the country club. Did she walk or ride a bike? Did she take public
transportation or a cab? Did someone drive her there? If someone drove her to the country
club, why didn't that person bring her home? This person was most likely her brother or her
parents who have not come forward in a meaningful way.
Perhaps, more specifically, this is all about: 1) Midterm elections, 2) Merrick
Garland.
The 2-party power struggle in its current guises. Sometimes it does seem like a theater of
dramatic distractions, doesn't it?
'theater of dramatic distractions'... well said. all i continue to see is the political version of professional wrestling. no
matter who 'wins' this or that match, the wwe always wins :) ...
She lied, that's my vote for multiple reasons. She should go to prison for lying to Congress.
There is too much anger to let the slander slide this time. There will be NO respect for
Congress or the Judiciary if she is not punished. This whole thing has been a morality play,
and you know how those are supposed to turn out. Quitacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree",
"silence implies/means consent". Whatever happened to Chrissy by some other boy in 1982 was
not what she claims.
Brett Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team when Slick Willie was being investigated for
consensual sex with Monica. Does anyone recall his position on these matters then?
If Christine Blasey is convinced an assault took place why isn't she filing a criminal
complaint? Why is Kavanaugh claiming that he wasn't a big partier in high school and college?
His good friend's book was all about the party lifestyle at school.
It seems all that can be accomplished with the FBI review is delay as there's no real
criminal investigation which would be problematic in the first place as there's no physical
evidence. At the end of the day will McConnell hold his caucus together on the full Senate
vote? Flake and Corker could vote against confirming Kavanaugh just to stiff Trump.
Though I admire your efforts to analyze and debunk Ms Ford's testimony, I feel that our
attention should remain focused on the bigger issue here. Guilt or innocence is the business
of the courts and no one else. Ms Ford may or may not be telling the truth. Kavanaugh will
now be confirmed, or not. All who respect the law have a duty to presume him innocent of any
charge until proven otherwise. These are the facts we should consider. Those who make
criminal accusations must be countered by our unanimous chorus of "prove it in court". Anyone
not joining this chorus, either willfully or otherwise, is potentially helping to undermine
the rule of law.
The omnipresent hysterical media is seductive; gossip appears elevated to the status of
news. It is not and we must resist the temptation to treat it as such. Until or unless Ms
Ford brings a criminal case against Kavanaugh I refuse to legitimize this spectacle as
anything other than just that by offering an opinion either way. I believe it would be wise
for us all to do likewise.
"Those who make criminal accusations must be countered by our unanimous chorus of "prove it in court". Anyone not joining this chorus, either willfully or otherwise, is potentially helping to undermine the rule of law."
Are you calling for a criminal investigation? Or to phrase it more accurately, would you
prefer that Ford contact the local authorities and file a criminal complaint?
I suspect that given the closeness of any Senate vote, that any ongoing criminal
investigation would cause the nomination process to be put on hold until the investigation is
finished, which could easily be weeks and week of delay.
The OP has called Ford a liar, effectively saying she committed a felony. By your standard
quoted above, it follows that there should also be a criminal investigation of her, that her
accusers should "prove it in court".
I have no opinion on whether Ms Ford should file charges or not, it
is up to her. But if ongoing criminal charges would cause a delay in the nomination process
one must question why Ms Ford's handlers council have not suggested such
action. I suspect it is an indication of the quality of the case - i.e. poor to non existent.
On the flip side, if PT is right and she is a fantasist (or worse) it is Kavanaugh's right
to sue Ford for defamation to prove as much and vindicate himself. However, I believe the
current law requires a very high burden of proof that her statements are both false and
malicious. Herein of course lies the value of such unprovable/refutable accusations as a
political weapon against a man.
The twist in this sordid tale is that if K is confirmed he may one day be in a position to
help set landmark precedent in defamation cases himself. I am no expert, but I think New York
Times Co v. Sullivan (1964)* was the origin of the 'actual malice' test in libel cases, for
instance. We have just witnessed a devastating weaponizing of First Amendment rights. It
would be justice of the most elegant kind if the victim were ultimately instrumental in
adjusting the scales. Enhanced protections for men from such a weapons in the post #MeToo age
are badly needed.
What I am wondering about ever since I heard the story and looked into it. Am I to be
believe that a women her age, a Prof, mind you, does not seriously reflect on the consequence
of her letter and her accusation? Confidential or not given the context.
*********
What's really bad about these stories and we had a prominent case over here. You can go to
court after you are acquitted of course. But you will never be able to clear your name. The
man in question was a rather prominent figure on TV over here. He was never able to return.
In the end he had to sell his company specialized in the field of weather.
What makes me slightly suspicious about Ford, admittedly, is that she seems to be both a
Prof and an activist.
The only way to end this charade and get the Dems to let off the gas peddle is for the
Republicans and/or Trump to start circulating the name of an even more conservative judge as
Kavanaugh's replacement.
Thank you for your good work. And by the way, are you a fan of John O'Hara? I hope we can get
more from you about those two country clubs. I perked up when you started talking about them.
Got out my O'Hara short stories. I haven't read this one, but isn't O'Hara's 'From the
Terrace' also about the cold, sex-haunted WASPS of country-clubland? Said it was his best
book. But isn't it non-u to say "wealthy"? Shouldn't it be "rich"? And are these club members
all that rich? How can you be rich if your wife works? Come on. Shouldn't she be a lady who
lunches? ('Answered Prayers'.) Doesn't she need to be a board member of a foundation or
museum that is a legit blue chip part of the Benevolent Empire?
But to business. Leland Ingham (Keyser) is one of Ford's best friends. She was a close
friend at prep school and she is her close friend even now. So how can Ford say: "I remember
.feeling an enormous sense of relief that I had escaped the house and that Brett and Mark
were not coming after me." Yet she has just left Leland in real danger with two physically
strong male teenagers who have suddenly become sexually violent, who are drunk/drugged,
dangerously out of control. And what could be happening to her friend even as she shoves off
down the street? Given what she has told us about how bad it was--leading even to her post--
traumatic flight to California--isn't it reasonable for her to suddenly come to her senses
and begin to consider what to do? Her friend Leland could even then be being beaten down,
swarmed over, torn, until she is suddenly a broken, bleeding corpse. Her body to be found
later on the Eastern Shore in a marsh? In the surf at Dewey Beach? What is she going to tell
Leland's parents? Just let it slide? It's a dadgum problem, sugarpie.
How can Ford be so out of tune with basic situational ethics that she doesn't seem to
realize that her million dollar story still needs to provide the public with a good reason
why she --the heroine--could feel so good after abandoning her friend. As a created fiction
the lady's story is unsound. She needs to read Tommy Thompson's 1983 novel 'Celebrity'.
(Three young men of great promise participate in the killing of a girl just when they are
ending their careers in high school. They make a pact. The secret must be kept. The secret is
kept. Each goes his own way. Each becomes wildly successful. Famous. Rich. And yet, and
yet...) Or did she read it? See the tv series? It was broadcast from February 12, 1984 to
February 14, 1984, on NBC. Bigly smash-hit.
And then, Leland makes a formal statement. She doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh! Party
pooper! And she can't remember any such occasion. And the two of them never talked about any
such horrific thing happening. All these years.
Additionally, having made good her escape, without anyone noticing, she says that she does
not expect best friend Leland Ingham (Keyser) to remember the party because from her friend's
point of view nothing noteworthy happened.
If I'm at a party with my best friend and he disappears without me knowing when or why he
did so, I regard that as very noteworthy indeed, and I become rather worried about my friend.
I certainly look him up the next day and ask what happened, and I certainly remember the
event when asked about it later.
But Ms. Blasey Ford does not think her best friend should be that concerned about her
disappearing from a party, and is not surprised that she does not remember it happening. Why
do I smell a strong odor of rat?
She is a delusional Flake. Any young guy reading this blog marry a woman from overseas. The
women here are miserable and rich. You will never be happy if you marry an American citizen.
"... All this being said Kavanaugh would probably be best served at a personal level by withdrawing from the nomination. His reputation is destroyed along with that of the Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... No competent attorney would advise Kavanaugh to sue anyone for libel. His entire life would be subject to the discovery microscope and, regardless of what sort of person he is, I doubt if he or anyone else would want that. ..."
Kavanaugh, as a public figure, would have a difficult time prevailing as he would have to surmount the very high standard that
the accusers acted with malice or reckless disregard of the truth. The least difficult case for Kavanaugh to win would be the
case against Swetnick (Avenatti) who has alleged under oath that,while a college student, she attended at least 10 parties where
gang rapes occurred, some of which were organized by Kavanaugh and Judge, and continued to attend such parties until, presumably,
she had been gang-raped herself. If none of the 10 gang-rape victims and none of the scores of asserted party-goers come forward
to support her claims, a jury would have little difficulty finding malice and/or statements made in reckless disregard of the
truth.
Kavanaugh's spouse and children would not be able to bring a case as they were not the direct targets of the defamation.
My questions: Does Kavanaugh have standing to sue these women for libel or defamation in any jurisdiction? Would someone else
have standing to sue them on his behalf? Pl
Morning Colonel. Your questions hinge of course on whether or not the FBI can produce evidence that disproves Fords assertions.
The nature of this could only be to show that she or Kavanaugh were elsewhere at the time of the alleged assault. Since Ford has
furnished no such information (she says she does not remember the date or location) disproving it will be nigh to impossible.
Though I am not a lawyer I would have thought that any legal action Kavanaugh might take would require this same information as
a minimum for action. He cannot prove that he was libelled or defamed unless he can show that the charges are false. Catch 22!
All this being said Kavanaugh would probably be best served at a personal level by withdrawing from the nomination. His
reputation is destroyed along with that of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
When unsupported accusations become accepted as evidence then all legal process as we have come to understand it in the West
ceases to be. It is the return to Salem!
Colonel,
Re a 3rd party standing and defamation....again, based on memory gonna say because Defamation law is considered a tort, basic
principles of tort law apply and something tells me the plaintiff must personally experience the injury/damages....
Hopefully someone not as far removed from law school will know the correct rule of law to the question.
Mac
Colonel,
Going on memory here from Defamation in law school many moons ago, something comes to mind that states the standard for persons
who are, like Judge Kavanaugh, public figures is 'knowingly false statements.' Or is "reckless disregard for the truth" types
of statement. Can't recall which. But these rules come from case law and change over time and I have not checked if this is accurate
still.
Mac
Would that not open a discovery process that would give her lawyers subpoena powers that they have not had up to now? I don't
know what they could find after 36 years, but he probably has some ideas.
No competent attorney would advise Kavanaugh to sue anyone for libel. His entire life would be subject to the discovery
microscope and, regardless of what sort of person he is, I doubt if he or anyone else would want that.
Plus, as in any litigation he runs the risk of losing since as a public figure the burden of proof is his to show actual malice,
and what then?
Losing the case would be taken as confirmation by the media of the truthfulness of the allegations against him despite the
fact that any verdict may only be based on his inability to meet that high bar.
Sir, As you know I'm not a lawyer. I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn recently. However, I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh is
personally barred from suing for reason of being a public figure, govt employee or something like that, that his wife and children
have a very real and viable cause of action for very real damages.
FACTS about this case--->Christine Blasey Ford - After 36 Years, she threw herself under
the bus for "the cause". Party was held; she forgot who she was with or how she got home;
she was drinking and said nothing to anyone. 1983, through to 2002 She said nothing. July
25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C Circuit...
She said nothing. 2004, 2005... She said nothing. May 11, 2006: The United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by
the United States Senate... She said nothing. June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice
Anthony Kennedy...
She said nothing. 2007, through to 2011... She said nothing. 2012... She remembered
'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to
authorities. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 -
She becomes an anti-trump activist 2018 - Now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS
confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh
regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals
herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?
Who does she think she is?.......and then there's this picture of her and George
Soros...hmmm....Can anyone else see what's REALLY going on here? and now the Corrupt FBI is
"Investigating" this? LOL!!!!
I was sexually assaulted by that woman. I talked to my therapist about it. It happened like
30 years ago and I couldn't remember her and then I remembered how she closed her eyes
weirdly and was always smiling like a psychopath and I instantly remembered her. Nobody saw
her do it but oh well. Now she needs to defend herself.
Unfortunately, Christie Setzer has sexually assaulted her own anus with her head and it's
contemporary! Using a stolen car as a metaphor, still asks the same question. "Prove the car
was stolen and not moved or reposessed!" The same asks the moron of accusations against
Kavanaugh, "show proof of allegations to sexual wrongdoing!" Without this, this becomes
nothing but a smear campaign designed to oust the credibility of an honest man for nothing
but political purposes. Shame on Frankenstein, Climate Change Harris and Spartacus Booker!
Low life animals!
Look at her body language when she answers Tucker's question. She knows how ridiculous her
answers sound. She can't even keep a straight face. The burden of proof is on the accuser,
and that has never changed. All the other grandstanding is just to take up time. It is very
sad that the Democrats will knowingly attempt to unjustly ruin this mans reputation with no
regard for him or his family. I believe the Democrats know full well that he is innocent and
just don't care. To them the end justifies the means no matter who gets hurt. How do they
sleep at night?
"... There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats' treatment of the sexual assault allegations, are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. ..."
"... A central aim of the Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has been to obscure the most important class issues. They adopt the tone of phony moral outrage over the three-decade-old allegation while expressing no similar anger or even concern over the crimes committed by the American ruling class throughout the world. ..."
"... Not a day goes by where the US military is not dropping bombs or launching drone strikes, with the death toll from the "war on terror" well over one million. Thirteen thousand immigrant children are currently locked up in internment camps. Thousands of workers in the US die each year from industrial accidents and work-related illnesses. When Democratic Senator Cory Booker complains about the "patriarchy," he looks past the fact that the fall in life expectancy in the working class is largely driven by alcoholism, drug abuse and depression among men. ..."
"... Kavanaugh is himself complicit in these crimes, from which the relentless focus on allegations of sexual misconduct is intended as a diversion. There is documentary evidence Kavanaugh helped author Alberto Gonzales' "torture memos" during the Bush administration. He is on the record praising the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. Email exchanges prove he advocates repealing the right to abortion for millions of women across the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party's refusal to address such issues is a deliberate decision. They are themselves guilty of involvement in these crimes -- and intend for them to continue, whether Kavanaugh or some other reactionary is on the court. ..."
"... twenty years ago Kavanaugh was a central player in the Republicans' anti-democratic use of sex scandals to attempt to bring down the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton ..."
After nearly nine hours of Senate testimony by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the public is no closer to knowing what did or did not happen
over thirty years ago, when Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh's future
as the nominee now depends on the outcome of an FBI investigation to which Senate Republicans
agreed on Friday.
The allegations of sexual assault have become the sole issue in Kavanaugh's confirmation,
and the Democratic Party and the media have presented Kavanaugh's guilt on this matter as a
foregone conclusion. The focus of the proceedings reflects the political priorities of the
Democratic Party and the interests of the affluent social layers to which it is appealing.
There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of
innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats' treatment of the sexual assault allegations,
are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. The ends, as the
saying goes, supposedly justify the means. They should be warned: This is bad politics, bad
strategy and even worse tactics. There are political consequences to such efforts to confuse
and cover up the real issues confronting the working class.
A central aim of the Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has been to obscure
the most important class issues. They adopt the tone of phony moral outrage over the
three-decade-old allegation while expressing no similar anger or even concern over the crimes
committed by the American ruling class throughout the world.
Not a day goes by where the US military is not dropping bombs or launching drone
strikes, with the death toll from the "war on terror" well over one million. Thirteen thousand
immigrant children are currently locked up in internment camps. Thousands of workers in the US
die each year from industrial accidents and work-related illnesses. When Democratic Senator
Cory Booker complains about the "patriarchy," he looks past the fact that the fall in life
expectancy in the working class is largely driven by alcoholism, drug abuse and depression
among men.
Kavanaugh is himself complicit in these crimes, from which the relentless focus on
allegations of sexual misconduct is intended as a diversion. There is documentary evidence
Kavanaugh helped author Alberto Gonzales' "torture memos" during the Bush administration. He is
on the record praising the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the National Security
Agency. Email exchanges prove he advocates repealing the right to abortion for millions of
women across the country.
The Democratic Party's refusal to address such issues is a deliberate decision. They are
themselves guilty of involvement in these crimes -- and intend for them to continue, whether
Kavanaugh or some other reactionary is on the court.
The Democrats are not even capable of addressing the fact that twenty years ago
Kavanaugh was a central player in the Republicans' anti-democratic use of sex scandals to
attempt to bring down the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton . To raise
this issue would expose the fact that the Democrats are engaged in the same methods today.
As part of their effort to center opposition to Kavanaugh on allegations of sexual
misconduct, the Democrats are utilizing the methods of #MeToo, which have consisted of treating
allegations as fact and the presumption of innocence as an unnecessary burden that must be
dispensed with.
The WSWS takes no position on whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations against
him. However, as a legal matter, all that has been presented are the uncorroborated assertions
of one individual. At Thursday's hearing, Democratic senators carried out a degrading
spectacle, poring over Kavanaugh's high school yearbook and his puerile, 16-year-old references
to drinking, flatulence and vomiting as though they prove he is guilty of sexual assault.
The media has followed suit. In an editorial board statement published Thursday night, the
New York Times presented Kavanaugh's testimony as "volatile and belligerent." The
statement makes no reference to Kavanaugh's political views, but concludes that he was "hard to
believe," "condescending," "clumsy," "coy," "misleading" and likely a "heavy drinker." The
reader is led to conclude that he must be guilty of the alleged crime.
Speaking on CNN last week, Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono said the presumption of
innocence "is what makes it really difficult for victims and survivors of these traumatic
events to come forward." New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer told reporters that there
is "no presumption of innocence" in Kavanaugh's case because "it's not a legal proceeding, it's
a fact-finding proceeding."
The character of the Democrats' operation in relation to the Kavanaugh hearing allowed this
arch-reactionary to present himself as the victim of what he referred to in his opening
statement as a "left-wing" conspiracy. The Democrats are, in fact, engaged in a highly staged
political operation. However, there is nothing left-wing about it. On the contrary, the
Democrats have adopted the political methods of the far-right.
The presumption of innocence is no small matter and dispensing with it has the most
far-reaching consequences. Socialists have always stood against efforts by representatives of
the bourgeoisie to obscure the class issues and undercut democratic consciousness. The causes
with which the left has been historically associated involve a defense of the democratic and
egalitarian principles established by the bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century,
including the presumption of innocence and due process.
The use of emotion and prejudice to weaken popular support for these rights, divide the
working class, and facilitate state repression, militarism and corporate exploitation is the
historical tradition of right-wing politics. Basic democratic principles are always most
vulnerable when the ruling class is able to play on moods of mass retribution against alleged
perpetrators of crimes, particularly sexual violence, due to its inherent emotional appeal.
The Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has much in common with these traditions.
Appeals to moods of vengeance and encouragement of visceral hatred of the accused are the
methods of medieval justice. They are being employed to advance the Democratic Party's efforts
to consolidate a political constituency among the affluent upper-middle class.
Socialists hold no brief for Brett Kavanaugh. But the tactics used against him will be
employed with a thousand times more force and power against the oppressed and those opposed to
the policies of the ruling elite. The case of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, persecuted for
years on the basis of trumped-up sexual allegations, is one such example.
The operation of the Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearing cannot be separated from the
character of its entire opposition to the Trump administration. It has sought to suppress and
divert popular opposition to Trump behind the reactionary militarist and anti-democratic agenda
of dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. In this conflict within the ruling
class, there is no progressive or democratic faction.
Kavanaugh is a political reactionary and an enemy of the working class. However, in waging
its opposition to this right-wing Republican and the Trump administration, the working class
must not allow itself to be subordinated to the agenda of the Democrats. To do so would only
disarm the working class, undermine democratic rights and facilitate the ever more right-wing
trajectory of American politics.
"... The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable. ..."
"... Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty. ..."
"... In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not for it. ..."
"... As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence. ..."
"... First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never saw him at any party? ..."
@Ron Unz Ron .Think harder. First the entire process is cynical. 45 Dems were going to
vote against him regardless, This is all about peeling off a handful of votes.
Its about black balling a SC nominee because something might have happened. Of course
those 45 Dems could care less why they vote against him.
The Polygraph, to the extent it means anything, can only test if she believes it happened,
And it was administered as paid for by her Lawyers.
As far as drinking, it is a tactic to increase FUD. If he ever drank to the extent his
memory was ever hazy, he 'could've done anything and not remember it.
Finally, she volunteered herself. Its not like she was was identified as someone that was
in Kavanaugh's circle. She may never have met him.
Finally, why was it so traumatic? Because he laughed? It is not unlikely that someone that
fought off a drunken groping would actually felt empowered.
Rape is now a social construct entirely defined by women. Its their right to enjoy BSDM
like that promoted in 50 Shades of Gray but more extreme. Yet it is weaponized. Its like
being a commie or homo in the 1950s. Now 1950s commies and homos are celebrated. Traditional
definitions of rape were stranger rape and it was a potential capital crime. Its been
conflated to include what would have been considered bad manners.
In the Court System, there are enough due process safeguards to have forced College
officials to set up their alternative adjudication procedures.
Sorry Ron the only people who believe polygraphs work is the industry trying to
sell them. Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer passed them. So did Aldrich Ames our own
Russian Mole spy. If a person believes something then her vitals like Ford may be in a
certain range not to make the examiner find anything out of the ordinary. The polygraph
theoretically measures the autonomic system response. Any nervousness, stress, blood pressure
etc. can change whether the person is telling the truth or not.. I believe there have been
people that have passed the test that claim they were abducted by Aliens and UFOs.
Ford's memories have little validity because these therapies often produce false memories
and fill in the blank episodes. The Repubs should have asked her if she was on any drug or
had taken drugs in the past. How much does she still drink because all of these could
influence memories. Instead they became a door mat for the sick Me Too movement. Her memories
could also be a form of release for guilt of her drugged laden sexual past which now lets her
not blame herself. It was all of those drunken white guys who did it not me I am not
responsible. Now I feel better.
@Nicephorus Freud is a perfect representation of the Jewish obsession with all manners of
sexual perversion. The man was seriously F in the head, a total fraud who plied his patients
with cocaine and morphine then faked his test results...
Does anyone among us think that the FBI that has vetted Judge Kavanaugh six times already
won't turn up something on their seventh attempt? After all, DJT has been at war with them
nearly since Inauguration Day and Rosenstein is still riding high...
@Ron Unz I haven't followed the proceedings myself – apart from anything else I'm
not American – but one of the blogs I follow is the Irish Savant and he has a short,
punchy article about this affair if you're interested. I find him generally quite reliable
– even though he's obviously quite annoyed in this particular posting, as opposed to
his usual more laid-back and witty self.
From my own point of view, she-said, he-said unsubstantiated stuff from people now in
their 50′s, talking about stuff that happened in their mid to late teens, is just plain
bonkers. Totalitarian states demand that the accused prove their innocence – I was
under the impression that Western jurisprudence found you innocent until proven guilty. So is
a mere allegation now considered proof?
Not a road we'd want to go down, surely. And there's probably good reasons why polygraph
tests aren't accepted in law courts, as a circa 80% reliability just isn't good enough.
@Ron Unz Her polygraph exam was a joke. She and her lawyer drafted a vague, one-page
statement that does not say "Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape me."
The test-giver then asked her exactly one question, in two different ways: (1) Is your
statement true? and (2) Did you make it up?
The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie
will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable.
Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies
she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic
skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty.
In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not
for it.
P.S. It's also entirely possible that she failed a prior (more rigorous) exam, and they
just threw it away and tried again. Because it is attorney work product they wouldn't have
had to disclose that.
P.P.S. I wish I knew how to grab and paste a link from my phone, but a copy of her
polygraph report with the written statements and examination questions is easily findable
online if anyone wants to see it.
I am pro-choice and anti-gun, Kavanaugh is not at all my ideal judge. But
truth and fairness is much more important than my personal views on social issues.
I watched the trial with an open mind, and I came away thinking that the whole thing was a
farce, an embarrassment not just to Ford and Kavanaugh, but to all of Congress and the entire
country. This is a hearing that never should've been in public, it should've been in private
between the two parties, but Democrats clearly manipulated the situation and wanted to use it
to destroy an innocent man whose only crime is harboring certain political views that they
disagree with. It is pure evil.
Ford probably had been groped or worse treated in her youth, partly thanks to her own hard
partying lifestyle(according to her yearbook she was a popular cheerleader with a reputation
for hard partying and chasing boys), but she's got the wrong man in Kavanaugh, and her
accusations are at least partially politically motivated. All 3 people she named as
witnesses, incl. her best friend, swore under oath that such a party never even took place.
What she has is a bullshit case.
As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to
have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out
squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of
these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence.
The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for such foul play, they are an
embarrassment to the whole country. Honor and integrity no longer matters to the left. They
have lost all sense of decency in their quest to hold on to power. The end justifies the
means. Flake the idiot needs to go ESAD.
Most of us would probably be far more upset if we were wrongly accused by a
bunch of crazy women whose only goal was to prevent us from getting that one job we worked
our whole lives for.
I am a woman and I think Ford lied through her teeth while Kavanaugh told the truth, and I
don't even like Kavanaugh's politics. Not a single witness she named corroborated her story.
She came across as someone who had one too many drinks in her life.
First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn
testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never
saw him at any party?
Second, even if this all did happen, which is a big IF, they were both underage. We're
talking about a bunch of teenagers here. He groped but did not rape her. Who among us have
not done stupid things we wish we hadn't done when we were young and stupid? Judge the man
for who he is today, not who he was when he was a kid. There's a reason why we allow people
to expunge their juvenile records when they reach 18.
This whole trial is a FARCE, an embarrassment to the whole country.
Well, here's my impression of a possible "bare-bones" version of the incident
At an unsupervised suburban pool party, a couple of drunken teenage football players
pulled a girl into a bedroom, pawed at her a little while they were laughing, then let her
run away. Since they knew they hadn't had the slightest intent of gang-raping her, they
didn't regard what happened as being a big deal. However, it's quite possible that the
15-year-old girl had actually been pretty scared, and she long remembered it.
Doesn't she claim she mentioned it to people years before Kavanaugh was nominated for the
SC? Didn't Mike Judge write a whole book about how he had spent years in crude drunken
misbehavior? Isn't he currently hiding so that he can't be called as a sworn witness?
Also, isn't Kavanaugh now claiming he remained a virgin all through HS and college or
something like that? Given that he and his friend Judge were drunken jocks and his yearbook
was filled with all sorts of crude sexual humor, is that really plausible?
I suspect that administering official polygraphs to Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge would soon
clear up the facts. We're not talking about trained spies or anything. And three polygraphs
would probably increase the likelihood of a solid result.
Since I haven't watched the hearings or paid much attention to the story, maybe some of
the above material is just erroneous. But offhand, I think it's more plausible than claiming
this is all part of a CIA plot.
Whether this is a good test of Supreme Court Justices is entirely a different story
The FBI is also investigating allegations by Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor
at Palo Alto University in California, whose tearful dramatic testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee this week nearly derailed Kavanaugh's nomination - that is, until he
stepped up and delivered an impassioned denial that satisfied President Trump and Senate
Republicans. Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s when they
were in high school in Maryland. Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh pulled out his
penis and shoved it in her face during a drunken dorm room party during their freshman year at
Yale.
Ramirez's lawyer confirmed that she would cooperate with the investigation, but declined to
comment further.
"We can confirm the FBI has reached out to interview Ms. Ramirez and she has agreed to
cooperate with their investigation," the attorney, John Clune, said in a statement. "Out of
respect for the integrity of the process, we will have no further comment at this time."
In addition to at least two of Kavanaugh's named accusers (two women more women have
anonymously accused him of misconduct though their claims are widely viewed as not credible),
several of the alleged witnesses whom Ford said also attended the party where the assault
allegedly occurred have agreed to cooperate.
But already, two potentially crucial witnesses have said they will cooperate with the FBI,
raising the possibility that at least more statements and recollections will be added to the
record, even if they're not ultimately definitive.
An attorney for Leland Keyser, a friend of Ford's who Ford says was at the party, said
Keyser also was willing to cooperate with the FBI investigation. But the attorney emphasized
that Keyser has no recollection of the party where Ford alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her.
"Notably, Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the
press that she believes Dr. Ford's account," the attorney, Howard J. Walsh III, wrote in an
email to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that
she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
question."
Judge, the high school friend of Kavanaugh who Ford says was in the room during the
alleged assault, has also agreed to cooperate with the FBI. His account has been particularly
sought after because, unlike Kavanaugh, Judge has not denied Ford's allegations but has said
he has no memory that such an assault occurred.
Ford told the Judiciary Committee that some weeks after the alleged assault, she ran into
Judge at a local grocery store where he was working for the summer.
As WaPo reminds us, the FBI's investigation is merely a background check, not a criminal
probe. Notably, sex crime prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both Kavanaugh and Ford on
Thursday, said she wouldn't be able to pursue an investigation or even request a search warrant
given Ford's testimony.
A background investigation is, by its nature, more limited than a criminal probe, and FBI
agents will not be able to obtain search warrants or issue subpoenas to compel testimony from
potential witnesses. The FBI's interviews, which will take a few days to conduct, won't turn
into a sprawling inquest of everyone Kavanaugh went to a party with in high school, said a
person familiar with the investigation.
The paper also reminded readers, perhaps with a dash of tongue-in-cheek irony, that the
results of the investigation would only be shared with a small group of senators and would not
become public (though we imagine they will almost inevitably leak).
The FBI's findings will not necessarily become public. When investigators have completed
their work, anything they've discovered will be turned over to the White House as an update
to Kavanaugh's background check file. The White House would then likely share the material
with the Senate committee.
At that point, all senators, as well as a very small group of aides, would have access to
it.
The White House or the Senate would decide what, if anything, should be released publicly.
The bureau's work will likely consist mostly of reports of interviews with witnesses and
accusers. The bureau will not come to a conclusion on whether the accusations are credible
and will not make a recommendation on what should become of Kavanaugh's nomination.
While Democrats heralded the probe as an unmitigated win for their stalling strategy,
there's still a solid chance that it could backfire. As Bloomberg's Jennifer Jacobs revealed,
high school friends of Ford and Kavanaugh say the investigation could uncover some "fairly
unpleasant things" about Ford's behavior. Despite the dramatic footage teased to the media by
Showtime, which recorded an interview with Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick, the third
woman to publicly accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct (she claimed that Kavanaugh and Judge
participated in the "gang rapes" of disoriented young women at parties back in high school),
NBC News and
the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday afternoon that the White House has limited the
FBI investigation to Ramirez and Ford, and has not permitted the FBI to interview Swetnick.
While some accused the White House of "micromanaging" the FBI probe, and a spokesperson for the
White House said the parameters of the investigation were actually set by the Senate, which
said it wanted to limit the probe to only "credible" accusers,
NBC reported that it isn't unusual for the White House to set these types of boundaries for
background-check investigations, since the FBI is conducting the investigation on behalf of the
White House.
Avenatti was, understandably, less than pleased.
"I don't know how this investigation could be called complete if they don't contact her,"
Avenatti said.
Here's the teaser of the Swetnick interview, which is set to air Sunday night:
Regardless of what Ramirez tells the FBI - whether it's stunningly revelatory or utterly
mundane - we imagine it will leak to WaPo or the New York Times by mid-week.
"... And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians. ..."
"... The fact that Brock... has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Hillary never forgets a grudge. ..."
"... @UntimelyRippd ..."
"... @UntimelyRippd ..."
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
"... The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate at all. ..."
"... @Fishtroller 02 ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The Washington Post. ..."
"... The therapist's notes, ..."
"... do not mention Kavanaugh's name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... one bit of advice ..."
"... to listen very carefully to the question, and answer it, and only it. ..."
After watching the whole miserable spectacle yesterday, I found neither Dr. Ford's nor Judge Kavanaugh's testimony particularly credible.
As a former trial attorney, it was clear to me that Dr. Ford had been coached on her answers in coordination with the Democrats on
the committee, with the tip off being Sen. Leahy stumbling through the printed setup question that elicited the canned 'laughter...uproarious
laughter' answer.
Another example of coordination is found in the strong objection by her attorney to questions regarding the polygraph test, followed
by her failure to recollect any details of how she came to take the test or who paid for the test. Apparently we have only her counsel's
word that she passed, as they have yet to release the actual results.
Regardless of her memories of the facts surrounding the allegations, the appearance of coaching and collusion with Democratic
politicians diminishes her credibility as an impartial witness and suggests political bias as a motive for her statements.
Then this happened:
I have no idea what was in that envelope (Lee claims they were only fan letters), but the mere fact that a furtive Congresswomen
is passing secret documents to the witness's counsel after the hearing is further evidence of the Ford team's less than forthright
political impartiality.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, came across as a mean drunk. While I believe his tears and anger were sincere (especially when talking
about his dad), I did not find them particularly dispositive of his innocence. He has obviously been put through the ringer by the
drawn out hearing, and frustration and impatience at having to endure this ordeal to gain a position he clearly believes he is entitled
to seemed to be more the motivation than outrage at having been falsely accused.
Once he calmed down, Kavanaugh spent much of the hearing too-expertly filibustering the Democrats (incredibly lame) questioning.
He was combative at times, but again, mostly out of anger at the process rather than the allegations. He also clearly liked (and
still likes) to drink, and his repeated statements about how much he loves beer left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to
post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years.
The whole thing left me shaking my head as to what really happened. Ford supplied no new factual corroboration or other witnesses
to back up her testimony, and indeed, when asked under questioning about her counselor's notes on the incident stating there were
four other people in the room at the time, she admitted that the notes contradicted her hearing testimony that there were only two
others. Another credibility strike.
Kavanaugh too, despite his protestations, was clearly no choir boy in high school. He was a smart jock who hung out with a pretty
fast crowd. I don't think he is necessarily lying about being a virgin, but as the hearing went on I started envisioning a scenario
where his party buddy 'Judge' saw an opportunity to alleviate that condition by exploiting a troubled girl who was having a tough
time fitting in.
So while the lawyer in me is still certain that the totality of evidence in no way rises to the threshold necessary to disqualify
Kavanaugh, after watching the hearing the 'juror' in me is left with more doubts than answers about what really happened.
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's
procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
that Ford claimed to be claustrophobic about flying, so she wanted to delay the hearing several days so she could drive,
then she turns around and flies to D.C. And as one would expect to find, it turns out she flies to all kinds of places.
Ford has been claiming a life-long condition of claustrophobia caused by K. She supposedly didn't want to fly because of this
condition caused by K. The entire confirmation process was held up because of this condition. Then, viola!! She has been flying
all along!
So, how credible is her claim that she has this condition?
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's
procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say
secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before
Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians.
In the email blasted out to Democratic donors on Wednesday, Brock writes that his organization American Bridge, which has
already raised $20 million this cycle , is launching a rapid response and polling operation specifically to counter Bannon
-- one that will test in real time any Republican lines of attack and try to quash them before they gain any steam. He is also
launching a digital advertising campaign across 70 House races.
...
Brock, who hosted a three-day donor retreat in Miami during Trump's inauguration last year to plot lines of attack against
Trump, has been less visible since the election. He shut down his organization Correct The Record, which served as an outside
press shop for the Clinton campaign in 2016. But he said he's been working just as hard behind the scenes, and sees the midterm
elections as make-or-break for Democratic chances in the 2020 presidential election.
The fact that Brock...
has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary
and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Hillary never forgets a grudge.
#6.1 OMG OMG OMG - K called
HRC a bitch (like who hasn't?), OMG OMG OMG, K was heavily involved in repub politics (just like prominent dems have been in
their politics).
internet censorship and mass spying on We the People, that's enough for me. Obviously if they were serious, the discussions
and debates would be about more than these allegations. This is such kabuki it reeks. Anyone who doesn't realize that is lost
in the wilderness. I get a kick out of some right wing/libertarian type friends and acquaintances of mine who complain about the
democrats and the left attacking this asshole, saying it's all a setup and all this. Then I ask them if they support someone who
wants to let the government spy on them, censor the internet and continue the war OF terror forever. Ooops, brain gears all fucked
up. The only answer, abolish the supreme court.
During the confirmation hearings, there was very little (none from the Rs) examination of his actual court rulings. Although,
I am guessing he would have provided evasive answers if called on those just like he did on the Roe v Wade questions. (His own
rulings and the precedence he cites both show which way the wind blows.)
Someone needs to start an Adopt a Right-Winger Program like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs.
trial attorney then you should already understand that first-hand professional experience in the American trial system is the
opposite of useful epistemological training, except as a negative case. the entire process is a ludicrous parody of truth-finding.
anybody with an adequate education (including an autodidact) in the processes of reasoning, investigation, inference and proof
should, when presented with the way our trials are conducted, and in particular the sorts of "arguments" that actually fly in
American courtrooms, dismiss the entire endeavor with unceremonious contempt.
you've provided us your interpretation of these events through the lens of a trial lawyer -- but that's a fun-house lens when
applied to anything that isn't actually a trial, which this was not.
or the legal system, trial procedures and rules are carefully designed to ferret out as best as possible, the objective truth
of the matter (ie., what actually happened). Although this was not a court proceding, the basic principles of what constitutes
probative evidence and credible testimony can be applied to any hearing. I figured it was far past time somebody around here did
that.
@Not Henry Kissinger
for example, it has generated considerable wealth and elevated social status for its initiates. and it manifests a set of accepted
social institutions to which the wealthy and powerful can point for justification in their depredations. and it satisfies the
public's thirst for justice/vengeance by providing a robustly "successful" means for blame-assignment -- regardless of actual
blame (that TRVTH thing) -- by being so fucked up that various socioeconomically marginalized citizens can be
cowed into false confession via the threat of merciless retribution should they choose the recourse of their constitutional right
to a trial. and, and, and. yes, very useful indeed.
Both sides fight to win. They don't care about either truth or justice. Prosecutors want to convict. They use any and all legal
tactics to win. Defense lawyers try to get their client found not guilty, or failing that, a hung jury or mistrial. Both sides
seek ways to suppress facts and limit the jury's access (if there's a jury) to key information if they can get it deemed inadmissible.
Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys want any facts that don't help their case brought into it, and will try every legal
tactic they can to keep them out.
The idea that they are seeking objective truth is obviously false. Justice is a bit more fuzzy of a concept perhaps, but from
my own experiences in court rooms, mostly as a juror, that's not the goal either. I was on one jury that ultimately acquitted
someone who we all believed to be guilty, but the prosecutor was unable to prove the case. So the defendant got away with the
crime. Is that justice?
On that case I did my civic duty and voted to acquit -- in fact, I was a voice in the deliberations on the side to find not
guilty, because that's the law. No proof, no conviction. Even though the defendant was pretty clearly guilty. The "but she's guilty!"
jurors, those who wanted to convict because thought it was about truth and justice, did come around.
We found out after the trial about some key evidence that had been suppressed due to legal technicalities, which we had not
even been allowed to consider. The thought that trials are about seeking the "truth" is clearly incorrect.
#8.1.1 You believe that our
whole judicial system never results in justice?
You keep saying this, but I am not aware of any witness that she "produced" nor of any witness who contradicted her. The only
actual witness is Mark Judge, and he refused to testify to support Kavanaugh. He said he doesn't remember. Dr Ford's friend who
she said was at the party also said she didn't remember it. That's not saying it didn't happen, just that she doesn't have memories
of that specific gathering. She did say she believes Ford regardless of her lack of specific recall. There's no witness that contradicted
her, that I know of.
Anyway, it's a bit odd how obsessed you are with attacking this woman, while you appear to have no issues or problems whatsoever
with Kavanaugh's many lies. Or his evasions, his obvious bias and partisanship, his odious positions like justifying torture and
literally unlimited presidential power, and the many other problems with his legal mindset as well as his entitlement and spoiled
frat-boy temperament.
And he's still going to end up on the Supreme Court anyway ffs. So don't worry, your idol will be in a position to ruin many
more lives very soon.
I think the poster is confused by K's claims that Dr Ford's allegations were "refuted" (he used the word every time he mentioned
them) by the three people she said were there. You are correct. They have said they do not remember which is not a refutation.
The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate
at all.
It remains remarkable that Kavanaugh has been allowed to repeat again and again that Christine Blasey Ford's high school
friend Leland Keyser had "refuted" her account of the party she was assaulted at. Viewers of this hearing would have no idea
that Keyser had in fact told The Washington Post while she does not recall the event, she believes Ford's allegation.
Not the same as saying that the witness contradicted her. Did you perchance read the article that I linked to? I didn't make
it clear that it's a link not just part of my comment. There are many tweets that have videos of key parts of testimony.
#9 people is not probative.
Anybody can say anything anytime.
She originally brought up K when he was on Romney's short list. So what? The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That
they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate at all.
mostly because of my own personal experience (with a federal suit/hearing). Personally, I don't believe that anyone in this
thread intends to be offensive.
BTW, Blasey Ford--according to The Washington Post --didn't name Kavanaugh to her counselor in 2012.
Here's the reporting,
. . . the therapist notes and the polygraph test results were turned over to The Washington Post.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.
The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not
mention Kavanaugh's name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on
to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."
The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist's part. Ford said there were
four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
As far as 'coaching' is concerned, my only personal experience did not consist of prompting me to tell a certain 'story,' or,
telling me 'what' to say.
Met with the hearing attorney for quite a few hours--two days in a row--with my local attorney, and his extensive files. What
the trial attorney did do, was question me extensively.My impression was that he was testing my veracity, partly,
by comparing what I said to the notes of the other attorney. (Who, BTW, had complete confidence in my integrity and accuracy--that,
I know for certain.) At times, he would jump back to a topic--sorta out-of-the-blue. (Again, trying to test me, I thought.)
I've always understood that attorneys don't want any 'surprises.' So, I'm 'guessing' that it's the reason that both of them
covered any and all possible venues of questioning/topics.
At any rate, I had no complaints.
We won.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
to answer questions you expect the other side to ask. Coordinating the questions and answers with hearing panel members (as
was clearly evident) is a whole different issue. Glad your case turned out so well.
I did hear all but the first 10 or so minutes of Kavanaugh's testimony. Sounded to me like he had an overdose of caffeine--not
beer!
I have seen coke users (no, not the soft drink) do this with their mouth and nose, It occurred to me particularly as he was
sniffing long before he started his crying scene.
I believe them no less that I believe history books written by survivors of their era, which form the foundation of a modern
Western education.
I also know a thing or two about how memories are stored when the brain is intoxicated -- and what three decades of living
life on earth can do to those memories. And I most fervently believe that the outcome of all of this has almost nothing to do
with those long ago events. Instead, I am certain that this moment is about one's current political and social desires, going
into the future -- because that's the only thing that really means anything.
It looks to me like maybe K has just now figured out that there ain't gonna be no forgiveness. Not anymore. For decades, much
male misbehavior has been predicated on the notion that hazing, harassment and even assault of women will always be indulged,
smoothed over, and forgiven, no matter how crude and cruel, on account of how cute us women find him and how we just can't do
without him. Except, we can. And K, and other men are hurt and angry and crying because Mommy isn't here anymore, and we, many
if not most women, are not in a forgiving mood.
As for the lady, using the term advisedly, my first reaction is that I am happy and grateful that my daughter has chosen to
raise my teenaged granddaughter in a small town where sleepovers are allowed only if Mom has met the parents and NO private house
parties at all. My second is that it is a hard and cold world and the Lord doesn't love stupid.
A Republican Party strategist was quoted as saying he would be willing to loose the House to get K confirmed and I think that
may have just happened. I suspect K did the Rethugs no favors at all, electorally speaking.
There are videos of his testimony in the
link
I posted in my comment. As I stated I don't want someone with his demeanor on any court. He seemed pissed that anyone would
question his integrity. He interrupted democrats and gave snide comments back. And what's with all that sniffling? Allergies?
She was only used to question Ford, but when she started questioning him and asked him about the people who were named in
his calendar where he mentions "PJ" the republicans stopped her right then. Ford mentioned "PJ" too.
Regardless of his attitude, his previous testimony when he might have perjured himself he is going to be confirmed. As many
have stated this is just a circus for the rubes. Democrats had so many chances to question him on more important topics, but
they had no intentions of doing so. Ringling brothers came to DC.
I recall a black co-worker who went into a meeting angry over a chimp poster he felt was racist. The women were scared of him
too and testified such. He eventually settled with the employer; his own boss testified on his behalf (and I was glad for him).
Alot of women, for all their tough talk and grrrrrrrl power, are snowflakes.
I am hired by attorneys to school witnesses on how to answer questions. Like, "I think, I guestimate, it might, maybe, " are
not answers to questions. You either know for sure and certain, as a fact witness, or you answer "I cannot truthfully answer that
question."
As to lie detectors. If the operator asks more than 5 questions, the results are a joke. That is straight from the Texas Rangers
who trained in DC. They are the damn best. I have no idea how many questions Dr. Ford was asked.
@Unabashed Liberal
Listen to the question. Formulate the answer before you respond. Keep it short. Do not hesitate to say "I do not know" or "I do
not understand the question." Stay on point, do not stray. Look directly at the jurors, or at the judge if it is a bench trial.
Do not show anger during cross examination. Smile. Voice low and calm. If your hands shake, sit on them.
Take your time. Think. Be sure, be truthful.
If that is "evil witness coaching", so be it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with telling a witness what to say.
It is coaching the witness on the best way to get the truth onto the record.
I have coached eye witnesses with low IQ's.
They sailed through.
The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few
100K under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this
racket.
It isn't under the table – it's over it. She has a couple of GoFundMe accounts that
have already racked up $ 700,000. Of course, the 6-7 figure book deal will follow.
The FBI is about to investigate something that
didn't happen somplace on some uncertain day in 1982 to see if someone did something that
contradicts a large body of evidence that shows this would be totally out of character. This is
considered rational thought in the public space!
I'm sorry you could not account for Graham's outburst. I thought it the only honest thing
any of the Senators did. It makies me think less of you that you didn't see the outrage of the
whole presumption that this could even be discussed.
And no I don't believe that preposterous [to think that] Blasey [is CIA] operative. She and
her whole family work for the CIA.
Jones is circulating what many may call a conspiracy theory that Ford's father is a previous
CIA operative and a heavy-weight in arranging many avenues for the CIA to launder illicit
money. He implies that this was a classic CIA op.
He doesn't say so directly in anything I've read, although I don't read everything he
writes or listen to everything he says. But he clearly implies this.
Trump is at war with the IC. So, it's not unimaginable that such a thing is happening.
"... By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore". ..."
"... However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions. ..."
"... What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism. ..."
"... Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism. ..."
"... I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature. That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded. ..."
"... Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth. IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth ..."
"... Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent". ..."
"... "It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. ..."
"... So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. ..."
"... Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this. ..."
"... This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. ..."
"... Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion. We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes. ..."
"... This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this. ..."
"... If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not? ..."
"... I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. ..."
In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual , period.
Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media
outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part
to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles (
Europe's Week of Human Sacrifice ;
A Cruel French Lesson ). Still, there's
only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.
Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating
fellow in his own right -- he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture -- though his insistence on anonymity constrains
what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's Galactus.
We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.
In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.
***
A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective
The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female
differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects. Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All
too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men. Women are looking for a balance between work
and private life, men are obsessed with status and sex.
Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the
society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the
long run).
It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately
charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear
purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate
effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing
harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair.
Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly
confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already
tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity
as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore
will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative
criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative
naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore
unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should
be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore
"true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision",
but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view
of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition
for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some
natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the
prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual
reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than
contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time.
And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired
engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed
to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative
as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic
model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is
indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and
housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our
options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and
culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural,
and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires
very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion.
Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating
true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate
degradation of the "superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist
revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting
the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview
is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.
It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call
them roles -- the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves
in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.
The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical
memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true
charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers
that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued
by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous
issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic
classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well,
given our current hostile relations, it's probably for the better.
Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult
to convey in English.
I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James
Damore got from Google.
Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.
If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center,
close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive
and legislative branches.
Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky
treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or
so by native born American White men.
The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages
for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.
I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.
He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the
only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly,
not part of a practical movement or party.
Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented,
but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the Russian nationalism.
"but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like
relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."
Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:
" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological
causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of
these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual
given these population level distributions."
The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM. Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people
not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals.
"Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each
gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions,
claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven
by objects and career."
He said no such thing. He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.
I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine,
irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature. That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue,
or invalid. Outmoded.
Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth. IOW, Google fired him
for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth.
A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.
Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the
space inside the box.
But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really
aware a box exists. They envision a new box. Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can
expand on and implement it. Build the box.
Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating
on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types.
But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.
Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing.
Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.
I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left
for being open to new ideas.
You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought
the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That
belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.
To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests.
"and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.
"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization
of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes
would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair
go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those
who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".
"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women
are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of
truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue.
This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all
insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.
It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.
It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the
MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most
of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting
us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they
envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.
After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a
monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change,
but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty.
"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity
as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."
Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to
accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it.
The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other
more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.
The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but
a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going
to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.
Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.
(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting
Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore
tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate
over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits
have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther
for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)).
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to
divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest
in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination
in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's
management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in
organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they
panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority
– is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself
to fit in American society.
Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and
therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor
of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all
of them away indiscriminately.
Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And
of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice;
on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so
he may not be aware of this.
Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most
importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question,
you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you
would have to get rid of human nature.
This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all
women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and
career.
I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical
averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".
However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just
biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist
functionalization of society.
So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting
at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture
, which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but
it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even
being a civilization worth living in while it lasts.
"Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames
of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations
who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and
replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East
Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur).
Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German
states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution
would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion. We still have
peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.
We know a lot about Martin
Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid?
Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social
default and requires very good reasons to justify. "
I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things
called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.
Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness
that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice
is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but
still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in
disaster "
Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.
The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's
supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee
to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies.
Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or
surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement
to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country?
This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These
corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely
vulnerable to this.
Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and
leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company
starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept
and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company
is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.
They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter
to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with
insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources
for their agenda.
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the
capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution
and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in
the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in
a footnote.
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by
empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.)
base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities"
field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist.
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the
capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution
and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all
school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political
crisis?
If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they
bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences
among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts.
Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives
should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall
Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda.
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement
to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the
basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it
isn't conservatism.
There's a lot to unpack in the national psychodrama that played out in the senate judiciary
committee yesterday with Ford v. Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford laid out what The New York Times is
calling the "appalling trauma" of her alleged treatment at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh 36
years ago. And Mr. Kavanaugh denied it in tears of rage.
Dr. Ford scored points for showing up and playing her assigned role. She didn't add any
validating evidence to her story, but she appeared sincere. Judge Kavanaugh seemed to express a
weepy astonishment that the charge was ever laid on him, but unlike other questionably-charged
men in the grim history of the #Metoo campaign he strayed from his assigned role of the
groveling apologist offering his neck to the executioner, an unforgivable effrontery to his
accusers.
The committee majority's choice to sub out the questioning to "sex crime prosecutor" Rachel
Mitchell was a pitiful bust, shining a dim forensic light on the matter where hot halogen fog
lamps might have cut through the emotional murk. But in today's social climate of sexual
hysteria, the "old white men" on the dais dared not engage with the fragile-looking Dr. Ford,
lest her head blow up in the witness chair and splatter them with the guilt-of-the-ages. But
Ms. Mitchell hardly illuminated Dr. Ford's disposition as a teenager -- like, what seemed to be
her 15-year-old's rush into an adult world of drinking and consort with older boys -- or some
big holes in her coming-forward decades later.
For instance, a detail in the original tale, the "locked door." It's a big deal when the two
boys shoved her into the upstairs room, but she escaped the room easily when, as alleged, Mark
Judge jumped on the bed bumping Mr. Kavanaugh off of her. It certainly sounds melodramatic to
say "they locked the door," but it didn't really mean anything in the event.
Ms. Mitchell also never got to the question of Dr. Ford's whereabouts in the late summer,
when the judiciary committee was led to believe by her handlers that she was in California,
though she was actually near Washington DC at her parent's beach house in Delaware, and Mr.
Grassley, the committee chair, could have easily dispatched investigators to meet with her
there. Instead, the Democrats on the committee put out a cockamamie story about her fear of
flying all the way from California - yet Ms. Mitchell established that Mrs. Ford routinely flew
long distances, to Bali, for instance, on her surfing trips around the world.
Overall, it was impossible to believe that Dr. Ford had not experienced something with
somebody -- or else why submit to such a grotesque public spectacle -- but the matter remains
utterly unproved and probably unprovable. Please forgive me for saying I'm also not persuaded
that the incident as described by Dr. Ford was such an "appalling trauma" as alleged. If the
"party" actually happened, then one would have to assume that 15-year-old Chrissie Blasey, as
she was known then, went there of her own volition looking for some kind of fun and excitement.
She found more than she bargained for when a boy sprawled on top of her and tried to grope her
breasts, grinding his hips against hers, working to un-clothe her, with his pal watching and
guffawing on the sidelines -- not exactly a suave approach, but a life-changing trauma? Sorry,
it sounds conveniently hyperbolic to me.
I suspect there is much more psychodrama in the life of Christine Blasey Ford than we know
of at this time. She wasn't raped and her story stops short of alleging an attempt at rape,
whoever was on top of her, though it is apparently now established in the public mind (and the
mainstream media) that it was a rape attempt. But according to #Metoo logic, every unhappy
sexual incident is an "appalling trauma" that must be avenged by destroying careers and
reputations.
The issues in the bigger picture concern a Democratic Party driven by immense bad faith to
any means that justify the defeat of this Supreme Court nominee for reasons that everyone over
nine-years-old understands : the fear that a majority conservative court will overturn Roe v.
Wade - despite Judge Kavanaugh's statement many times that it is "settled law."
What one senses beyond that, though, is the malign spirit of the party's last candidate for
president in the 2016 election and a desperate crusade to continue litigating that outcome
until the magic moment when a "blue tide" of midterm election victories seals the ultimate
victory over the detested alien in the White House.
"I'm going to rely on all of the people including Senator Grassley who's doing a very good
job," added Trump.
During meeting with the president of Chile, President Trump says he found Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford's testimony "very compelling." https:// cbsn.ws/2Oj63Rs
Meanwhile, CNBC reports that an attorney for Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's high school friend said
to have been in the room during an alleged groping incident, says that Judge "will answer any
and all questions posed to him" by the FBI.
"If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr. Judge's cooperation, he will answer
any and all questions posed to him," Judge's lawyer Barbara Van Gelder told CNBC in an email.
-
CNBC
Accuser Christin Blasey Ford says that both Judge and Kavanaugh were extremely drunk at a
1982 party that she has scant memories of, when Kavanaugh grinded his body against hers on a
bed and attempted to take her clothes off. She testified that it was only after Judge jumped on
the bed that the attack stopped.
Of note, four individuals named by Ford have all denied any memory of the party - including
Ford's "lifelong" friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, who says she has never been at a party where
Kavanaugh was in attendance.
American Dissident , 7 minutes ago
The same FBI that couldn't get to the bottom of the Las Vegas mass shooting in a year is
going to uncover new information about a 1982 high school party in a week - Right.
didthatreallyhappen , 13 minutes ago
the democrats are moving the goal posts to infinity. that was their plan all along. This
will never stop. Due process in this country is OVER, DONE, GOOD BYE
"... even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true ..."
"... Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC . ..."
"... "The Democrats have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him [Kavanaugh] answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's ridiculous." ..."
"... It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has consistently defended -- or believed -- women. ..."
"... I don't know that we are "revictimizing victims". There is no evidence that either of these ladies are actually victims. Just hazy memories, or possibly just partisan lies. There's no way to know. ..."
"... Judge Kavanaugh, like him or not (and I don't), appears to be the real victim. ..."
Christine Blasey Ford (CSPN) There are many reasons members of the U.S. Senate might object
to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Take, for instance, the decisions he
handed down from the D.C. Court of Appeals, where he substantially affirmed the Patriot Act,
the surveillance state, and a broad use of executive power.
Instead of discussing Kavanaugh's controversial decisions, however, Americans are currently
transfixed by salacious stories of alleged 35-year-old sexual assaults committed by the
alcohol-addled teenage children of Washington's elite. As legislators ponder whether to place a
man in a permanent position of power, like salivating characters from Idiocracy, we remain
entranced by the hazy memories of women who allege that Kavanaugh assaulted
them.
Kavanaugh's accusers not only did not report the assaults, some 35 years later, they
are unsure of the dates, times, other people present, and even the locations where it happened.
Kavanaugh
categorically denies them. And now two other men have stepped forward to say
they were the ones who assaulted accuser Christine Blasey-Ford in 1982, not Kavanaugh. That
isn't to say the women's stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the fact and
without
corroborating witnesses , it is virtually impossible to disprove them.
Yet even before the facts were in, both the right and the left reached for well-worn
storylines, seemingly
eager to touch off a gender war. As a rumor that someone had accused Kavanaugh of sexual
misconduct emerged, some swiftly seized hold of a "boys will be boys" defense for Kavanaugh.
Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono, meanwhile, declared
that half the human population -- men -- should "shut up." Congresswoman Jackie Speier
warned Republicans to "beware the wrath of women scored. It will be your party's downfall."
To some supporters of the #MeToo movement, casually destroying an innocent man's life is an
acceptable price to pay "
in the process of undoing the patriarchy."
The question of whether the women accusing Kavanaugh should be believed should turn on the
credibility of the stories rather than on the gender of the accusers. The hyper-partisan
handling of the allegations, starting with Senator Diane Feinstein's decision to sit on
Blasey-Ford's accusation until the eleventh hour, helped the perception that Democrats
would go to any length to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination. Citing the obviously advantageous
timing, and the fact that
Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill Clinton's accusers , many
Republicans quickly called into question the veracity of Blasey-Ford's and Deborah
Ramirez's accounts.
Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual
harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen by the political parties as
nothing more than a means to advance the left's and right's familiar narratives. Both the ready
rape apologists and the myriad misandrists herald a scary new world, one where nearly 30
percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be confirmed
even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true .
One wonders how that
is possible.
Supposedly, the purpose of the #MeToo movement was to give enhanced visibility and
believability to victims of sexual assault. Yet the very opposite is achieved when political
parties callously parade alleged victims before the kangaroo court of public opinion as nothing
more than a prop to gain political advantage. Throwing reason, logic, and the presumption of
innocence out the window can only cause cause a serious backlash against victims -- not that
the monkeys in the Senate circus care about that.
The partisan political score has gotten pretty off-kilter when CBS News takes to
quoting a "moderate Republican living in the Boston suburbs" named Alice Shattuck, a mother
of four:
she's disturbed by the allegations Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez have made
against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and says that if there's proof the alleged attacks happened,
he's disqualified for the Supreme Court. "I don't care if he was a teenager or not."
But ask her what she thinks of the way the Kavanaugh case has been handled: "The Democrats
have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him [Kavanaugh]
answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's ridiculous."
Politico even ran an
article admitting that the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's "illustrious family --
let's be honest -- includes men who have done as much damage to women as they have done good
for the country, with offenses including serial infidelity, an affair with a babysitter and
even deaths, including that of Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned when Kennedy drove a car off a bridge.
Kennedy and his pal, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, were notorious for alcohol-infused
misbehavior that, by one account, included a game of 'waitress toss,' which is just what it
sounds like."
It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the
mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has
consistently defended -- or believed -- women. The reason for that is, of course,
partisanship.
Regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh, this massive circus has contributed to the
revictimization of victims everywhere. And because the partisanship has become so rank, that's
made victims less likely to be trusted rather than more.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has
been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics,
and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War
II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
I blame the GOP for trying to rush through Kavanaugh without releasing all his papers and
allowing the Senate to examine them closely. As for the accusations of sexual misconduct,
there are enough voices speaking about his drinking and crude behaviour to discredit all his
denials. I simply don't think he's honest, he seems to be slippery with the truth.
You lost me when you gave any credence to the two men who came forward to claim
responsibility for Ford's assault. The problem is that the crime that was committed is not
some light weight sexual assault but in most jurisdictions an incredibly severe felony.
In Louisiana (where I practice law) they would be charged with Attempted Aggravated Rape.
The underlying crime Aggravated Rape is subject to a minimum of life in prison without the
possibility of parol, so since it was 'just' attempted they would be facing 10-50 years in
prison. And of course there is no statute of limitations.
The idea that two men are going to voluntarily come forward and subject themselves to the
rest of their lives in prison is so fanciful it really cannot be believed absent so
incredibly compelling factor.
"That isn't to say the women's stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the
fact and without corroborating witnesses, it is virtually impossible to disprove them."
***************
It's worse than that. They also left out any detail that could be disproven through
criminal investigation: the time, exact locations, etc.
I know how investigations for sexual assault work when the crime's been committed years or
decades earlier. I had to give evidence to a detective to help prove victims were with an
offender on various occasions. I had to provide law enforcement with those physical addresses
& approximate dates. Other witnesses had to come forward & testify to back that up.
However terrible the accusation, the accused has rights to due process as well.
Thankfully he's behind bars now.
It's really appalling to me that young girls who are assaulted by non-celebrities have to
endure months & months of testimony & evidence gathering to be judged "credible". But
accuse someone in the public eye when it's politically expedient & all the rules
change.
[ ] and the fact that Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill
Clinton's accusers [ ]
To be fair, neither did Kavanaugh.
a scary new world, one where nearly 30 percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be
confirmed even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true.
One wonders how that is possible.
If you're wondering, it's because you haven't been paying attention. Just about any time
some well-liked guy gets accused of this stuff, there will be defenders who say various
shades of "she lead him on", "she was asking for it", "how dare she ruin a good man's life",
and so-on. There is a significant number of people in this country who see being
accused of rape/assault/harassement as worse then doing it .
There's a reason so few women come forward with these stories. Because they don't get
believed, and when they do, they get blamed for it happening in the first place and then
blamed for ruining the life of a "good man".
So I'm not saying you should understand why some people think this way. But you shouldn't
wonder how it's possible because it's been evident that a large number of people just don't
care about abusing women for a very long time.
"It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the
mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has
consistently defended -- or believed -- women. The reason for that is, of course,
partisanship."
The reason for that is, of course, the pervasive enabling of men to be violent towards
women in our society. Couple that with the immediate move to blame the (female) victim. Toss
in the outcomes of cases like Brock Turner. Small wonder so few women report right away, if
at all. At some point, we husbands and fathers are going to have provide what the justice
system cannot or will not.
"Democrat Senators seem to genuinely think hiding allegations of rape and then springing them
in public are equivalent to the Republicans refusing to consider Merrick Garland for the
seat."
You think a two week delay is some sort of momentous thing? If the Dr. hadn't wanted to
testify, then there was serious debate as to whether the letter should be released
The fact that Kavanaugh and republicans see this as some sort of Democratic huge action is
just a partisan attack. He got accused of some stuff that became more credible with
publicity, because she decided to pursue it, and lots of corroboration happened. None of that
is the democrats fault
I am not so sure partisanship will do this. In reality victims of sexual abuse have never
been believed unless there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that could not be ignored. In
which case very often the victims were blamed for the abuse instead of the perpetrator(s), at
least when they were adults instead of children and adolescents.
So maybe partisanship is helping victims of sexual abuse in the sense that there is at
least one party that will lend them an ear.
Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of
sexual harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen byone and
only one ofthe political parties as nothing more than a means to advance the left's
and right's familiar narratives.
Fixed it for you, Ms. Boland.
This war against men must stop. The Democrats started the Culture War. Can they stop it or
will they continue to the bitter end? When the Left and their useful idiots ruin the USA they
won't like what replaces it.
"The Democrats have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make
him [Kavanaugh] answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's
ridiculous."
Ford's attorneys asked for Kavanaugh to go first in a letter they wrote to the committee.
I haven't seen any Democrats endorse that idea. Barbra Boland doesn't name any Democrats who
endorsed the idea. Boland never the less tosses the quote out there as though it indicated a
problem with Democrats rather than with the conservative propaganda machine.
It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to
embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that
has consistently defended -- or believed -- women.
What's next, a reminder that southern Democrats supported slavery in 1850? The #MeToo
movement would not be necessary if we weren't talking about a widespread problem, one not
confined to any particular party or group. I suspect that Boland is engaging in this straw
man because she doesn't want to discuss question of which party supports the #MeToo movement
today. The Democratic party does, by and large, and not just in the context of the Kavanaugh
nomination. The Republican party is led by Donald Trump.
",Kavanaugh -- and Hatch, and Lindsey Graham -- seemed [bent on] exterminating the faint
notion that a massively successful white man could have his birthright questioned or his
character held to the most basic type of scrutiny"
Well, I am going to take issue with your dismissal of context. And note, I have routinely
maintained that youth male or female are measured by a different standard -- because they are
-- in fact youth. The attempt to make them into adults is the flip side of youth seeking
adult "pleasures." I am not going to be at linear to the rules of conduct of a young woman
who beds around in HS as I might adult women who bed around. Such context matters. There's a
reason we increase our expectations of children as they grow older to adulthood. And frankly,
it makes sense. This business of holding a sixteen year old to that of a thirty year old is
simplistic nonsense. Now each child is different, but children are in fact, children despite
the differences between them.
I agree, that this is not a boys will be boys matter. It is accurate that most boys seek
relationships with girls. It is not accurate that most boys seek to sexually accost women.
The pursuit of girls is not by definition accosting girls. When people say boys will be boys
-- they are not saying -- boys should get drunk and attempt sexual assault.
Nor do I buy that the story is credible therefore, such and such should happen. These
issues get played out in the political arena as if there some level of human perfection that
frees others to go crashing into people lives -- who reflect a level of humaness, that
plagues all of us. I have never been drunk. I can't even remember being invited to a party
where drinking was part of the main -- that did not include adults. And yet I am keenly aware
of at least one incident that plagues me to this day – it did not involve alcohol or
sex. And I can think of numerous events in which others were both verbally and physically
abusive -- teens in HS can be a mean, brutal, etc., etc. sort. And most of that is boy to
boy. The level of potential humiliation that teens are exposed to laughingly has no end
– the pecking order, is far less excruciating than the process is used to establish it.
And in that the girls can be as vicious. Needless to say, most boys exit HS virgins and I
suspect more exit college virgins more than we know. But the number of boys assaulting women
-- is nothing to the numb er of assaults that go one between boys. I won't even hazard a
guess how many of those had to do with girls --
High school is supposed to be figuring out the rules. I was teaching when Columbine
occurred. During that week, students expressed their HS days -- and very few would return it.
I cannot think of a single student who saw HS as a safe place -- yet, every year there are
thousands of HS reunions. So excuse me, if I am jaded to the tales of the privileged and
their Peyton Place dramas. I would that members of Congress would be so inclined.
Where this particular story falls apart for me, besides, its inappropriate introduction into
the process, hence the attempts to link her performance in college, some two more years
afterwards with no trauma reflection through HS --
The men and one woman she claims is her best friend, lifelong friend, whom she referenced to
support her story, does just the opposite. That does not mean what she experienced in her
mind was not real for her. But it does lend serious question as the events in reality. Then
she proceeded to throw her lifelong friend under the bus by suggesting her illness had
effected her mind.
I am fuming my housemate pestered into watching and listening -- laughing -- it's all her
fault. Jesting.
I think you are correct, this re-traumatizes women, discourages men or women who would serve
consider the matter not worth it, if every event in their lives can be used as claw hammer in
public castigation.
I also agree that the real issues are his views on the law, governance and the consitution
– and those areas you note have some serious concern for me. That our judiciary has not
had a clear eye on holding off government intrusion and the various order tactics in the name
pf the law that are in themselves unlaws and worse unethical is disturbing. But in truth,
Congress as a whole has not come to their senses that 9/11 was but a blip and a lucky strike
due to a lot of carelessness on the part of our agencies responsible for our security. To
this date not a single foreign state has been implicated in the planning or operation of
those events. But twenty years down the road the US has manged to topsy bturvy more than four
stable states. Making more room for discontented opponents. So its interesting that they did
not use this opportunity to enlighten the public on the issues that most to the the citizens
of this country will be impacted as to policy and polity. Some discussion of the games played
and court complicity in circumventing the law and ethics to obtain warrants.
I have no doubt that this woman as most have experienced some painful HS experiences and
more since. But it's hard to square, whatever she claims as traumatizing had no effect until
college and even more thirty years later while remodeling her house. But unlike some people
in HS her enemies, if she had any, did not follow her seeking to make hay of her life –
there are people who experience that level nastiness.
Nothing prevented her from escaping a home-life, education and community she didn't like
and head off to the beaches of California. Where she dumped the rigors of math for something
she liked better. In all that time she never once sought to redress what she thinks happened
to her. Now one might give room for people without means, connections and privilege brio, but
this young lady had all that and more and did nothing. There men and women in with nothing
who fight everyday for some relief from wrongs done to them.
Note: I am not referencing the escape clause of it's past the dead line – so the
injustice must stand -- that's a rather tawdry mechanism – in view of the integrity
demanded by government. Statute of limitations is often a management dodge. Government and
the powerful stonewall, but if that limit is to the benefit of a target, they move heaven and
earth find ways around it or manipulate by changing it outright.
I don't know that we are "revictimizing victims". There is no evidence that either of
these ladies are actually victims. Just hazy memories, or possibly just partisan lies.
There's no way to know.
Judge Kavanaugh, like him or not (and I don't), appears to be the real
victim.
But we no longer live in a great country. Just a place where people will happily perform
any unethical act in hopes that their team will win. On both sides of the aisle.
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
They were too afraid of the women's movement, and therefore could not bring themselves to
challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the prosecutors questions which did not have
the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by the democrats to the honoree.
But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean
up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her
handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little
girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later
and expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not
remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if
she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips
– all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to
see.
She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently
needed explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to
explain her inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later
politicized the confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her
several go fund me sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.
She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid
to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to
remain anonymous.
As a foreign observer, I watched the whole hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For
me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated
itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the
nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will do everything to prevent his confirmation.
They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford, not to speak of the other two disgraceful
women that prostituted themselves for base motives. Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played
to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which seemed to make a great impression on the CCN
tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks of the hearing committee. It was a great
TV-propaganda frame.
Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15,
and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart
from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after
the "incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as
it is. Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American
youths should not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of
Penn for my M.A. degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great
experience. Every weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed
around like hell. Nobody made a big fuss out of it.
On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a
state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions
and accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which
only happens in totalitärian states.
Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth
and humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in
advance of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham
with his outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence,
men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant
was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more
tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get
my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable.
Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM”
;
Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and
that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide
at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None
of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's
character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end
it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive,
because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas –
because that's what those people are."
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed
Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their
President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person,
but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement,
wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact
that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently
disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted
to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that
mold, IMHO.
One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended
rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to
me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e.,
molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once
more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not
remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not
remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself.
No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
@anastasiaI think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a
few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman.
The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix,
who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to
praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and
Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham
they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick
Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the
Senate.
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist.
Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.
It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking
bleak.
Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until
I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not
abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh
will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The
kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and
brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.
The hearing about potential Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh is still going on, but the
hearings have clearly missed 90% of key material facts that as always - as we have explained in
our books Splitting Pennies and
Splitting Bits , the world is not as it
seems; and certainly, not ever - as seen on TV. The peculiar thing about this particular
political circus is that the GOP is allowing this to happen, as if there's nothing they can do
to allow the left to manipulate the masses before the elections coming up, all we need after a
victimized woman by an old, respectable white man is another school shooting, this time with a
white rich kid holding the gun at a minority school. Having said that, if you do have children
at public schools, it might be worth considering home schooling or private school at least
until the swamp is drained, if it ever will be (or consider a remote rural public school where
staging such events is less likely). As these deep-state nut jobs will stop at nothing to
acheive their ends, which seem simple but evil: vindicate the Soros - Clinton Mafia (which is a
multi-family 'faction 2' power center that goes well beyond Bill & Hillary) and in the
process destroy Trump and everything connected to it.
Why wasn't this 'accuser' vetted, as one would be in a court case? This is after all the
'judiciary committee' we know the answer to that, this is political theater of the worst kind.
However if this were a court case, and the complaining witness were to undergo
cross-examination and deposition, they should ask the following questions:
What is Dr. Ford's relationship with the CIA, and with her father?
The importance of noting the CIA banking connections of Ralph G. Blasey Jr. , this
report explains, is due to the outbreak of what is now known as the " CIA
Bank War " -- and whose start of, in 1982, a CIA seized from publication news report
( Declassified
in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/05: CIA-RDP90-00965R00150010-7 )
describes as: " This is Wall Street, the center of the international banking system, a
system on the edge of a crisis so severe that the Central Intelligence Agency is
preparing drastic measures. Something must be done to avert the breakdown of the Free
World's monetary system. "
Who paid for her lawyer, lie detector test, and other items related to her
testimony?
Was she offered a book deal?
What is Dr. Ford's association with the Soros foundation, directly or indirectly?
What is the association with Frederick_T._Melges and specifically,
did they collaborate on work involving mind control, memory, and time while at Stanford, or a
CIA think tank, or any other time?
What is the explanation that no other witness can testify to verify the statements of
what happened that night, combined with the lack of other physical evidence, and even
evidence to the contrary? (Such as Brett Kavanaugh's diary/journal he kept)
What are the political associations of Dr. Ford, specifically are there direct
connections to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, including but not limited to
when Clinton
was the Secretary of State ? (For those of you who don't know, the State Department is
the political cover for CIA operations globally.)
This staged, orchestrated, and artificial testimony is no doubt the creation of deep-state
actors connected to Soros/Clinton/CIA et. al. The GOP doesn't want to mention MKUltra in a
public hearing as this would take things in an entirely different direction. If this was a
court, it is highly doubtful that a jury would convict Kavanaugh based on he said she said with
no evidence for the complaining witness but an overwhelming amount of evidence for the defense.
Not only the hundreds of character letters of support, the diaries/journals, and all the work
Dr. Ford has done over the years on mind control as a qualified and practicing Dr. of
Psychology (Edited 10:00 am 9/28/2018, it was misreported "Psychiatry" Dr.
Ford works as a practicing psychologist in Stanford's department of Psychiatry ); but the
fact that Kavanaugh has actually worked for the Federal Government and the White House
specifically on a number of occasions and has gone through a Congressional confirmation many
times - why now? Something is fishy here, just as it was proven that several of the 'victims'
of Trump were actually paid actors, the mere accusation is enough to cast doubt on the whole
topic. And this accusation isn't from a poor helpless child, it is from a Dr. of Psychiatry
that has authored more than 50 papers on the topics of behavioral science, including topics of
great interest to the CIA such as:
Ford has written about the cognitive affect of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, too. She and her co-authors wrote, "[Our] findings
suggest that there may be a range of traumatic experience most conducive to growth and they
also highlight the important contributions of cognitive and coping variables to psychological
thriving in short- and longer-term periods following traumatic experience."
Finally, why is the GOP so defenseless as to allow such a show to occur, which will do much
greater damage to the mind of the Sheeple than it will to actually affect the appointing of
Judge Kavanaugh or not. Whether he is appointed or not, the damage to the minds of the masses
is done - this further polarizes an already polarized country divided between the 'sane' and
the 'insane.'
Article update 9/28/2018 - We have updated the article to reflect change in name, we wrote
'Psychiatry' which should have been 'Psychology' this was a mis-read on our end, in a rush to
publish quickly. Mistakes happen in quick sloppy journalism which operates under real-time
market conditions like trading. However, we do not believe it significantly impacts the
argument here, however, if we are to publish an article about misrepresented facts we better
have all of our facts right! Other elaboration will come in another article, to be composed
over the weekend. Stay tuned. www.globalintelhub.com
Requiem To Marion Barry: The Kavanaugh Sex Spectacle
By Robert Willmann
Update (Friday, 28 September): It looks like Senator Lindsey Graham (Repub., South Carolina)
might be reading SST. On the radio shortly before 9:00 a.m. central time, he was talking,
probably in the hallway, and was saying that there is no statute of limitations on rape in
Maryland, and so if someone wanted to make a complaint to start the investigation of a criminal
case, that could be done. There are additional issues to research, such as whether a person to
be charged was a juvenile or adult for purposes of crime at the time of the alleged offense,
its effect on the statute of limitations, and so forth, as mentioned below.
-----
As a coincidence theorist, I find it mathematically interesting that accusations against
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh began when they did, and continued in sequence spaced out
up to and including yesterday.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California) is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is
also, surprisingly, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, given the financial investments and
activities by her husband Richard Blum in China. Right on cue, after the Kavanaugh confirmation
hearing ended, Feinstein began Act 1 of the three act play you could see coming from a mile or
kilometer away, with its three act structure: the set-up, conflict, and resolution--
In Act 1, Feinstein revealed a mysterious letter that she would not disclose to her
Democratic colleagues about an unnamed accuser who did not want to be known or get involved. In
Act 2, the accuser "comes forward" and her name becomes known and there is the demand that
there be an investigation, that she testify before the committee, and that any vote be delayed.
Act 3 is played out today.
Having been involved in the prosecution and defense of criminal sex cases, I am not watching
the contrived spectacle now underway, which is political maneuvering and propaganda. But I have
seen an image of the goings-on, and am wondering who did Christine Blasey Ford's hair this
morning and picked out the clothes she is wearing for her role as accuser.
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee scuttled around and painted themselves into a
corner by tentatively agreeing on Saturday, 22 September, to a hearing of sorts for Thursday,
27 September, at which Ms. Ford would testify [1]. Then, by coincidence, of course, up popped a
story in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday, 23 September, that a female named Deborah Ramirez
claimed that in the 1983-84 school year at Yale University, Kavanaugh exposed his male sex
organ to her at a drunken dormitory party [2]. Waiting until the seventh paragraph of the
article, authors Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer begin the disclaimers--
"Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and
that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will
inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned
about her memory, given her drinking at the party."
In paragraph 10--
"The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the
party."
Then on Wednesday, 26 September, purely by coincidence, and the day before the new committee
hearing for Ms. Ford, up pops Julie Swetnick, with her written statement--
Since some writers and commentors and certainly some readers here on SST have spent much
time at work analyzing information, statements, and situations -- especially when soldiers'
lives are at stake -- I do not have to take apart the Swetnick statement and discuss its
unusual characteristics. It is so full of holes you can drive an 18-wheeler truck through it,
and readers can see for themselves. Yesterday, 'Publius Tacitus' examined her "declaration" in
a posting on this site.
An easy example: notice the contradiction in paragraphs 11 and 13 in which Swetnick claims
that in 1981-82 she purposely avoided drinking the punch at the parties because Kavanaugh and
others made efforts to "spike the punch", but that in approximately 1982 was gang raped after
being incapacitated by "Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking".
Swetnick's salacious statement seeks to make a direct criminal accusation against Kavanaugh
by saying, in paragraph 12, that she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and
others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so that they could then be 'gang
raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys". She continues: "I have a firm
recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties [when? where?]
waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett
Kavanaugh".
This accusation crosses the line into what is called in Texas the "law of parties" and
"criminal responsibility for the conduct of another" [3]. In the federal court system the
doctrine is referred to as "aiding and abetting".
In her crafty little statement, Ms. Swetnick is deliberately vague about where these
"numerous" parties that were a "common occurrence" and "occurred nearly every weekend during
the school year" actually took place. She says in paragraph 2 that she graduated from
Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which tells us nothing about the location
of the alleged bad conduct. In paragraph 7 she said that she attended "well over 10 house
parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the years 1981-83 where Mark Judge and Brett
Kavanaugh were present". She further says in paragraph 9 that she "witnessed such conduct on
one occasion in Ocean City, Maryland during 'Beach Week' " [what conduct? that claimed in
paragraph 8?].
Every District Attorney "in the Washington, D.C. area" (as Ms. Swetnick likes to say) can
research the law to see what the statute of limitations is as to rape and other possible crimes
alleged by Swetnick in her statement. A "statute of limitations" or "limitation of actions" is
the time period in which a civil or criminal case can be filed. If the time period has expired,
a case cannot be brought. Some crimes have no statute of limitations. The age of the
participants is also part of the research. There will be an age at which a juvenile becomes an
adult as far as crime is concerned. In Texas and likely in other states, criminal cases against
juveniles are handled differently than those against adults. In some instances, a juvenile can,
after a hearing, be designated as an adult, or "certified to stand trial as an adult", for a
crime allegedly committed as a juvenile. How this is affected by the statutes of limitation is
also an issue that can be researched.
I see that the University of Maryland has a law school [4]. With the privilege of available
time in the academic world, a professor and perhaps some students could do this research and
easily write an article on the issues of what the law says about the statute of limitations,
possible crimes for investigation, and their relation to the matter of juveniles and adults,
relating to this Swetnick matter.
Washington, D.C. itself is a separate entity, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia prosecutes both federal and "serious local crime committed by adults"
there [5]. It is interesting that the Justice Department website does not refer to juvenile
offenses committed in Washington, D.C. They may be handled by a locally elected D.C. "attorney
general" [6].
If politicians want an investigation, let one begin by the District Attorneys in the area
and the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. So far as is known, Ms. Swetnick has not approached any
of them with her dramatic complaint.
As a final note, why a requiem to former Washington, D.C mayor Marion Barry? Not publicized
much, if at all, were his academic accomplishments, as he had a master's degree in chemistry,
which is not an easy thing to achieve. He was a formidable politician and activist. He was
interrupted by an FBI sting operation in 1990 and arrested for a drug offense in the presence
of a female in a hotel room. Now with the current ongoing revelations of hostile attitudes and
even actions by personnel of one or more federal agencies against candidate and now president
Trump, the targeting of a politican with real charisma might be more than a coincidence. The
undercover FBI video of the event recorded for posterity the immortal words of Marion Barry,
candidly repeated in paragraph 3 of this Washington Post story--
If I may address this as a lifelong feminist roughly the same age as Ford, here are my
observations from yesterday:
Women are very susceptible to groupthink. I wish it were not true, but it appears to
be hardwired in us to be empathetic, and this makes us prone to mass movements of many
different sorts, from belief in witchcraft (usually by other women, of lower status) to
belief in epidemic levels of sexual assaults (mostly experienced by others, but if we
lower the bar to touching, rubbing, or unwanted passes, we all get to play).
Men are expected to "shut up" and take it in the era of MeToo. Which is very
interesting because it assumes (even demands) the maintenance of a chivalric code of
honor amongst men, whilst destroying the comity between the sexes that has prevailed in
the West since it was revived and democratized in the 19th and 20th centuries. What we
saw yesterday in the impassioned (yet reasoned) testimony by Kavanaugh and his savior,
Lindsay Graham, was a crack in that comity.
MeToo is undermining the tacit agreement by men and women to play by rules agreed to
long ago, rules that suspend the age old logic of "might makes right" and has enabled
women to tread a long road to something like equality of opportunity. I read the results
of a poll this morning that strongly suggests the only group that changed its mind as a
result of the testimony yesterday was college educated men. They swung significantly into
Kavanaugh's camp. I can tell you that my own husband, a kind and committed feminist of
many years who finds Trump repugnant has followed this trajectory as well.
The Democrats have thus pushed many men out of their camp. They are now the party of
women. Of angry women. Of hateful women. Let's see how that plays out in November.
I am a 75 year old male, raised Republican. I have been voting Democratic for several
decades. The past ten years my voting pattern has been mostly anti-incumbent. This
display of dishonoring the democratic process has returned me pretty firmly to my
Republican roots.
When the Weinstein and Cosby issues created the #metoo movement, I was on board. This
event was the last straw in driving me into the camp that considers the movement a power
struggle, one which has as its sole purpose the total subjugation of the male gender. All
of which would seem to bolster your point.
It's like all the anti-Putin accusations. Personally I think it's wrong to get into the
minutiae of this or that detail: more "details" are easily created and it all serves to
keep the smear alive. A robust contempt is best, I think.
Patrick, #babbling: probably the most manipulative woman I ever experienced, pretty close
up, was engaged with a lawyer, who also wrote her thesis, while she slept with all of his
friends. One thing he manged to accomplish otherwise after he left was that he made her
aware of evidence apparently: Keep and store your calendar, it's evidence. Always be
prepared.
Kavenaugh: The only thing that doesn't quite fit into my own stored memories is the
fact that the mother was the lawyer and the father did this as did he tells us. he did
following tradition. Thus is life. But the father may have done on the mother's advise,
or may have been a descendant of lawyer family?
There was this odd tongue signaling during his "testimony" I have never seen before.
We have a politician who as a tic on the nose It reminded me of it.
The investigations issue not only arose in the "hearings" but was a Democratic cudgel at
great length, and Democratic supporters are pillorying Kavanaugh because he "refused 16
times to agree to an FBI investigation." Apparently that proves his guilt.
The Democrats, of course, want an investigation to delay a confirmation vote. With
some luck and the cooperation of the FBI, that delay could last until the midterm
election, after which the confirmation vote might go against Kavanaugh. He knows this
very well, and did not agree to any such delay, which might allow the Blasey Ford
accusation to succeed indirectly in derailing his confirmation.
So even if he is innocent of what the woman accuses him of, the delay of a lengthy FBI
investigation proving that (or failing to prove guilt) might still serve the purpose for
which the accusation was made, which is keeping him off the Supreme Court. And Democrats
accuse the Republicans of engaging in dirty politics.
I don't think this was as purposeful as ringing Fort Sumter with artillery. But, if
mankind survives, this hearing will be identified as the start of the globalist verses
nationalist Civil War in the West. Democrats don't have the votes and are powerless to
halt Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court. Rather than addressing issues
and serving the people; they used a gender canon to try to derail the nomination because
he is a Donald Trump selection.
Brett Kavanaugh is a mean drunk. He has not done the 12 Steps. He showed his anger
when he said he is a victim of revenge on behalf of the Clintons. If the GOP rams this
through today, comity and compromise are gone. Equal justice for all is dead. This is
power for power's sake. Damn the Torpedoes. Full Speed Ahead.
Hi VietnamVet, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that "Brett Kavanaugh is a
mean drunk". I am just wondering how you would react if someone you don't even know that
well accuses you of attempted rape or mental anguish for 36 years? It is possible that
Dr. Ford might have confused Bret Kavanaugh for someone else. it seems that you have
watched the TV yesterday, please tell me how can a professor of Psychology and with years
of experience in teaching doesn't even know who and how to contact her representative for
some 36 yeaars? Also it seems to me that she didn't even know that Chuck Grassley offered
to interview her since she claimed that she didin't know about the offer to interview her
in Palo Alto Ca? Are we supposed to be that she is that dumb? If so we sure have
professors in Palo Alto and Stanford Univ who are not worth a dime. God help us if these
world famous institutions are employing such people to educate our future leaders. Never
mind the excuse that she was afraid of flying when she was taking various trips for fun
and other activities. I just can't believe that people are falling for such a confused
person. I am not saying that she didn't experience sexual assault, I have no idea but it
seems to me that she was confused about the perpritrator of that assault. Thanks
One possibility say's Kavanaugh and Ford BOTH are telling the truth. Seeing that
Kavanaugh more less admits to heavy drinking during this time in his life, he could quite
possibility have been drunk enough that night to have no recollection of specifically
what went down that night - especially seeing that all might be endemic of these rich
kids mode of "party on" at the time.
Where are all the other examples of him being a mean drunk in his life? How about an
example from last month, last year or even sometime in the last decade?
But, what's this habit of his of sticking his tongue into his cheek? Never seen it
before. We have a CSU politician over here that cannot speak without twisting his nose
once in a while. By now I find him quite amusing to watch. Is this a stress symptom or
does he do it all the time. I wonder?
Just assure me it's not unusual. Will you?
Things that stick out tend to draw my attention. And yes for a second, I wondered if
he was signalling.
That must be more common in Germany than it is here. As a sitting federal judge he has
the advantage of writing his opions out and not being required to perform theatrics when
making legal judgemets.
A Marion Barry reference is better than discussing accuasations against Congerssman Keith
Ellison, the same kind that got Senator Franken to resign. Interesting to note that
Senator Feinstein not only had the letter from Dr. Ford, both as forwarded by
Congresswoman Eshoo and later by Dr. Ford herself; did nothing with it but wait for
weeks, then had her staff advise Dr. Ford on which attorney to hire, then claim neither
she (the senator) nor her staff leaked the thing to the press, thus not only throwing Dr.
Ford under the bus with the leak but running her over with the denial. Unless it was that
other Democrat, Congresswoman Eshoo, did it.
Great script writing. Worthy of an Oscar. Justice Kavenaugh of course gets to play the
role assigned by Alinsky: "make them live up to their rules". I wonder how many votes the
"blue wave" picked up with this performance?
A powerful man as "victim" is somewhat unbecoming...Kavanaugh's "judicial temper tantrum"
was a little "hot" by Marshall McLuhan standards. I sure wouldn't want him on any bench I
was standing before in court.
A man is not made of stone, but flesh and blood. The law is the law, but judges are human
beings, and human beings feel attacks upon our person and our families very deeply. No
one is pure intellect. We knew he had the intellect to do the job. We did not see until
yesterday that he had the backbone to do it well. And Lindsay Graham channeled the
righteous outrage of millions of Americans perfectly in his supporting role. I was
pleased. You, of course, are free to disagree.
I don't agree. How should he have defended himself, objectively speaking after 35?
years? ...
She may, subjectively have experienced real danger at her age. I admittedly was a bit
startled when she told about her fear in the WP, more precisely about one word, she felt
she could have been "accidentally", interestingly enough, killed/murdered. ... I wondered
about it. And she repeated it precisely that way.
Although yes am heavily aware of something that may be a female shortcut, rape,
decision between surrender and murder. To shut you up. But accidentally?
Now put on your common sense hat. It is a hot Saturday afternoon. You are hanging at the
pool. She goes to a "small" party. Where did she go? She does not remember. What we know for
certain is that none of the three boys she identified being at the party did not live in
Bethesda/Chevy Chase. Kavanaugh and Smith lived near the traffic circle at Western Avenue and
Massachusetts Avenue, NW. That is almost four miles from the Columbia Country Club. Mark Judge
lived quite aways outside the beltway (I-495) in an area between Potomac and Rockville. He was
a good 12 miles away.
Who was the mystery fourth boy? She cannot remember. Maybe he lived near the Columbia
Country Club.
The house was not the home of her friend Leland Ingham either. Ingham actually lives within
a mile of Georgetown Prep.
None of the four people identified by Blasey Ford corroborate her account. None recall such
a party. Most damning is the fact that Leland Ingham says she did not know Brett Kavanaugh.
While she reported has told Blasey Ford that she believes Ford's account, she herself failed to
provide any supporting testimony.
According to Blasey Ford, Kavanuagh and Judge were very intoxicated. Okay. How did they get
to the mystery house? Did both drive drunk to the location? More importantly, Kavanaugh was not
a member of Columbia Country Club. He was a member of Chevy Chase Country Club (which is about
two miles south of Columbia). Although the two clubs are in the same general vicinity, the
members of these clubs did not interact/socialize with one another. Those hanging at the Chevy
Chase Club pool were not on the phone with those laying around the Columbia Club pool.
The Democrats are pinning their hopes on an FBI magic bullet. They will be disappointed.
Here is what the FBI will do and discover:
They will interview Christine Blasey Ford, but she already has provided her sworn
statement. If she starts changing her tune then she has new credibility problems.
They will interview the four people she identified as allegedly being at this party. All
four are already on the record with sworn statements that no such party took place and no
assault occurred.
They will be able to use Kavanaugh's calendar to check all possible dates where such an
event could have taken place and interview the persons listed by the Judge.
Since Ford cannot identify the location where the alleged assault took place it will be
impossible for the FBI to visit the scene of the supposed crime and interview owners and
neighbors.
It is possible that the FBI will interview the two men who came forward claiming they may
have been responsible for the assault the Blasey Ford is claiming.
The FBI will submit the 302 reports and will note that there is no corroborating evidence
or testimony to back up Blasey Ford's allegations.
At this point the Democrats will probably begin insisting that the FBI was under duress and
did not conduct a proper investigation. They will call for a Special Prosecutor and independent
investigator. This is not about discovering truth. This is all about thwarting Donald
Trump.
This looks like a modern reincarnation of inquisition.
Notable quotes:
"... this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009. ..."
"... the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction ..."
"... [Some] Women if you reject, or even if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary. ..."
"... A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing. ..."
"... I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen. ..."
"... Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and didn't report it. This is mass hysteria. ..."
"... When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually a lot of pleasure to be around. ..."
"... I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off. ..."
"... Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts. ..."
"Besides filing
a federal civil lawsuit against police officers, prosecutors and other witnesses in his case, Filler
filed a complaint about former prosecutor Mary Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which resulted in Kellett
becoming the first prosecutor in recent memory to be publicly sanctioned by the state over prosecutorial misconduct. Kellett, who
now works as a defense attorney,
prosecuted Filler at his first trial in 2009.
Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, was contacted via email but declined to say how much money he is getting in the settlement.
"I am grateful to all my attorneys but most of all I am grateful for my strong family and my two amazing children who I
have been blessed to see grow up," Filler wrote in a statement Monday night." Bangor Daily News
------------
Ok folks, this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine
for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009.
The review process decided that his wife lied about him to gain revenge in a custody case over their two children and that
the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction
. A friend of the wife, a female RN, coached the wife to cry in court so as to make "it seem more real." The RN has been sued by
the now vindicated ex-husband. I hope she loses every cent she might ever have.
Several here on SST have maintained that women seldom falsely accuse men. What a joke!
"... the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male." Kipling
Every guy worth his salt knows this to be true. Even most women know this to be true. There was a reason for the line "hell hath
no fury like a woman scorned."
Most not ALL women are extremely emotional and not rational. The average IQ is 100. So 50% of the women are below that but
I am supposed to believe that any accusation is 100% to be believed.
It's such a joke as to bring contempt upon the part of society who is pushing this. [Some] Women if you reject, or even
if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary.
Men murder women at an obscene rate and it is probably hardwired into them for protection. That part I can understand and emphasis
with strongly.
However, these stories such as this poor guy endured are nauseating. A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps
for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing.
I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women
are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for
the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen.
How about the UVA rape case rolled out by the Rolling Stones? Just another delusional female that the press demanded we believe.
How about the Duke Lacrosse team? Another false accusation pushed by the female dominated press who dominate their SJW warrior
co-workers and secretly have contempt for them being so feminine. Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport
and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and
didn't report it. This is mass hysteria.
The number I am sure is in the millions now so there are millions of women in America mostly who have been raped and not reported
it. I call bullshit.
Why do women hate other women? Why can't we discuss the truth anymore?
When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually
a lot of pleasure to be around. I should have never left regardless how bad the air was.
Years ago I attended Medical School and 50% of the students were female. And normal, fun, and I miss them. Maybe it is intelligence
and not the gender. They were certainly as smart or smarter in many cases than us guys. Top 2 students were female. So I am not
an ogre. But stories like this piss me off.
Not surprised. I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score
points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off.
Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts.
"... Of course women can be just as cruel, heartless and power hungry as men. It is rather ironic that the Dems are relying on the attitudes about women 100 years ago... that women are the fairer and gentler sex and need to treated with kid gloves. Oh, and they are more moral too! Once upon a time feminism was about aiming for "equality" but it has devolved into victimhood and power games. ..."
"... Oh the poor babies! I'm sure such party changes have never happened in history before (/snark). The difference this time is the losers are acting like children having a tantrum because their mommy won't buy them the toy they want. And the Republicans don't know how to handle the tantrums. ..."
"... Trump and Trump supporting candidates to give a voice to the conservative/libertarian/independent opposition to the establishment RINOs. There is a civil war going on within the Republican party. ..."
"... The Walkaway movement is only one of several movements taking place on YouTube encouraging independent thinking and analysis versus unquestioning submissive loyalty to a power hungry political party. ..."
"... The Kavanaugh situation is just a symptom of the partisanship tearing America apart. ..."
"... I know many of your will argue that we are a Republic and majority opinion in America as a whole is irrelevant. That being the case maybe Americas has gotten too big for its britches. Would it not be better for an amiable Divorce where Red states and Blue states can build their own countries and see how things shake out for their respective peoples. ..."
"... Obviously the country cannot be divided by counties. My point was that if you look at NY state for example you will find that most of the state is red. ..."
"... Women often lie about men because they are angry at them or resentful of rejection or some other reason. "those few?" Surely you jest . It happens a lot. ..."
Yes, I know you are not supposed to say things like that, but, it happens to be true that
women are not semi-divine beings, born with few traces of original sin. Like men, they lie,
fornicate, cheat and steal. US senators are apparently constrained by politics into adopting a
rhetorical position in which they pretend that women are better and more filled with integrity
than men. To hell with that! Such a position is so obviously untrue as to be absurd. I am not
going to soften my words by whining about all the wonderful, brilliant, adorable, madonnesque,
but still desirable women I have known. (so to speak). In the present circumstance such an
attempt to mollify the harridans, male and female, is just weakness.
It is clear to me that a silent coup is underway, a coup against the conservative/deplorable
side of America. This is a coup that seeks to deny the Republican Party the ability to govern
by abandoning the customs and norms of civility that lie at the center of the US form of
government while reverting to the law of the jungle "red in tooth and claw." In US government
it has been long understood that recognition of the fragility of the Union within the framework
of the constitution should be accepted as a basis for what people are wise to say and do to
each other.
There have been rash actions in recent years, actions that have damaged the comity that once
prevailed in places like the US Senate. McConnell's decision to deny Merrick Garland a hearing
was a terrible mistake which provides the Progresso Democrats with an excuse to stonewall any
and all Republican nominations for the judiciary. Harry Reed's decision to abandon the 60 vote
rule for cloture in judicial appointments was very short sided.
The Progresso Democrats are delaying the Kavanaugh confirmation in the hope that they will
recover one or both houses of congress. If they control the House, they will pass bills of
impeachment against Trump and probably Kavanaugh as well. If they also control the senate then
one or both of these might result in convictions and removals. This would not be politics. It
would be war conducted as politics. The Progresso Democrats should not expect that such actions
would be meekly accepted.
The Republican leadership in the senate looks weak as it seeks to placate the Progresso
Democrats over proliferating and shaky claims of molestations leading to wounding of the female
soul. There is no reason to think that procrastination will not continue endlessly if this is
allowed to govern Republican actions. Why should conservative/deplorables turn out to vote for
weaklings afraid of being called misogynists by people like Senator Blumenthal?
The Judiciary Committee should have voted him out today and the full senate should have
confirmed him on this Wednesday. Every day that passes without that confirmation is a victory
for the Progresso Democrats. pl
I wouldn't call it a coup, it's politics in a new form. The new form is brought about by
social media mobilization boosting tribalism and an unprecedented form of gender
politics.
There's a big gap between reality and what the media reports on any gender issue.
When I was practicing criminal law, it was accepted in the courthouse halls that women
lied to put their partners in jail, usually in domestic abuse cases. The motive was often
revenge for cheating or breakups. There were also bad dates, cheating relationships, and
one night stands without a callback that turned into rape cases. Talk to bailiffs/court
security officers in any criminal court about this issue.
Women and men are different. Their fundamental goals, sexual and otherwise, are just
attenuated, obscured and expressed in politics. Otherwise, we're on the plains of the
Rift Valley, 10000 BC.
This guy explains a lot of it and its political expression pretty well. He calls it
"the Feminine Imperative." Maximum constraints on male sexuality, maximum freedom for
women to trade up. Evolutionary psychology.
Some of my best friends cannot stand Donald Trump but voted for him only because
of the power the POTUS wields when it comes to the federal judiciary. So far, they've not
been disappointed.
I can't fault Grassley's indulgence entirely, since the GOP has such a slim,
unreliable majority - he HAS to tap dance for the benefit of Flake, Corker, Collins and
Murkowski or else there aren't enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh. The delay of a few days
has allowed time for the accuser's OWN WITNESSES to refute her claims. Delicious!
The fact that Democrats had another dubious claimant come forth just as Ford's claims
crumbled only succeeded in proving how craven and sleazy their game plan is. I may be
wrong, but I suspect the Democrats are performing a GOTV service for the Republican Party
by reminding hitherto complacent voters just how much is still at stake. This has been a
blaring wake-up call if ever there was one.
To the right of me - spineless, cowardly Republicans.
To the left of me - anti-American socialist Democrats.
If Kavanaugh is not appointed, there will be many Republican FORMER office holders.
A shame that Grassley (Feinstein's bitch) can't be one of them.
Sen. Chuck Grassley in trying to be open and run a "fair" hearing has instead created
a circus. Exactly what the NeverTrump media want.
Both Chrstine Blasey and Debbie Ramirez have provided names of corroborators to the
assault, who have all denied any knowledge. Sen. Feinstein sat on Blasey's letter for 2
months and did nothing until the vote was scheduled. As you rightly point out this is
just drive-by-shooting by the Democrats and their allies in the media to create the
necessary hysteria. Their hope is that this will wake up their supporters to turn out and
vote for their candidates in the mid-term.
We'll see if Grassley and McConnell schedule votes this week.
Of course women can be just as cruel, heartless and power hungry as men. It is rather
ironic that the Dems are relying on the attitudes about women 100 years ago... that women
are the fairer and gentler sex and need to treated with kid gloves. Oh, and they are more
moral too! Once upon a time feminism was about aiming for "equality" but it has devolved
into victimhood and power games. This is why the young Youtubers are increasingly
adopting anti-feminist rhetoric (anti this current sick wave of toxic pseudo-feminism).
It has been surprising to see how many young women (20's and 30's) have become
ex-feminists.
This is the Democrat party fighting for its life. If it loses this, then the walls will
tumble in. They went from a shoe in candidate to the implosion of their party inside of
24 months.
Oh the poor babies! I'm sure such party changes have never happened in history before
(/snark). The difference this time is the losers are acting like children having a
tantrum because their mommy won't buy them the toy they want. And the Republicans don't
know how to handle the tantrums.
Fighting for it's life? ROTFL... That's basically similar to saying a corporation is a
person. It's the party leaders that are fighting to maintain their power - their jobs and
influential roles. They are fighting for gov't power, dominance and control for their
donors and fellow elites just like the Republicans are. They still have lots of it, but
are not satisfied and are willing to go to disgusting lengths to maintain and increase
it. At least on the Republican side there is Trump and Trump supporting candidates to
give a voice to the conservative/libertarian/independent opposition to the establishment RINOs. There is a civil war going on within the Republican party.
This behavior as poor losers, their increasing nastiness and obvious authoritarian
ways have triggered huge numbers of people away from the Democrat party. I have been
following trends on YouTube, which is where all the interesting political trends are
playing out these days IMO. I have been listening to #Walkaway stories. The MSM does not
want to talk about these, and has been trying to actively suppress the info. Facebook
"conveniently" banned the gay leader of the #walkaway movement for a nothing-burger
recently, for a month, just before their rally in DC end of October. I think some
conservative groups such as Turning Point USA are having rallies at that time as well.
Alex Jones is planning on reporting on it all. I'm sure Antifa won't be able to resist.
That's good news because they simply trigger more people to walk away. Should be really
entertaining.
What's fascinating to me is that they aren't leaving over policy or political platform
issues as has been typical of politics in the past. They are leaving because of the
nastiness, the intolerance of any dissent from the narrative
(authoritarian/totalitarian), and the over the top propaganda/lying. Some are becoming
independents that will be voting Republican for the time being because of their current
disgust with the Dems but have not joined the other tribe. However many have become
conservatives and they have been welcomed with open arms. Especially the black, Hispanic
and gay #walkaway folks who are all pleasantly surprised by that. There are even a few
Republicans in the movement who are walking away from their party to being an independent
voter while maintaining an identity as a conservative.
The Walkaway movement is only one of several movements taking place on YouTube
encouraging independent thinking and analysis versus unquestioning submissive loyalty to
a power hungry political party. It is overall a right leaning trend which is a reaction
to the cultural over reach of the left. There is a New Right emerging culturally. They
are young, hip, witty, insightful, and real (as opposed to news anchors on MSM). They are
not at all like the old school Repubs. They use humor and memes to mock which is very
effective. So of course, the MSM is starting to write hit pieces about these influential
YouTubers. The elites want the masses controlled, not laughing at them and thinking for
themselves.
These young smart Youtubers give me hope and often make me laugh. Much more fun and
enlightening than MSM propaganda.
There sure is a lot of anger out there. The Kavanaugh situation is just a symptom of the
partisanship tearing America apart. Both the left and the right consider themselves
aggrieved and thus justified in their anger. We have some elections coming in less than 2
months. This should provide some clarity in what most Americans want. I suspect the
Democrats will take back the House but the Senate probably will be evenly divided. Is
that not how Democracy should work?
I know many of your will argue that we are a Republic and majority opinion in America
as a whole is irrelevant. That being the case maybe Americas has gotten too big for its
britches. Would it not be better for an amiable Divorce where Red states and Blue states
can build their own countries and see how things shake out for their respective
peoples.
This is a FEDERAL republic. A unitary republic like France is equally possible. If you
are thinking of an "amicable divorce," you need to look at election results by county. To
get any kind of uniformity of political opinion it would be necessary to divide many of
the states. These would include California and New York.
Pat - I was merely being practical when I suggested state divisions. Chopping up America
into really small county divisions would yield entities that are too small to be
self-supporting along with transportation issues of crossing boundries. Perhaps some of
the big states could be split into a few new entitties and still be economically
feasible. I would hate to see this but I have no answer to the anger which seems to be
roiling the country.
I am still stunned to see that each side of our political divide seem to think they
have the only true answers to our issues and the other side are idiots.
Obviously the country cannot be divided by counties. My point was that if you look at NY
state for example you will find that most of the state is red.
Yes but most of the population in those states is Blue and that is an important economic
factor. GNP figures are only available at a state level but Blue states are still
producing most of America's GNP. When I have mentioned this fact to some people the
retort is how are blue state people going to eat. The answer obviously is there are lots
of places in the world willing to import food to blue states.
How many of the 22+million illegal immigrants live in those states? How many additional
members of Congress do they have as a result and for how many years? (Based on the basic
math that's enough people to account for 30 seats in the House) Why should any American
citizen want to put up with that disparate impact on representation any longer?
See the Yale study updating the illegal immigrant numbers here:
https://insights.som.yale.e...
Livia Drusilla. Ancient sources claimed she murdered all her stepsons or other family
members by poison who were a threat to her son becoming Emperor of Rome. Human nature
doesn't change. My guiding light when dealing with most women is to remember Livia.
Are you familiar with the story of Athalia?
2 Kings 11
For a really splendid musical depiction of (parts of) the life of Athalia, watch the fine
McCreesh-conducted version of Handel's Athalia : Play
Hide
"From the very first, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, inimical to woman than
truth.." (BGE §232) seems appropriate here.
Nietzsche's view of women is perhaps most generously described as 'old fashioned',
though he was right to identify femininity as the eternal source of female power.
Nietzsche saw a trade off of femininity in exchange for emancipation. But instead it
appears that 21st century sexual politics now affords women the best of all worlds. She
may now participate as an equal in dorm party drinking games with men. And yet she
remains so vulnerable that 35 years later an alleged incident involving the exposure of a
(presumably flaccid) male member - as a result of such activities - seemingly merits
serious investigation as an 'assault'. Germain Greer was wrong too - it is the male that
has been emasculated.
"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is
more "natural" than man's, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the
tiger's claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and
inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and
virtues."
"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than
truth -- her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and
beauty."
' "goodness" in women is a sign of "physiological degeneration", and that women are on
the whole cleverer and more wicked than men'
"the emancipation of women, and feminists, was merely the resentment of some women
against other women, who were physically better constituted and able to bear
children."
"Woman's love involves injustice and blindness against everything that she does not
love... Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or at
best cows..."
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she
needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as
divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming
the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests,
against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"
I imagine that a lot of Democrats secretly wish to be done with this mess lest
the fingers start pointing to themselves. A spate of sexual/financial accusations
against them just might restore some sanity. But of course I daydream, since we all know
that our elected officials are pure as the driven snow.
Bill Clinton and Keith Ellison are 2 Dems that have had credible accusations from women.
What's happening with those? Crickets, except for Fox News and alternative media. Dem
women seem not to care about women who've been sexually harassed when defending their own
tribe.
I suggest that each of you ask every woman you know if she has ever been sexually
assaulted...by HER definition. You might be surprised. Start with your daughters.
FWIW, in college my wife was the victim of a sexual assault from a drunken classmate, a
muscular member of the wrestling team, which she managed to fight off, though not without
him almost doing what he had in mind (I'll spare you the details). At her 35th college
reunion, which we both attended, that former classmate shamefacedly came up to her and
tried to apologize for what he'd done back then, saying that after graduating he realized
that he was an alcoholic. Her response was reserved but cool, and I didn't quite get what
had just gone on there until she filled me in. She'd never mentioned the incident to me
before. She's a strong woman; call her "poor baby" at your peril.
Do women lie? Of course they do; they're human beings; we all lie. Do they lie about
being sexually assaulted? In those few cases where the goal is extortion or where the
accuser is just nuts, yes. Otherwise what's the point, given what is, to this day, the
typically quite negative upshot for the accuser of making such an accusation?
Why, you ask, did she not report this assault at the time? See the last sentence of
the previous paragraph, plus there's the sense of shame and shock that one can feel in
the wake of such an assault and the resulting desire to just escape from it and go on
with one's life.
You say that her experience is the outlier here? Not by the testimony of many of the
women she knows quite well.
Women often lie about men because they are angry at them or resentful of rejection or
some other reason. "those few?" Surely you jest . It happens a lot.
"by her definition" - exactly! .....And that definition is as changeable as the wind. I
am 68 years young and on reflection even my occasional innocent amourous behaviour, when
unmarried, is quite capable of being construed as sexual assault if taken out of context.
Even something as simple as an arm around the shoulders and a peck on the cheek. All men
know what I am talking about; ask your sons.
"Why should conservative/deplorables turn out to vote for weaklings..." spot on sir. It
is one reason Flake and Corker are retiring, right along with Paul Ryan. In addition the
white male Democrat is going to be an endangered species. (It isn't helping the image of
white female democrats either.) Black male democrat turnout isn't going to be any higher
because to the incumbant democrats 'white women come first' is the latest democratic
party objective. Senate Republicans don't need to wait any longer on a vote on Kavenaugh
for the voting pattern shift in the mid-terms to happen but the longer they do your
prediction of "deplorables" viewing incumbant Republicans as weak and not to be voted for
is going to bear more weight.
I mean I support chemical castration for all rapers, BUT, BUT all crimes committed lose
their validity or what is the exact jurisdicial expressions if not reported. except
crimes against humanity. In Hungary it is 5 years.
Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF Support BPS via Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ✅ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: [email protected]
✅2nd Channel- Navy Hato: ... Black Pigeon Speaks September 22,
2018 (8:02) 95,236 Views 1
CommentReply
Email This Page to Someone
Old, unproven, timed to ruin: Kavanaugh accusations perfect example of all that's wrong
with #MeToo Published time: 19 Sep, 2018 22:08 Edited time: 20 Sep, 2018 07:35 Get short URL The
out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming
aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political
divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others
weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett
Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the
damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary
There is no direct, or circumstantial evidence, or eyewitness statements proving that a
drunk teenage Kavanaugh really pinned down Blasey Ford on the bed, and tried to rape her while
covering her mouth with his hand, during a house party. In fact, other than this vivid scene,
the accuser has failed to remember the dates or places or context of the events. Beyond that:
as soon as the story broke, when the details were still just anonymous Beltway hearsay, for
some that was enough to disqualify the nominee.
Brett Kavanaugh
during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters
Now, if, out of the blue, I accuse a colleague of stealing my lunch sandwich, people will
ask for evidence or an explanation. The burden of proof will be on me. No one will simply brand
Alex from HR a thief or fire her on my word, and no one would want to work in an office where I
would have such power over another human being. This is fundamental justice, developed over
thousands of years in societies throughout the world. Even Elon Musk doesn't get to accuse
someone of being a "pedo" without consequence.
That such an obvious thing even needs to be said out loud is a testament to how far the
accusations against Kavanaugh, and other #MeToo cases, stray from these principles –
farcically so. Sexual assault is inherently murkier than lunchtime comestibles theft, yes, most
victims have no reason to lie, but most would prefer to live in a society where a random person
can't destroy someone else's life at will, even if that means that some rapists go
unjailed.
Other examples: most #MeToo accusations aired on social media, the Inquisition, medieval
witchcraft trials, neighbors' denunciations in Stalin's Russia.
No legal case
While reputation has always mattered, a person used to be able to clear his or her name with
law. The #MeToo movement insists that even those who have been accused or convicted of no
crimes can be just as guilty.
It doesn't matter that there was no police report in the Kavanaugh case, no investigation,
and that the FBI has repeatedly insisted that there is nothing to investigate, despite demands
from Blasey Ford's legal team.
Kavanaugh's only recourse is to accuse her of slander, and hope that the ensuing process
doesn't bring out more unflattering claims, while knowing for sure that those who considered
him guilty in the first place will likely not change their mind.
Ronan Farrow /
Reuters
Other examples: Woody Allen was investigated for molesting his pre-teen daughter and no
charges were filed, and was able to continue working freely for another 25 years. After his
son, Ronan, became a leading #MeToo accuser, he is unable to release his already-finished film,
and will receive no further funding for projects.
Accusations from decades ago
Previously, the strength of a case would grow weaker the longer ago the alleged crime was.
Evidence was impossible to collect, social mores changed, people grew and reformed. The statute
of limitations is a legal reflection of that.
Christine Blasey
Ford in her school yearbook.
#MeToo has turned this on its head.
Charges from the distant past are harder to disprove, it is easier to paint the 1980s as a
warzone of sexual abuse (just look at that Sixteen Candles ending – very "problematic")
while if you squint hard enough you can picture the white-bread square Kavanaugh as a marauding
party-boy.
Brett Kavanaugh, on
the right, in his high school yearbook.
The result: any questionable, misinterpreted or altogether fictitious incident in your
teenage years (Kavanaugh was 17 at the time of the alleged assault) will forever hang over
you.
Other examples: Plenty, but equally interesting is the revisionist history even in cases
where the truth was widely known at the time, such as Monica Lewinsky, an adult engaged in a
consensual relationship, suddenly re-emerging as a #MeToo victim.
Timed to destroy
Yet, however, long the traumatic memories are kept private – and there is no doubt
that is a genuine reaction of many victims – they seem often to emerge just at the right
time.
There is of course, genuine concern about rapists taking up Supreme Court seats, but perhaps
it wasn't quite necessary for the Democrats to wait until less than a week until Kavanaugh's
appointment, considering the information has been in their possession since July. And then to
pretend to be surprised when their motivations are being questioned.
While revenge is a dish best served cold, it is also not a good look for a justice movement
to appear as if its participants are waiting for the targets to become important and successful
before sticking the knife in.
Other examples: Often the best time to come out of hiding is when someone is on their way
down. There is no risk to being the twentieth person to accuse producer Harvey Weinstein in
2018, even if doing that two decades earlier could have helped dozens of other
women.
Transparent self-interest
The mention that the accusers are motivated by money, hunger for publicity, career
ambitions, personal grudges or political views is impermissible within the #MeToo
conversation.
What Dianne
Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters
But even if Blasey Ford is a true victim, pretending she is some neutral vessel of justice
is laughable: she is a long-time Democrat donor, who has signed petitions against Trump, and
wrote on her Facebook that "'a basket of deplorables' is far too generous a description" of his
staff.
As is claiming that this is a purely criminal matter, not a calculated attempt by a
political party to exploit a scandal for its own ends: #MeToo is a social movement weaponized
for politics.
Pure motivations:
Asia Argento / Reuters
Other examples: Actress Asia Argento went out with Weinstein for several years after he
allegedly raped her, then garnered sympathy and attention as she described their relationship
as "re-victimization" since 2017, all while reportedly arranging a confidentiality
payout with an underage man she had sex with.
Social media & activists decide
Unless you have backing from the electorate and your own party (Donald Trump has both, so he
stays, Al Franken had one but not the other, so he had to go) in the absence of any due
process, it will be social media that decides your fate.
Are these the people who should handle justice?
The efforts to railroad Dr. Blasey Ford and rush Brett Kavanaugh's nomination through as
she faces death threats are reprehensible. This process was clearly not designed to get at
the truth. Dr. Blasey Ford deserves better. #StopKavanaugh
I really take issue with the description of Kavanaugh as an "attempted rapist." It wasn't
an attempted rape because he started and then decided to stop. It was an attempted rape
because *she got away.*
Brett Kavanaugh is not a mediocre man. He's an extraordinarily talented agent of radical,
right-wing forces. He will dismantle the modern regulatory state with frightening
efficiency.
It's also worth nothing that even men who openly treat women like shit for years are
believed over their accusers. I mean, consider President Pussy Grabber.
It doesn't matter how men treat women - in a rape culture, they're always given the
benefit of the doubt.
The Kavanaugh nomination is a good reminder that in the Republican Party, there are
rapists and rape apologists. There is no one vehemently opposed to rape.
What is the first thing anyone can tell you about Clarence Thomas, the most senior justice
on the US Supreme Court? Anita Hill, "larger than normal penis" boasts, pubic hair on
a Coke can.
Whereas, as Thomas before him, Kavanaugh will likely be approved, he can never wash away the
image of his lunging body from the public's mind, nor will he ever be completely believed. The
cost for Blasey Ford will likely be as high.
In the era of ersatz and ad hoc #MeToo justice both of their names forever linked together,
and forever stained.
But another running disaster is the feminists' attempt to derail nomination of Judge
Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may
wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl
while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so
many (and more) years ago!
Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I'd find him not
guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or
not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token
force. "No means no" was a totally unheard-of idea.
Prosvirnin
is the most talented writer.
Limonov
has by far the most colorful personality.
Dugin
has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name
recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes.
Krylov
provided the esoteric flavoring.
And yet out of all of Russia's
right-wing intellectuals
, there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.
This
is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the "golden mean" of the Russian
nationalist memeplex.
He is a realist on Soviet achievements,
crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia
of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox
Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the
esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom
hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.
Instead of wasting his time on
ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and writes
reviews
about it on his website.
And about 224 other books
.
And this brings us to what makes
Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.
This allows him to write informed and
engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.
In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the
best modern Russian right-wing
intellectual
, period.
Unfortunately, he is almost entirely
unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like
Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very
small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles (
Europe's
Week of Human Sacrifice
;
A Cruel French Lesson
). Still, there's only so much one blogger with many other things to write about
can do.
Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of
Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in
his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on
anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's
Galactus.
We hope to make translations of
Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.
In the meantime, I am privileged to
present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.
***
A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective
Google fires employee James Damore
for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.
– You persecute your employees for
having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.
– No, we don't. You're fired.
A conversation just like or similar to
this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google
Corporation.
Illustration to the Google scandal.
James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
Google knows almost everything about us,
including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples (
OK Google
), our favorite
stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the
world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably
temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been
discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central
House of Cards
plotline.
Conversely, we know next to nothing
about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of
corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and
American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology,
suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.
The story goes this way. In early
August, an anonymous manifesto titled
Google's Ideological Echo Chamber
was circulated through the
local network of Google. The author lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of
so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far
as to appoint a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white
cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track
promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.
The author argues that Leftism and
"diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber" within the company, where a person only talks to
those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their
beliefs are the only ones that matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines
work efficiency, with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.
In contrast to Google's buzzwords of
"vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed
ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.
As Google employs intellectuals, argues
the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist
clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the
Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.
The central Leftist idea is the class
struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of
struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White
oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently,
the US presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing the
"diversity" policy.
The critic argues that the witch-hunt
of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job,
is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes
not to the best there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation
programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men
from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning
out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of
class struggle.
What is the proposed solution?
Stop diving people into "oppressors" and
"the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an
immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.
The diversity of opinion must apply to
everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that
needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages,
such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only
those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.
End diversity programs discriminatory
towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.
Have an unbiased assessment of the costs
and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company's
employees against the other.
Instead of gender and race differences,
focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss
facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.
Admit that not all racial or gender
differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.
The last point proved to be the most
vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences
that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are
as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men
are more interested in objects.
Women are prone to cooperation, men to
competition. All too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men.
Women are looking for a balance between
work and private life, men are obsessed with status and
Feminism played a major part in
emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks
to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken
society in the long run).
It was the think piece on the natural
differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with
propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with
a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a
programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of
the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our
workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age,
that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a
typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google
implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely
on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to
fired Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore
Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and
Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass,
Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity
notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism.
Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural
constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible
viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and
therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and
should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the
opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true",
and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor
of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls
for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with
an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is
quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon
tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google
Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If
both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that
the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective
consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such
circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is
shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most
importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A
fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James
Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to
diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind
obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a
country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of
our prejudices and their efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender
relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of
maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own
way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that
all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as
Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him
or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles
historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not
give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social,
cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same
form without any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an
ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires
very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution",
only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in
public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees
the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the
"superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the
Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender
Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in
abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere
of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative
worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative
solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It
should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and
stereotypes (let's not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players)
would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine
calling and talent.
The art of war is not typical of a
woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art
of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness
but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads
to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it
being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian,
Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an
enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against
one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is
already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it's
probably for the better.
A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global
hyperpower.
Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age.
So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he
will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for
women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was
a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."
The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights.
Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more
under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst
"fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for
women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.
Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify
what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild
comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.
What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when
McEnroe/Connors did.
Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is
fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in
America so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not American
exeptionalism.
Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Americans, but by American training of
the best players regardless of their origination
"... "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] ..."
"... "I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too,' ..."
"... "Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?" ..."
"... "we cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court." ..."
After being penalized for calling chair umpire Carlos Ramos a "thief," Williams
summoned up the evil spirits of political correctness to plead her case. She was heard
telling officials
that many male tennis players have done "much worse" without any sort of retribution.
In other words, Ramos was a cave-dwelling "sexist" put on earth to thwart the progress
of womanhood.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here,
fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think
that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] .
There were faint echoes of Oprah Winfrey's famous speech
at the Golden Globes in that it was the right message delivered at exactly the wrong time and
place.
So now, America's dethroned tennis queen, playing the gender card game instead of tennis, is
acting spokesperson for downtrodden women everywhere. Yet certainly Williams has heard of John
McEnroe, the former American tennis star whose on-court temper tantrums are now legendary. In
1990, for example, this loudmouthed male was tossed out of the Australian Open – not
just penalized – for verbally abusing the chair umpire, much like Williams did.
Since it may come off as chauvinistic for me – a burly male – to criticize
Serena, perhaps it would be more appropriate to quote Martina Navratilova, 61, one of the
greatest
female tennis players of all time.
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' Navratilova
wrote in a New York Times op-ed regarding Williams' epic meltdown. "Rather, I think
the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our
sport and to respect our opponents?"
The Czech-born American went on to comment that "we cannot measure ourselves by what we
think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should
be engaging in on the court."
Eureka! Navratilova – who hails from a bygone era when the vision of political
correctness, 'virtue signaling' and 'social justice warriors' was just a flash in the pan
– nailed it. Instead of looking to some external other to explain our life circumstances
– like losing a tennis match, for example, or a presidential election (wink, wink)
– people should look to themselves as the agents for proactive and positive change. Such
a message, however, would quickly sink the Liberal ship, which is predicated upon the idea that
the world is forever divided between oppressor and oppressed. What the Liberals fail to
appreciate, however, is that they are becoming the real oppressors as they continue to sideline
anybody who does not think and act exactly as they do.
Following Serena's epic meltdown, the Melbourne-based Herald Sun published a cartoon by Mark
Knight that shows the American tennis star as she proceeds to stomp on her racket, mouth open
and hair going straight up. It was not a flattering or subtle drawing, but given the
circumstances, that should probably come as no surprise.
2015: 12 Charlie Hebdo illustrators shot dead for depiction of prophet Muhammad -
thousands line streets demonstrating for freedom of sattire & humour
2018: Mark Knight draws caricature of Serena Williams - thousands shout racist &
demand his removal from Twiter and the media pic.twitter.com/NDpFrbigca
The Liberal outrage came fast and heavy as critics slammed the caricature as racist and
offensive. It would take hundreds of pages to recite them all, but as one example, CNN
columnist Rebecca Wanzo
labeled the cartoon as an example of – wait for it – "visual
imperialism," which is manifest by "a black grotesque seeming natural."
Never mind that the behavior of Serena Williams was "grotesque," which is what
inspired Knight's unflattering drawing of her in the first place. That is what is meant by a
'caricature', where the artist attempts to convey the essence of an event through imagery. Yes,
sometimes brutal imagery.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The
Moscow News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in
2013.
A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global
hyperpower.
Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age.
So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he
will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for
women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was
a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."
The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights.
Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more
under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst
"fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for
women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.
Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify
what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild
comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.
What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when
McEnroe/Connors did.
Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is
fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in
Amerikkka so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not Amerikkkan
exeptionalism.
Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Amerikkkans but by Amerikkkan training
of the best players regardless of their origination
I agree with Martina Navratilova on Serena Williams conduct
" Navratilova went so far as to write an editorial for the New York Times in which she
claimed that, in complaining post-match that Ramos would not have reacted the same way to an
argumentative male player, Williams was "missing the point" and would have been better served
conducting herself with "respect for the sport we love so dearly."
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' " Navratilova said of Williams in her editorial. "Rather, I
think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor
our sport and to respect our opponents?"
Serena Williams behaviour ruined the experience of victory for Naomi Osaka, if you get a
chance to see film of the whole debacle with the booing crowd! She looked like the most
miserable winner in ever.
Another issue is that Williams deliberately puts on a tantrum and then claims the tantrum is
normal emotional behaviour. On top of that, she tries to pass off this spoilt-brat outburst
as characteristic of how strong, feminist women behave. All done as much to deny Osaka the
joy of winning her first major championship as to attack the umpire.
And people who should know better swallow Williams' idiocy hook, line and sinker.
Very apt: "So we excuse the
rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people"
I suspect nationalism or ethnocentrism were also factors, not only identity politics. Selena has ungly history of tantrum thouth
and that might point to poriblems with performance enhancing drags (she did have a unexplained meltdown in Wimbledon 2014)
Notable quotes:
"... Drama and literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their application." ..."
Serena Williams Serves Tantrum, Scores for Identity PoliticsSo we excuse the
rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people
Drama and
literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger
truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it
provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my
former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus
cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their
application."
Indifference to behavioral regulations and standards of practice had become common to the
point of banality, Ward argued, subjecting anyone who attempted to enforce the rules to
vilification.
For those who do not closely follow professional tennis, here's a review of the controversy.
Serena Williams, undoubtedly one of the greatest players in the history of the game, was facing
a rising superstar from Japan, Naomi Osaka. Williams is only one grand slam championship away
from tying the all-time record, but has recently struggled to triumph over her younger
opponents (most tennis players retire in their early to mid-thirties; Williams is 37). Osaka
had already defeated Williams with ease at the Miami Open in March.
It appeared that the U.S. Open was headed for a repeat early in the match, with Osaka
asserting swift dominance. Early in the first set, however, the linesman, Carlos Ramos, called
a court violation on Williams' coach because he was signaling her -- an illegal activity in the
sport of tennis. Rather than accept the warning, Williams unleashed a reality TV-style tirade
on Ramos, excoriating him for "misreading" her coach's hand gestures and making bizarre
reference to her daughter: "I never cheat I have a daughter, and I stand for what is right for
her."
(Immediately following the match, in a rare and refreshing moment of honesty, Williams'
coach admitted that he was signaling her the entire time, making Williams look both deceitful
and foolish. Most post-match commentary has conveniently omitted the coach's confession from
the record.)
After Williams lost the opening set's fifth game, she slammed her racket into the ground,
causing its frame to bend. Intentional damage to a racquet is a code violation, and Ramos
penalized her a point, the standard punishment for a second offense. Osaka quickly won the next
game, making her the winner of the first set with a lopsided score of 6-2.
Williams then began screaming at Ramos, telling him that he was wrong to penalize her and
protesting that the warning she received should not count as a violation because she was not
cheating. Ramos sat silently as Williams ridiculed his performance as linesman and demanded
that he apologize.
The second set advanced quickly with Osaka continuing to make fast work of Williams. During
every break in play, Williams continued to badger Ramos, indicating that she would not stop
until he announced over his microphone that he was sorry for what he did to her. He ignored her
expressions of anger.
After Osaka pulled ahead 4-3, Williams again berated Ramos for his monstrous failures as a
human being. Bringing her rant to a climax, she called him a "liar" and a "thief."
To impugn the character of a linesman violates the code of conduct governing play in
professional tennis. Ramos flagged her for the third time, issuing the penalty of a forfeited
game, making the set score 5-3. Williams pleaded with supervising officials of the tournament
-- one man, one woman -- to overturn Ramos' calls, and they refused. She then made the
contemptible claim that excited countless social media users and political commentators around
the country: "I've seen men get away with his all the time. Just because I'm a woman, you are
going to take this away from me."
Osaka won the second set, 6-4, and in doing so, became the first Japanese champion of the
U.S. Open. The audience loudly booed and jeered throughout the awards ceremony, and the
commissioner of the U.S. Open disgraced herself by saying, on air and in front of the rightful
champion, "This isn't the end we were looking for." Williams made an attempt to recover some
dignity by instructing her vulgar fans to stop heckling, but the entire event had already
transformed into an ugly American extravaganza. Most infuriating was that Osaka looked
dejected, unable to enjoy her first grand slam victory.
The next day, USA Today ran an opinion piece with the headline "Sexism Cost Serena
Williams Tennis Title." Many other writers and TV analysts, none of whom seemed to know
anything about tennis rules or history, began reciting from the same fatuous and phony script.
A few have even tried to racialize the story, though given that Osaka's father is Haitian, that
narrative has failed to gain traction.
Acting as though Ramos were self-evidently a misogynist, most media mouthpieces ignored that
throughout the U.S. Open, male players have been called for 86 violations and women only 22.
Nine of the 10 largest fines in tennis history for on-court violations have gone to men. Ramos
himself has earned the wrath of men's champions Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer
for making calls they felt were too rigid and punitive.
The mob has also compared Williams' tantrum with the boorish imbecility of 1980s tennis
stars John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. While it's true that both players often acted with
disrespect more reminiscent of barroom drunks than professional athletes, they also benefitted
from terribly lenient regulations of professional tennis. The ATP did not standardize the rules
or crack down on outlandish player conduct until the late 1980s. Not coincidentally, McEnroe
was ejected from the 1990 Australian Open after his fourth violation in a single match.
And yet arguing about the rules and pointing to the score of the match -- it is almost
certain that Osaka would have won regardless -- feels oddly archaic. Many of Williams'
desperate defenders are acting in emotional accordance with some strange, eschatological
commitment to identity politics, and no amount of factual information will dissuade them.
Another term my friend was fond of using was "biased apperception." The critics who call Ramos
sexist without giving him the opportunity to defend himself have adopted a position and are
working backwards to validate it. To pull this off, they have no choice but to excuse the rules
and condemn their application. There is no debate that Williams broke three different rules,
yet the lineman is sexist because he chose to apply them.
Rebecca Traister, a leading feminist writer for New York , begins her boring and
predictable interpretation of the events with the following admission (which negates all the
subsequent sentences in her essay):
I don't care much about the rules of tennis that Serena Williams was accused of violating
at Saturday night's U.S. Open final. Those rules were written for a game and for players who
were not supposed to look or express themselves or play the game as beautifully and
passionately as either Serena Williams or the young woman who eventually beat her,
20-year-old Naomi Osaka, do.
Overlooking Traister's weird disparagement of every women's champion who proceeded Williams
and Osaka as ugly and impassive, and her incoherent grammar (how is a game supposed to "express
themselves"?), it is revealing that she prefaces her entire argument by saying that rules do
not matter if the right people did not author them. The crime is not the transgression, but the
enforcement.
The "excuse the rules, condemn the application" mentality is a societal sickness responsible
for much that troubles our body politic.
To begin with an example that will interest those who practice identity politics, President
Donald Trump has thrived on condemning those who enforce the rules. Though he regularly
demonstrates a daunting pattern of dishonesty, is an unnamed co-conspirator in a criminal
indictment, has seen several of his associates indicted or convicted of crimes, and continually
makes a mockery of decorum and etiquette, whenever he is caught in an act of wrongdoing, his
immediate response is to spit a venomous stream of clichés: "fake news," "deep state,"
"witch hunt."
Another example is the bailout of the big banks that followed the 2008 financial crisis. Few
disagreed that the world's major financial institutions violated the rules, but the idea of
accountability was suddenly radical and unthinkable.
If a connection between corporate malfeasance, presidential malpractice, and a tennis
champion's childish outburst seems tenuous, consider that in all three cases the
get-out-of-jail-free card is an appeal to ideology. Rules, we are asked to believe, are
irrelevant, and even themselves infringements on belief systems like populism and feminism that
are regarded as more important.
The self-involvement and extreme subjectivity necessary for such a destructive belief
permeates into non-ideological aspects of culture. Grade inflation in higher education, as any
instructor can attest, exists largely because students cannot fathom suffering consequences for
lazy or mediocre work. The issuance of assignments and exams is fine, but to actually grade
them according to an objective standard is evil.
America needs a serious dose of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. One should act only
in such a way that one would approve of everyone else acting in a given situation.
Writing for The New York Times , retired tennis champion Martina Navratilova wisely
states, "We cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with.
In fact, this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court. There
have been many times when I was playing that I wanted to break my racket into a thousand
pieces. Then I thought about the kids watching. And I grudgingly held on to that racket."
Obvious to anyone but the willfully ignorant, this is a far better formula for a healthy
society than "I don't care about the rules."
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) released the following statement relating to
umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women's final:
"Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos'
decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open's
decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences. It is understandable that this high
profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to
remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule
book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity."
"The Grand Slam Rule Book can be found here. Player on site offences including the point
penalty schedule used in this instance can be found in Article III."
ARTICLE III: PLAYER ON-SITE OFFENCES -- pages 36-48
I follow tennis and am not a feminist. There were two things the ump should have done. First, everyone knows that all players
in tennis are getting coached. If ump was going to call it, he should have warned both players and coaches before the match.
Second, when Serena was mouthing off during the changeover, he should have told her: "you've made your point, one more insult
and you're going to get a penalty" and then, just ignore her. If she keeps it up then you dick her.
As for Serena, she is a brand. Which is why she blew up for being caught cheating. It was more important for her to defend her
image than to win the match
Kalmia, September 15, 2018 at 9:17 am
Serena Williams is not unusual in being a world-class athlete/competitor who is also a very very bad loser. Her behavior
wasn't that unusual and the punishment in the game was appropriate, it should have ended with that. In my view, it's the crowd
and her supporters who are the real villains here for letting their bias towards her (and identity politics) warp their sense of
justice and fairness. Poor Osaka deserved much better than the booing and rash of hot takes.
Jeeves, September 15, 2018 at 4:36 pm
Rat: Williams was livid because she was getting her tutu kicked all over the court. Desperate and depraved gamesmanship was
all it was.
Although you'd never know it from the terrible reporting in this article, following the game-penalty imposed by Ramos, Osaka
intentionally gave Serena the next game by missing returns of Serena's serve -- I suppose hoping to calm down the woman who was
her tennis idol growing up. It didn't work, though, because Serena was unappeased–and outplayed. (To top it off, the stupid TV
commentators wanted to give Serena kudos for her quieting of her booing fans at the awards presentation. No-class athlete,
no-class fans.)
Sisera, September 15, 2018 at 10:16 pm
@WorkingClass
Agreed & isn't it funny how in the world of many centrist 'apologist' types, fighting back against identity politics,
entitlement of elites, etc. is in and of itself identity politics?
I mean it's like the grade school insult of 'I know you are but what am I'….and many (albeit not this author) say it with all
the smugness and gotchaness in the world.
They adhere to identity politics and have no self awareness and hence can't recognize it.
Ivo Olavo Castro da Silva, September 16, 2018 at 12:31 am
The fact that Serena's fans and the media supported her disgusting actions only confirm their total absence of any moral
standard.
Tennis Fan, September 16, 2018 at 10:05 am
In response to "Rat says…Why did the judge decide that the final was the time to start applying an otherwise-ignored rule?
Sure, it would have been preferable for her to keep her cool, but it's understandable why Williams was livid."
It may be that coaches get away with coaching quite often, however, IMHO the umpire happened to actually catch the coach
right in the act of coaching (and if you see the video of the supposed incident, her coach, Patrick, actually gives two head-nods
in that very brief moment and to me, the head-nods acknowledge that they made eye contact-my personal opinion only).
The umpire immediately decided to call it out... Who knows, maybe in that very moment, he felt it wasn't fair for her to
be getting coaching, he actually caught the coaching, and his gut instinct was to make the call on it. I don't fault the umpire
one bit. Had Serena accepted the call and moved on, the entire tide of the match may have taken a different turn.
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... "Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." ..."
"... "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times ..."
Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer
to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal
democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book
Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm
Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and
respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said
the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to
segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the
Times of London.
"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom
risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned
by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for
rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken
up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."
"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain,
injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview
with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the
highest order." ( Sacks:
Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October
2007 ; emphasis added)
So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving,
self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably
divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as
subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a
gentile society.
Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the
"identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and
American ,
Australian ,
French and Swedish
politics too).
By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by
the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that
Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed
that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy
Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.
Fourth Wave Feminism:Why No One EscapesToday's outsized Femocracy is more
desperate and (self) destructive than it's successful progenitors. By JOANNA WILLIAMS
• September
4, 2018
Feminism, in its second wave, women's liberation movement guise, has passed its first half
century. And what a success it has been! Betty Friedan's frustrated housewife, bored with
plumping pillows and making peanut butter sandwiches, is now a rarity. We might still be
waiting for the first female president, but women -- specifically feminists -- are now in
positions of power across the whole of society.
Yet feminism shows no sign of taking early retirement and bowing out, job done. Instead, it
continues to reinvent itself. #MeToo is the cause du jour of fourth-wave feminism but,
disturbingly, it seems to be taking us further from liberation and pushing us towards an
increasingly illiberal and authoritarian future. It's time to take stock.
Over the past five decades, women have taken public life by storm. When it comes to
education, employment, and pay, women are not just doing better than ever before -- they are
often doing better than men too. For over a quarter of a century, girls have outperformed boys
at school. Over 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees are awarded to women. More women than men
continue to graduate school and more doctorates are awarded to women. And their successes don't
stop when they leave education behind. Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in the
number of women in employment and many are taking managerial and professional positions. Women
now comprise just over half of those employed in management, professional, and related
occupations.
Women aren't just working more, they are being paid more. Women today earn more in total
than at any other point in time and they also earn more as a proportion of men's earnings. For
younger women in particular, the gender pay gap is narrowing. Between 1980 and 2012, wages for
men aged 25 to 34 fell 20 percent while over the same period women's pay rose by 13 percent.
Some data sets now suggest that women in their twenties earn more than men the same age.
Although high-profile equal pay campaigns appear to suggest otherwise, when we compare the pay
of men and women employed in the same jobs and working for the same number of hours each week,
the gender pay gap all but disappears. Four out of every 10 women are now either the sole or
primary family earner -- a figure which has quadrupled since 1960.
But this is not just about the lives of women: it is feminism as an ideology that has been
incredibly successful. For over four decades, feminist theory has shaped people's lives. Making
sense of the world through the prism of gender and seeking to root out sexual inequality is now
the driving force behind much that goes on in the public sphere.
Back in 1986, in one of the first examples of new legislation explicitly backed by
feminists, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. This
has had a profound impact upon all aspects of employment legislation. As a result, a layer of
managers and administrators, sometimes referred to as "femocrats," are employed to oversee
sexual equality and manage sexual harassment complaints in workplaces and schools.
Elsewhere, the influence of feminism can be seen in the expansion of existing laws. When
Title IX of the Education Amendments was passed in 1972 it was designed to protect people from
discrimination based on sex in education programs that received federal funding. It was a
significant -- and reasonably straightforward -- piece of legislation introduced at a time when
women were underrepresented in higher education. It first began to take on greater significance
following a 1977 case led by the feminist lawyer and academic Catharine MacKinnon in which a
federal court found that colleges could be liable under Title IX not just for acts of
discrimination but also for not responding to allegations of sexual harassment.
Not surprisingly, definitions of sexual harassment began to expand in the late 1970s. In
education, the term came to encompass a "hostile environment" in which women felt uncomfortable
because of their sex. By this measure, sexual harassment can occur unintentionally and with no
specific target. Furthermore, a hostile environment might be created by students themselves
irrespective of the actions of an institution's staff. As a result, colleges became responsible
for policing the sexual behavior of their students too.
Pressing forward under the Obama administration, sexual misconduct cases on campuses were
tried under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a higher standard of clear and
convincing evidence. Within these extrajudicial tribunals, students -- most often young men --
could be found guilty of sexual assault or rape and expelled following unsubstantiated
allegations and with little opportunity to defend themselves. Although current Education
Secretary Betsy DeVos has revoked the Obama-era guidelines that instituted these kangaroo
courts, many institutions under pressure to react have expanded their zero tolerance policies,
often at the expense of basic due process and fairness.
In the 1970s, radical feminists opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it
individualized and deradicalized feminism. "We will not be appeased," they asserted. "Our
demands can only be met by a total transformation of society, which you cannot legislate, you
cannot co-opt, you cannot control."
Yet today, a feminist outlook now shapes policy, practice, and law at all levels of the
government, as feminists seek to transform society through the state rather than by opposing
it. Most recently this has taken form in the demand for affirmative consent, or "yes means
yes," to be the standard in rape cases. This places the onus on the accused to prove they had
sought and obtained consent; in other words they must prove their innocence.
This is a radical shift, yet it is being enshrined in legislation with little discussion.
California and New York have passed legislation requiring colleges to adopt an affirmative
consent standard in their sexual assault policies. In 2016, the American Law Institute,
influential with state legislators, debated introducing an affirmative consent standard into
state laws. The proposal was ultimately rejected but the fact that it was even taken seriously
shows feminism's growing legal influence.
History tells us that legislation driven by feminism can have unintended consequences. The
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton's massive $30
billion crime bill, aimed to put 100,000 police officers on the street and funded $9.7 billion
for prisons. VAWA sought more prosecutions and harsher sentences for abuse in relationships.
But a more intensive law enforcement focus on minority communities, coupled with mandatory
arrests of both partners on the scene of a dispute, resulted in unanticipated blowback. Police
were accused of over-criminalizing minority neighborhoods; critics said women were disinclined
to call the police for fear of being arrested themselves. A 2007 Harvard study suggests that
mandatory arrest laws may have actually increased intimate partner homicides and, separately,
women of color have described violence at the hands of the arresting police officers.
Ultimately, the crime bill merely punished; it didn't help prevent domestic abuse against
women.
♦♦♦
Although all women have in some way benefited from feminism's decades-long campaign against
inequality, it is clear that some -- namely middle- and upper-class college graduates -- have
been more advantaged than the rest. Feminists in the 1960s argued that all women had interests
in common; they shared an experience of oppression. The same can hardly be said today. An elite
group of women with professional careers and high salaries has little in common with women
juggling two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Yet the feminist voices that are heard most
loudly continue to be those of privileged women.
High-profile feminists like Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy
planning at the State Department, and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, sell books and make headlines
for criticizing family-unfriendly employment practices and the gender pay gap. Good for them!
But remember that these women have incomes and lifestyles that put them in a different league
from the vast majority of women -- and men. They identify more closely with the tiny proportion
of male CEOs than they do with women who have jobs rather than careers, who wear uniforms
rather than dry-clean-only suits to work, who have no time to hit the gym before heading to the
office. Their push for "lean-in" circles appeals more to young college grads than women
struggling just to put food on the table. Their vociferous feminist call to arms falls flat in
Middle America -- yet we are told they speak for all women.
In 2018, feminists do walk the corridors of power. But in order to maintain their position
and moral high ground they must deny the very power they command. For this reason, feminism can
never admit its successes -- to do so would require its adherents to ask whether their job is
done. For professional feminists, women who have forged their careers in the femocracy,
admitting this not only puts their livelihoods at risk, but poses an existential threat to
their sense of self. As a result, the better women's lives become, the harder feminists must
work to seek out new realms of disadvantage.
The need to sustain a narrative of oppression explains the continued popularity of the
#MeToo phenomenon. In October 2017, The New York Times ran a story alleging that
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make and break careers, had committed
a number of serious sexual offenses. (The allegations against Weinstein mounted and he is now
being charged with sexual assault and rape.) Over the following weeks and months, accusations
of sexual misconduct were leveled against a host of other men in the public eye.
Such serious accusations need to be dealt with in the courts and, if found guilty, the
perpetrators punished accordingly. But rather than arrests, trials, and criminal proceedings,
#MeToo has gathered pace through social media. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter on October
18 and asked women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to "write 'me too' as a reply to
this tweet." Thousands of women came forward to call out their own abusers or simply to add
their names to a growing list of victims. #MeToo took on a life of its own; it readily lent
itself to an already-established fourth-wave feminist narrative that saw women as victims of
male violence and sexual entitlement.
Women in the public eye are now routinely asked about their own experiences of sexual
harassment. Some have publicly named and shamed men they accuse of sexual assault or, as with
the case of comedian Aziz Ansari, what can perhaps best be described as "ungentlemanly
conduct." Others are more vague and suggest they have experienced sexual harassment in more
general terms. What no woman can do -- at least not without instigating a barrage of criticism
-- is deny that sexual harassment is a major problem today.
The success of #MeToo is less about real justice than the common experience of suffering and
validation. It is a perfect social media vehicle to drive the fourth-wave agenda into another
generation. Hollywood stars and baristas may have little in common but all women can lay claim
to having experienced male violence and sexual harassment -- or, failing that, potentially
experiencing abuse at some indeterminate point in the future. Statistics on domestic violence,
rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are used to shore up the narrative that women, as a
class, suffer at the hands of men.
But scratch the surface and often these statistics are questionable. In recent years, at the
hands of femocrats, definitions of violence and sexual harassment have been expanded. On
campus, all kinds of behaviors, from touching through clothes to non-consensual sex, are
grouped together to prove the existence of a rape culture. When sexual harassment is redefined
as unwanted behavior it can encompass anything from winking, to whistling, to staring, to
catcalling. There is little objectively wrong with the action -- it is simply the fact that it
is unwanted that makes it abusive. Today, we are encouraged to see violence, especially
violence against women and girls, everywhere: in words that wound, personified in a boorish
president, in our economic and legal systems. This is violence as metaphor rather than violence
as a physical blow. Yet it is a metaphor that serves a powerful purpose -- allowing all women
to share in a common experience of victimhood, and, as such, justifying the continued need for
elite feminism.
Problems with #MeToo are too rarely discussed. Violence and sexual assaults do occur, but
these serious crimes are trivialized by being presented as on a continuum with the metaphorical
abuse. The constant reiteration that women are victims and men are violent perpetrators does
not, in itself, make it true. It pits men and women against each other and, in the process,
infantilizes women and makes them fearful of the world. It also masks a far more positive
story: rates of domestic violence have been falling. Between 1994 and 2011, the rates of
serious intimate partner violence perpetrated against women -- defined as rape, sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated assault -- fell 72 percent.
The consequences of entrenching in law assumptions that women are destined to become victims
of male violence and harassment are dangerously authoritarian. Feminists now look not to their
own resources, or to their family and friends, but to the state to protect them. Black men in
particular can find themselves disproportionately targeted by feminist-backed drives for legal
retribution. A 2017 report from the National Registry of Exonerations suggests that black men
serving time for sexual assault are three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than
white defendants who have been convicted of the same crime.
In the meantime, demands for the punishment of bad behavior are inevitable. Male catcalling
in the UK and France could soon be a criminal offense. While similar bans have been
unsuccessful in the U.S., there are plenty of street harassment laws at the state level that
feminists could co-opt if necessary. Additionally in England, there are proposals to
criminalize "upskirting" or taking a photograph up a woman's skirt. Upskirting is a vile
invasion of a person's privacy. However, the majority of instances are covered under existing
indecency and voyeurism laws. The proposal, as with others, is a feminist signaling device: the
message is, yet again, that the world is a hostile place for women and their only course of
action is to seek redress from the state.
Meanwhile, working-class women are effectively exploited as a voiceless stage presence,
brought on when convenient to shore up the authority of the professional feminist. On occasion
this means the livelihoods of regular women are placed in jeopardy for the greater good of the
collective. Earlier this year, a group of A-list Hollywood actresses petitioned against tipping
waitresses in New York restaurants, arguing it was exploitive and encouraged sexual harassment.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, servers shot back that they would like to continue receiving tips,
thank you very much.
♦♦♦
Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and
behavior for men and women. Campaigns around "rape culture" and #MeToo police women just as
much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid's Tale
author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex
crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and
Mail essay in January entitled "Am I a Bad Feminist?"
"In times of extremes, extremists win," she wrote. "Their ideology becomes a religion,
anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and
moderates in the middle are annihilated."
The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering
on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.
Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged
and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of
feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today's #MeToo movement rehabilitates the
argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need "safe spaces."
Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be
paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is
that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent
size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like
the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women's disadvantage thus become
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women -- and men -- such as
working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are
overlooked.
When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the
women's liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were
capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an
increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to
reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free
today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women's liberation movement. Only now it's
feminism from which women need liberating.
"The people I've heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile
people who've proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of
them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their
enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it
is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed
identity as being of recognizably European descent." • Also "Asian American professional,"
although when you think about it, "Asia American" is a pretty problematic ascribed
identity.
The best-case scenario looking
forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and
that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward
can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't
nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated. ..."
I thought this part of Urie's piece was especially good:
Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the
analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling
class ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they
are factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.
Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis
whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic
power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this
critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.
Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are
clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique
of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the
neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to
counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly
significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States'
relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on
July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from
time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't
necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could
just be an accident."
Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has
voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and
resurgence
of Russia necessitating a new global balance .
As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China,
signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing
becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians),
the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period."
Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."
Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between
Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power
game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to
discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.
Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no
secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and
Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for
'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David
became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.
But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River
in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing
the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials
show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One
particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War
history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack
on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher
Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal
year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a
basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger
to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.
Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin
will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US.
Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a
meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to
play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.
Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese
analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia
relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.
The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting
in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, "
Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia."
Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including
on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American
cooperation.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial
giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to
Russia -- China
can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable
reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the
global stage due to military power:
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total,
and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although
an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear
advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only
should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know
that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle.
And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create
a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that
they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.
"To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia."
So, what exactly can Trump offer Russia? Letting them "win" in Syria, when the Syrian
people, lead by Assad and aided by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, have already won?
Perhaps, it is the return of bankrupt and banderised Ukraine? Now that would be a
prize!
Perhaps, Trump could offer the withdrawal of NATO forces from Russia's borders and a
place in the "international community"? That worked out well in the 90s, didn't it?
Maybe, relief from sanctions could be the clincher? That would rescue the "tattered"
Russian economy, wouldn't it?
The Nixon to China gambit by Trump ignores the stark reality that Trump is in office but
not in power. The entire media and the "intelligence community" has been angling to
impeach him since his election, and they may well succeed after the mid-terms.
Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?
Besides, Putin and loyal Russians have seen through the true reasons behind what can only
be called anti Russian RACIST hysteria.
Its not ideological or cultural. It is an ancient urge: Russia must submit to the
US/EU/NATO Borg Collective, or be destroyed. Could anyone have missed the rant in the US
media, incited by the "intelligence community", which just happened to be "thrown under
the bus", by Trump, just because he met Putin?
Trump is also going to be the victim of the same urge.
He cannot be controlled, so he must be destroyed.
Simples!
The Yanks will start their endless electioneering soon, four years is nothing, the
dolts start the game going for new president years berfore the election date. Sure they
hate any nation that stands-up to them they actually beleive they have a god-given righ
to rule the world as they spread their sick ways around the globe calling them freedom?
choice?, playing one nation against the other is an old game, lets hope Russia never
crosses China, as together they can keep the war-monger, nation-destroyer two faced snake
USA in check.
"Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?"
There is not even room for that question. Russia is STRATEGIC partner of China and
they never contemplate under no circumstances to have that differently.... Whoever thinks
Russia might take some offer in consideration to turn against China is DEAD WRONG.
The idea that demography is political destiny is not new. Peter Brimelow and Edwin Rubenstein
warned of its dangers in the pages of National Review in the 1990s. Steve Sailer later
argued
that Republicans would fare better by targeting white voters. The problem with these observations was not their accuracy, but their
audience. The GOP establishment and donor elites had little interest in such thinking until Donald Trump's
breakthrough
in 2016. But what happens when Trump leaves office? Will the GOP return to its old ways, as Trump's former chief of staff Reince
Priebus has
predicted ? The answer is almost certainly no. The reasons have little to do with the GOP elite, however, whose views have not
substantially changed. They instead have everything to do with what is happening in the other party. As Brimelow and Rubenstein recently
pointed out in VDARE (and as I did at
American Renaissance
), while the nation is not expected to reach majority-minority status until
2045 , the Democratic Party is already approaching that historic milestone. The political consequences of these changes will
be profound and irreversible. The developments that are unfolding before our eyes are not a fluke, but the beginning of a new political
realignment in the United States that is increasingly focused on race.
The Emerging Majority-Minority Party While warnings of brewing demographic trouble were being ignored by the establishment
right, they received a better reception on the left. In 2004, Ruy
Teixeira and John Judis wrote a book called
The Emerging Democratic
Majority that triumphantly predicted that demographic change would soon produce a "new progressive era." The theory's predictive
powers waxed and waned over the years, but after Trump's 2016 election Teixeira and another coauthor, Peter Leyden, insisted that
Democrats would soon sweep away an increasingly irrelevant GOP and forcibly
impose their will, much as had already happened in California. These arguments have a glaring weakness, however. They assumed
that Democrats would continue to draw the same level of support from white voters. Instead, many have been fleeing to the GOP. Throughout
the 20 th Century, Democrats had won the presidency only by winning or keeping it close among these voters. Barack Obama
was the first to break this pattern, defeating John McCain in 2008 while losing the white vote by
12 percent
. Four years later he beat Mitt Romney while losing it by
20 percent
. Hillary Clinton lost the white vote in 2016 by a similar 20-point
margin . This
loss of white support, coupled with the continued demographic change of the country, has helped push the Democratic Party toward
majority-minority status. Since 1992, the white share of the Democratic presidential vote has dropped an average of about one percent
per year. At its current rate, it could tip to majority-minority status by 2020. It will occur no later than 2024. The political
consequences of this shift are already apparent. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with
the overwhelming backing of
black voters.
Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in 2016 with similar black and Latino
support . This year's state elections have continued the trend, with minority candidates winning Democratic gubernatorial nominations
in Georgia ,
Texas , New Mexico , and
Maryland , with another likely win in
Arizona later this year. This sudden
surge in minority candidates is not an indicator of increased open mindedness, but of demographic change. While the national
Democratic Party is only just approaching majority-minority status, in much of the nation it is already there.
While the demographic trend of the Democratic Party seems clear enough – as does its leftward drift and increased embrace of minority
candidates – it is still possible to argue that the nation's politics will not divide along racial lines. The most obvious alternative
is that both parties will compete for minority votes and both will experience demographic change in an increasingly
multiracial nation. Could this happen? Black voters seem least likely to change. They already routinely provide Democrats with
90 percent of their votes. They are the backbone of the party, with a former president, nearly 50
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and numerous mayors in
major American cities among their ranks. Given the Democratic Party's steadfast commitment to black issues such as affirmative action
and Black Lives Matter, few are likely to be won over by the occasional attempts at Republican
outreach . Latinos also typically
support Democrats in presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin, but they have been a more serious target for Republicans, including
President
George W. Bush , his acolyte
Karl Rove , authors of the
GOP autopsy
released after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and occasional
writers
in National Review . Some have observed that many Latinos
value whiteness and are more likely to
self-identify
as white thelonger they have been in the country.
In fact, some Latinos arewhite , particularly
those from Latin America's leadershipclass . Others have
reported on
substantialhostility
that exists between Latinos and blacks that may make them more likely to see whites as natural allies. There are several problems
with these arguments. The most important are
persistent
race-based
IQ differences that will keep most mestizos (who are the
bulk of Latino immigrants)
trapped at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum regardless of their racial identification. Arguments that they will assimilate
like their European predecessors fail to explain why
racialhierarchies have
persisted in their home
nations for hundreds of years. These inequalities probably explain the high levels of
Hispanicsupport for government programs that
are likely to keep most of them tied to the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. Although Asians also
support Democrats
by a 2-to-1 margin, they seem potentially more
promising . Unlike America's black and Latino populations, East Asians (such as Japanese and Chinese) have IQs that may be slightly
higher than that of white Americans on average.
Moreover, affirmative action policies backed by Democrats typically
work to
their detriment
. However, most Asian immigrants
are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much
lower . Finally, no matter
what their nationality, Asians are generally unsympathetic
to whites
who want to restrict nonwhite immigration. Unsurprisingly, all of these reasons have contributed to Asians
movingaway
from the Republican Party, not toward it. Some argue that Republicans have no choice but to accept demographic change and move left
to gain minority support. The GOP may well move left in
ways
that
are
acceptable to its white
working class
base and help it with white moderates – such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. But it will never win a
bidding
war with Democrats for their base of minority voters, nor would the GOP base let it try.
White polarization is the mirror image of nonwhite polarization and its causes are similar. Numerous
scholars have
citedgenetics
as a basis for reciprocal altruism among closely-related kin and hostility toward outsiders among humans and in the animal kingdom
in general. This ethnocentrism is instinctual, present
amongbabies , and whites are
not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a
shortdistance beneath the surface. Academics sometimes
argue that
positive direct contact is a promising strategy for overcoming racial differences, but research has shown that the
negativeeffects are more
powerful – something a cursory glance at
crime statistics would
confirm. Rampant white flight and segregation in
neighborhoods
,
schools , and personal
relationships provide the most definitive evidence on the negative influence of direct contact. Its impact on voting is also
well established, particularly for whites and blacks. The shift of white Southerners away from the Democratic Party after civil rights
legislation was enacted in the 1960s was almost immediate and has
remained
strong ever since. White flight produced similar
political
advantages for Republicans in suburbs across the country during this period. Their advantage has softened since then, but primarily
because the suburbs have become
less white , not
lesssegregated . White voting is similarly affected
by proximity to Hispanics. White flight and segregation are a constant in heavily Latino areas in
both
liberal and conservative
states. The resulting political backlash in places like
California and
Arizona has been well-documented and confirmed
by
academicresearch
. Support for President Trump has also been shown to be highly
correlated with
whiteidentity
and
opposition to immigration. These trends are expected to become stronger over time.
Experimental
research has shown that growing white awareness of demographic change makes them more
conservative , less favorably disposed to
minorities, and feel greater attachment to other whites. The effects are heightened the more whites think they are
threatened . The associated
ideological effects are just as important. The influence of ideology is obvious in socially conservative states like North Dakota
and Kansas . However, the Democrats'
growing leftward tilt has become an issue even in liberal states like those in New England, many of which now regularly
elect
Republicans as governors
. In fact, liberal Massachusetts has had
just one Democratic governor in the past quarter century. The power of leftist ideology to drive whites together may reach its
zenith if Democrats resume their attack on segregation in neighborhoods and schools.
De facto segregation has
protected
white liberals from the consequences of their voting
decisions for years. If Democrats are
returned to power, however, they appear
ready
to
touch this electoral
third rail
.
Further evidence of racial polarization can be found by looking abroad. Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations –
everywhere and throughouthistory . More recently,
64 percent of
all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines
. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and
ethnic polarization . Some of the worst examples,
such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide. Race-based identity politics are just a lower
form of ethnic conflict. Like ethnic conflict more generally, the strength of such politics depends on the level of ethnic diversity
and corresponding racial polarization. In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines.
As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing
role . Politics and
parties that are explicitly
ethnically-based usually do not appear until much later, when a nation has become more diverse and has begun to suffer extreme racial
polarization. Such politics have been shown to produce substantial ethnic
favoritism
. Their appearance is often a
prelude to civilwar or
partition . The United
States has not reached this stage, but its future can be seen in other nations that are further down the road. One example is Brazil.
While the United States will not become majority-minority until 2045, Brazil reached that milestone in
2010 . For much of the 20
th Century, Brazil viewed itself as a harmonious racial
democracy and a model for the rest of the world, but this image has been tarnished in recent years. The nation's changing demographics
demonstrated their power with the election of Lula da Silva in 2002 and his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, in 2010. Support
for these two presidents – both members of the leftist Workers Party – was
concentrated
in the largely black northern half of the country, while opposition was concentrated in the mostly
white south . Their victories depended on
the nation's changing demographics. Once elected, they rewarded their black supporters with substantial expansions of
affirmative action and
a new cash transfer system, called Bolsa Família, which disproportionately
benefitted
Afro-Brazilians. Since then, Brazil's fortunes have taken a turn for the
worse . Rousseff was
impeached
after a massive corruption scandal in 2016. Crime has
exploded . Black activists
nowderide the notion of "
racial democracy " and have become
more
militant
on racial issues. An explicitly
black political party has
also appeared. This has corresponded with a similar backlash in the white population. The leading candidate for the presidential
election this year is Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes referred to as the
Trump of the Tropics . A white separatist movement called the
South is My Country is drawing substantial support. Brazilians are reportedly
losing faith in
democracy and becoming more receptive to
military
rule .
The preponderance of the evidence – domestic, international, historical, and scientific – suggests that American politics will
continue to polarize along racial and ethnic lines. At least in the short term, Republicans will benefit as white voters flee from
the other party. But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?
Various elements of the
GOPestablishment
, including the
business elite and pro-immigration donors like the
Koch brothers , continue to hold substantial
power within the party. Reince Priebus probably echoed their views when he
said , "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and a traditional platform."
Such status quo thinking ignores too much. There are numerous signs that the party is changing. Trump's popularity within his
own party is the
second highest among all presidents since World War II, trailing only George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Congressional
Never Trumpers like Bob
Corker , Jeff Flake
, and
Mark Sanford have been defeated or stepped aside. Prominent
columnists ,
analysts , and at least
one former GOP leader
are now declaring it Trump's party.
These changes are not solely about Trump, however. There were signs of change before his arrival. Eric Cantor's primary defeat
in 2014 was widely
attributed to softness on immigration, which met furious
grassroots opposition . Moreover, if Trump's rise were
merely a one-off event, we would not be seeing the simultaneous rise of nationalist movements in Europe, which is facing its own
immigration crisis .
The more likely answer is that these changes reflect something more powerful than any individual, even the president of the United
States. The same survival
instinct that is present in all living creatures still burns brightly within the world's European peoples. Trump was not the
cause, but a consequence – and we will not go gently into the night.
Patrick McDermott(email him)is a political analyst in Washington, DC.
This ethnocentrism is instinctual, observable even among babies. Whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized
to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface.
Even the most vile race-virtuosos' ethnocentric instincts boil to the surface in the flight to "good schools" for their children.
The "Good schools" rationale works for them. Gets them away from the city, away from those awful Blacks. It was always diversity
for thee. The closest most liberals get to diversity is the Hispanic housekeeper. Because the Blacks, you know, they steal the
liquor/silver/Waterford". Heard variations of this a million times..
Brilliant synthesis. Excellent article. Patrick McDermott hits it out of the ballpark, noting correctly that ethnocentrism is
"instinctual". So true. So obvious. And this suppressed truth is just the tip of the iceberg. America lives under 'intellectual
occupation'.
But the hardening scientific facts involving race, kinship, and phenotype are testament to the hollowness of 'anti-racist'
rhetoric and ideologies that dominate so much of the American landscape.
These liberal creeds pretend to repudiate (all) 'racism' and bigotry, but in political fact, they strategically target only
white Americans. This makes these lofty 'values' not only disingenuous but unfair and destructive.
Highfalutin (but bogus) liberalism has come to play a diabolical role. It undermines white cohesion and white solidarity. Meanwhile,
from high above, irreversible demographic changes are being orchestrated.
MacDermott correctly observes that the West's unsought ethno-racial transformation is what's behind the reinvigoration of white
identity in Europe and America. This at least is good news.
Says MacDermott:
"Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations -- everywhere and throughout history. More recently, 64 percent of
all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic
polarization. Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide."
Very true. Very important. And while MacDermott avoids mentioning a more obvious example, the most persistent expression of
this phenomena can be seen in Israel/Palestine, where allegedly 'Semitic' Jews are doing whatever it takes to keep their lesser
(Semitic) cousins at arms length–in this case, in the caged ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank.
Undue and uncompromising Jewish influence in Zio-America is allowing this race-born outrage to continue. Sadly, Israeli savagery
routinely receives Zio-Washington's unconditional blessing, trillion-dollar subsidy, and unflinching diplomatic cover.
But besides the disputed territory and Israel's untouchable political power, what nourishes the endless Israel/Palestine impasse?
Jewish 'exceptionalism' is one key motivator.
The Chosen people are convinced that they are born vastly superior to their Semitic cousins.
Thus, strict segregation is required for the assurance of 'Jewish (genetic) continuity'. This objective however requires steadfast
cruelty since the natives are still restless and rebelling.
Supremacism means never having to say you're sorry. This is especially true since, ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs
could potentially lead to increased Jewish 'outmarriage' in Israel and consequently, the gradual reduction in Israeli (Jewish)
IQ and Jewish 'exceptionalism' (supremacy).
Over time, potential genetic intermingling would very possibly undermine Jewish magnificence and therefore, Jewish cohesion.
This could then translate into a loss of Jewish solidarity and 'community'. It's possible.
This downturn could subsequently affect Jewish wealth and power, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Jewish community
desires.
Leaders of the global Jewish community are smart enough to envision this scenario and to prevent it from happening. They use
The Holocaust (and it's potential re-0currance) as an all-purpose excuse. But it's phony. Self-segregation is a sacred, ancient
Jewish value. Thus the glamorization of interracial romance is directed only at the goyim, as is the message of Open Borders.
Just turn on your TV. It's there constantly.
These 'liberal, democratic' messages however are never advocated in Israel, nor are they directed at young Jews via Israeli
TV, news, entertainment or education.
You will never see glamorous depictions of Jewish/Arab miscegenation on Israeli television, even though black/white 'family
formation' on Jewish-owned mass media in America is ubiquitous.
Hostile US elites (Jews) apparently want non-Jewish whites to become mixed, brown. This racial objective however is anathema
to Jewish values. It's strictly for the goyim.
Meanwhile, whites in America are not permitted to think or hold values like Israeli Jews, or to even express similar preferences
inside the civilization that they and their forefathers created. This speaks volumes about the lack of freedom in America. Yes,
we live under intellectual occupation.
For many Israeli Jews (the dominant thinking goes) strict segregation–if not active warfare–is the only sure way to maintain
'hafrada' (separation) for Jews in Israel since they are surrounded by tens of millions of similar-looking but 'unexceptional'
Arabs.
Unlike America, walls (and segregation) remain sacred in Israel. But not here.
In fact, some Latinos are white, particularly those from Latin America's leadership class
I think the reality is, Latinos/Hispanics simply form lines like any group would do. I am white, all my fellow Hispanic friends
are white, and we consider ourselves essentially an ethnicity within Whiteness, just like Italians, or high-caste French Creoles,
White Persians, Lebanese or Jordanians.
The easiest way to tell if an "ethnic" is conservative or republican (outside of obvious virtue signalers), is to ask yourself,
" Is this person white ?". Other than famous actors and political types that have the luxury being "liberal" (e.g. Salma
Hayek) every day Hispanics, Persians and Arabs that are white, act, do and think, like every day White Anglo-Saxons, Germanics
and Nordics–for the most part (obviously IQ plays a part). Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in IQ and mindset in the
particulars between a Norman and a (white-ish) Sicilian, some IQ, some cultural, but if and when a civil war comes–no one will
have ANY problem knowing where they and others stand and belong.
Reince Priebus: "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and traditional platform."
And that would be U.S. hegemony and market fundamentalism? Unlikely and unattractive. U.S. military dominance starves our society
and enriches the national security state and the rogue regimes in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Market fundamentalism does not take into
account human frailty, and would produce widespread desperation.
What can be gleaned from Mr. McDermott's instructive article is that, like it or not, identity needs to be included in the
political lexicon of working class and middle class whites. Elite whites continue to cede power to blacks and browns in politics
and business as the slide into Idiocracy accelerates. This is an opportunity for disaffected whites from the Democratic Party
and Republican Trump supporters to form a coalition.
The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible.
When Ted Kennedy was pushing the 1965 opening of our borders to atone for racism, he made repeated assurances that we would
not end up where we ended up. He said the level of immigration would remain the same, the ethnic mix would not inundate America
with immigrants from any particular place or nation, that the ethnic pattern of America would not be changed, and that we wouldn't
have something crazy like a million immigrants a year, certainly not poor ones who would place a burden on citizens.
When Reagan's amnesty happened, again promises where made that we could and would keep our country. Now, it looks like Brazil
is our future.
Elections are already being decided by racial votes of minorities, which aren't considered racist by that half of America that
eagerly anticipates our demise. What a rude surprise they are in for when they discover they are still white and will be honorary
deplorables once they no longer have political power.
But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?
Ha, Derbyshire doesn't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.
Regarding my home state of Arizona, that 66% figure is an interesting anomaly. Except for my fellow writers, most of the white
folks I know are pretty conservative. Many secretly supported Trump or voted Libertarian in protest of the lousy mainstream choices.
Perhaps this is a reflection of white flight from California.
You dense "scientific" racists can't see the forest for the trees, as is always the case. The importance of this election has
nothing to do with demographics. But you wouldn't know that because all you want to do is scream raceracerace all de liblong day.
No. The importance of this race is that Ocasio-Cortez is "a strikingly perfect candidate, both in policy positions and refusal
to take corporate money. She fits the identity politics profile without once using identity politics virtue-signaling to cover
for lousy policies. This is shattering to the Clintonista crowd, who are spinning like tops."
However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower.
Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers? Those aren't typically low-IQ professions. Is this
just a case of aggressive brain-drain? Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?
In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more
diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role.
Yup. That's probably why the Democratic Party traded class war for race war.
Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers?
The advance guard in the US was the professional elite. Not so in the UK. Subcontinentals are much closer, or even below, average
there. Even here, motel owners may outnumber doctors, scientists, and computer programmers combined.
Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain?
Yes.
And it's worse in Canada.
Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?
There are a billion more people in India than in the US. Do the arithmetic.
OK. I'll make it simple for you because your understanding doesn't extend beyond simple.
Ocasio-Cortez is a very good candidate, and, unless she is co-opted–which, 99 out of a 100 (notice my use of "statistics,"
I mean damned lies, you statistics-worshipers) is the chance she will be–she is a hundred times better than Crowley the Clintonite
hack. Racists are really stupid. They vote against their own interests, just like all "conservatives."
The author throws around 'left' and 'right' as if they transparently applied in the case of ethnic politics. I would argue that
it has been the economic 'right' that has relentlessly pursued diversity of populations – quite arguably for millennia, and certainly
in the last 50 years. Some sane economic leftists realize this, although they are an endangered and shrinking group.
However if it is the right that is the main mover in favor of diversity (empire preferred to nation state for the easier control
of labor), I'm not sure what solutions there are. Whites voting for the Republican Party is not a long time viable solution since
the owners of that party have fundamentally different interests than the white working class (as leftists have correctly pointed
out over and over).
Ocasio's victory is a nightmare for the Democrats. The Leftist media is touting her as the future of the party, but her platform
makes Obama look like a rightwing extremist.
- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Medicare for All
- Tuition-free public college
- Reduce prisons by 50%
- Defund ICE
But the real poison pill is her unwavering support for the Palestinians. I'm not making a value judgment on this or any other
of her policies, but if the GOP can tag the next Democratic presidential candidate with Ocasio's worldview, then expect a Trumpslide
in 2020.
What do the (((brains))) and (((primary funders))) behind the Democratic party think of this rising star? Here are some choice
quotes from NY Jewish Week:
To some, the stunning victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an outspoken critic of Israel, over 10-term Rep. Joseph Crowley
(D-Queens-Bronx), an Israel supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary is seen as another nail in the coffin of Democratic support
for the Jewish state.
"If she maintains her anti-Israel stance, she will be a one-term wonder," predicted George Arzt, a New York political operative.
"I don't think you can have someone with those views in New York City. If she moderates, she could win again. If she doesn't,
there will be massive opposition to her -- maybe even a cross-over candidate from the Latino community with pro-Israel views."
Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he sees Ocasio-Cortez's overwhelming victory -- she won with 57.5
percent of the vote -- as "another step in the ongoing divorce proceedings between the pro-Israel community and the Democratic
Party."
Jeff Wiesenfeld, a former aide to both Republican and Democratic elected officials, said he read Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter
and Facebook postings and said she has voiced opinions that are "downright hostile to Israel."
After 60 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military in May while attempting to breach the fence along the Israel-Gaza
border, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state
or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protestors. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity,
as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore."
"We have never stepped into a situation in New York City in which a member of Congress starts out hostile to us," he added.
"This is a new frontier."
"While Jewish Democrats support much of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's domestic policy agenda, we disagree with her past statement
regarding Israel, as well as her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott, divestment
and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel," it added. "In the coming days and months, we hope to learn more about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's
views, but at the moment, her position on Israel is not in line with our values."
What will Jewish Democrats do if the Ocasio/DSA platform becomes mainstream in the Democratic party? Join up with the anti-Trump
neocons and vote for a third party? While the Republicans can win nationwide elections without Jewish money and votes, there's
no evidence that the Democrats can, at least not yet.
Another factor in Ocasio's surprise victory, as so delicately pointed out by the noted political analyst Andrew Anglin, is
that:
"Furthermore, people want to f*ck her."
No shit. Her good looks and likeable personality mean that she's likely in the media spotlight to stay, no matter how much
the MSM (((gatekeepers))) might want to shield the general public from her, ahem, "problematic" views.
As an aside, I believe her nationwide appeal is enhanced by her complete lack of the godawful, ear-grating Nuyorican accent
so commonplace among her co-ethnics. In fact she speaks with a general American accent with barely even a hint of New Yorkese.
I don't know if this is part of a generalized homogenization of regional accents throughout the country, or if she affects this
dialect for personal and/or political reasons. Either way, it only adds to her appeal.
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, then Donald Trump will start looking more and more
like the moderate adult in the room compared to the infantile, gibsmedat, tantrum-throwers on the far left. Which is terrible
news for the Clintonite, corporate bloodsucker wing of the Dems, but fantastic news for the rest of us.
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.
You have no understanding whatsoever about the mood of the current polity.
Economics is just a tool to that end. When identity looked to be more productive, they pivoted quite gracefully.
Welfare bureaucrats derive their power from the poor, not the working, and there are many more poor abroad than at home. Creating
a welfare state thus creates a giant constituency for importing more poor, and poorer.
One of the credos of realism has been "There are no angels, so set the devils against one another." As pie-in-the-sky as economists
can be, they're closer to the truth on this one than the pro-regulation forces, who assume, by definition, that the regulators
will be angels.
Americans, at least Unz reviewers, lump all Hispanic speakers into one category. Does Cortez even speak Spanish, except for her
ethnic purposes? More important, a Puerto Rican origin is both Creole and Roman Catholic. That puts them in a category all their
own. She has no love for Israel because her background did not come under the influence of the Christian Zionist Churches. Her
black origins make her atavistically side with the Palestinians.
You have no clue about "Trump supporters." For your information, they will vote for anyone who shakes things up. Their second
choice after Trump was Sanders. These are facts. Read 'em and weep.
The Establishment wants to pretend that these voters don't exist. Even though they tipped the election. Along with most people
(even here) they want to keep everything in neat boxes labelled Right vs Left, Rep vs Dem, etc etc. Spares them the 'vexation
of thinking'.
Actually, I have a quite contrary view of the political implications of these shifts in racial demographics. For those interested,
here's a link to a long article I published a few years ago on this same exact topic:
"... Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality! ..."
Numerous sources give very high figures for Jews and these have tended to be memory-holed
and maligned as you know what.
Consequently sources which report a low number of jews (do you know of any?) from the period
are at least as suspect, and ones from a later period and embraced by Jewish scholars more
so.
And one must remember that apart from the many name changes by Jews in the Old Bolshevik era
(lots of name changes amongst Israel's 'founders' too) they made substantial effort to hide
their jewishness, as have later sources.
One might consider the attempted Bokshevik coup in Germany a year after the Russian one.
Even wikipedia has to report that this 'Spartacus uprising' was led almost wholly by Jews.
What would they have done had they won? Might the conflation of anti-nationalist communist
violence and Jewish Supremacy have been what led in part to Hitler and his racial nationalists?
There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism
played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews
in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his
1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party
members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s
and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of
the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least
the willingness to use force to remove the burden. The democratic parties were insufficiently
decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very
unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and
the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual
dimension of life. Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in
addition to the national need to escape from poverty.
Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to
justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to
preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is
less expensive than ending inequality!
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational
Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism) , but
party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 ME 7 Me 6 I lose
divide by party D R D R D R ME 7 Me+3 3 I win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican,it keeps the pharaoh options open.
DemoRats use identity politics to achieve their goals. And if it does not suit their goals it
is thrown in the garbage can as used napkin.
Also it is stupid to view candidates from the prism of identity politics: "In a mature
society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but
what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT
and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and
that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society."
Notable quotes:
"... Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that other thing she said. ..."
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living
on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby,
Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny
Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that
other thing she said.
How cynical is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? To this observer,
it seems impossible not to notice that those in control of the Democratic Party care about
"identity politics" -- about supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ
candidates, etc. -- only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that their
vocal support for the underlying principles of "identity politics" is both cynical and
insincere.
As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I've never seen it documented so well in
one place, however, until this
recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.
For example, Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 not only encouraged a vote for Clinton
because men and women had a duty to support her as a woman, yet they attacked support for
Sanders as specifically misogynist:
The 2016 presidential election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of
identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton's potential
status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters
but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie
Sanders.
In February 2016 -- at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle -- former Clinton
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by
predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory
Booker cheered: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" she
announced.
Though Albright apologized
in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did
reaffirm her central point: "When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits.
They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or
oppose."
At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of
Sanders
were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow "the boys," who, she claimed, were behind
Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump
won "because some dudes had mommy issues," then clarified that she
was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: "I also have those
moments where I'm like, 'Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake
socialists and jackass mansplainers.'"
Greenwald notes in passing that no one was making the case for supporting Sanders because he
would be the first Jewish president, and he doesn't expect that case to be made in 2020 should
Sanders run again.
He concludes from this that "despite the inconsistencies, one of the dominant themes that
emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important
to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support
such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying
bigotry."
The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon
Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary
Clinton includes
herself on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As Greenwald notes,
"Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight,
white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible
and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color.
Clinton herself has led the way."
The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman battle in
Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa McCormick three-way
contest in New Jersey, to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea Manning primary in Maryland. In all
cases, the Party backed the white male candidate (or in Menendez's case, the whiter male
candidate) against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not even the smoke
of 2016's identity fire remains.
Which brings us to the 2018 candidacies of Cynthia Nixon and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
Let's start with Cynthia Nixon, running against corrupt ,
anti-progressive NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo sides with Republicans to defeat progressive
measures, rules with an iron hand, is white and male. Yet he's also supported and endorsed by
almost every national Democrat who matters:
In New York state, Cynthia Nixon is attempting to become the first female governor, as
well as the first openly LGBT governor, in the state's history. She's running against a
dynastic politician-incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom the New York Times denounced this
year for being "tainted" by multiple corruption scandals.
But virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male
dynastic prince, Cuomo, over his female, LGBT challenger. That includes Clinton
herself, who
enthusiastically endorsed Cuomo last month, as well as Democratic Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand , who -- despite starting a political action committee with the explicit
purpose of supporting women running for office -- also
endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in March. [emphasis mine]
To make the main point again: How cynical and insincere is the Democratic Party's support
for identity politics? Very.
A Local Race with National Consequences: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Joe Crowley
This cynical drama is also playing out in the race between corrupt
Joe Crowley , the likely next Democratic leader of the House (if he survives this election)
and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The same dynamic is now driving the Democratic Party primary campaign in New York's 14th
Congressional District, a district that is composed of 70 percent nonwhite voters. The
nine-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, is a
classic dynastic machine politician . His challenger, a 28-year-old Latina woman,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has generated nationwide excitement for her campaign after her
inspiring introduction video went viral . At a fundraising event, Crowley accused his
opponent of playing identity politics, saying she
was trying to make the campaign "about race."
Despite all that, virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the
white male incumbent, and virtually none is supporting the woman of color who is challenging
him. Yesterday, the very same Gillibrand who has a PAC to support female candidates
and who endorsed Cuomo over Nixon announced that she was supporting Crowley over
Ocasio-Cortez. [emphasis added]
Note that these are not low-profile, low-consequence races. Both are positions of enormous
power -- in Nixon's case, due to the office; in Crowley's case, due to his position as the
Dauphin to Nancy Pelosi's soon-to-step-down monarch.
These are races with exponentially greater consequences than usuals. And where is the
Democratic Party in this? With the (corrupt) white male and against the woman, as always these
days.
"Identity Politics" Is Not a Cookie-Cutter Solution to Electoral Choices
I'd like to make two additional points. First, by any intelligent standard, candidates
"identities" should only be one factor only in considering support for them. Only the right
wing and 2016 Clinton advocates like Madeleine Albright, quoted above, make the most simplistic
argument about "identity" support -- and even then, the simplistic argument seemed to apply
only to support for Clinton herself and never to other women.
For example, would even Clinton supporters have supported Carly Fiorina against a male
Democrat for president? Obviously not. And Clinton herself, a former New York senator, did not
support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 when
Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for governor . Nor did then-Democratic primary candidate
Hillary Clinton campaign for Zephyr Teachout in her 2016 race for the the NY-19
House seat .
Ideological concerns also drive decisions like these, as in fact they should. Fiorina would
likely be too far right for Clinton to support, and Teachout too far left. This is a fair basis
on which to decide. It was also a fair basis on which to decide support for Clinton as
well.
The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight
A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressive involving themselves
heavily in high-leverage races -- like the Bernie Sanders 2016 race, for example -- where the
payoff would have been huge relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument
here: " Supporting
Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices ".)
The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage -- first, because he's
perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees , and second because it would, to use a
chess metaphor, eliminate one of the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from
House leadership in a single move.
Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the House. He would be worse
by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he's dangerous. He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of
his colleagues into supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them
committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He also controls funding as
Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC. Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally
a reliable progressive voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his
colleagues.
Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him from the House for
the next two years, would produce a benefit to progressives far in excess of the effort
involved.
Progressives, were they truly smart, would have nationalize this race from the beginning and
worked tirelessly to win it. The payoff from a win like this is huge. Larry
Coffield ,
June 26, 2018 at 5:27 am
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many
NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name
for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
Here is a simple example:
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7. Voted for me 1 (myself only) I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (3 republican votes and myself) 4 I
win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyze current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led West. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
"... For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression. ..."
"... Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten. ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.
For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want".
They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.
Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it.
When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth.
Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.
Democrats act the same way about different things.
When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much.
When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male".
Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.
And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel
a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks
about them.
Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people
automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.
When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often
imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last
year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).
The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated
can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.
a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that
this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of
all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or
retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author
of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher
taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic
policy."
This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk
to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma
among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.
Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class
exist only in the margins .
With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people
begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the
ruling class
wants .
I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate
the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in
gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form
of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy
and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success
for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature
of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast
majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned
into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and
demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their
backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.
It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize
just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really
are different - they are sociopaths.
They've totally and completely bought into their own
righteousness,
merit and virtue .
Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being
Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject
the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from
embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their
education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something
to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.
That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working
class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy
haven't figured that out too.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk.
None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not
wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family,
then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours."
Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.
Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight
here.
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents
family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist
democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable
housing laws. It ends up with some observations:
"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading
to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate --
to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."
We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them
and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
It has nothing to do with marxism. I think "cultural marxism" is used in the same context.
It's basically just a label used by right-wingers to describe all the identity politics
etc that faux lefties like the neoliberal democrats engage in to distract their voters from
looking at actual leftist economic policies. So instead of trying to narrow the gaps between
economic classes it's focuses on giving all identities, cultures and subcultures equal
worth.
If that makes sense.. My vocabulary kind of lacked the words I was looking for to try to
give a good description just now.. (English being my 2nd language an all)
On February 21, the New York Times published a notice calling on college students
to describe and document any sexual encounter "that may not be viewed as sexual assault but
which constitutes something murkier than a bad date." The notice incldues a submission form
where students can accuse individuals of having engaged in something the Times calls
"gray-zone sex." The Times asks its young tipsters to include names, email addresses,
phone numbers and colleges, plus text message records and photographs documenting the
encounters.
The Times ' announcement, written by gender editor Jessica Bennett and Daniel
Jones, reads in its entirety:
As stories of sexual misconduct continue to dominate the news, a debate has erupted over a
particular kind of encounter, one that may not be viewed as sexual assault but which
constitutes something murkier than a bad date.
We've seen it play out on a public stage, from the Aziz Ansari incident to The
NewYorker's "Cat Person" story. So-called "gray-zone sex" has prompted
impassioned conversations about -- and personal reflection on -- what constitutes consent and
how we signal our desire or apprehension in the moment. This debate is especially vibrant on
college campuses, where for years students and administrators have grappled with the
issue.
We want to hear how you handle consent for sexual intimacy in relationships and
encounters. Do you have a particular experience you find yourself thinking back to? What was
said, texted or hinted at, through words or physical cues, that moved the encounter forward
-- or stopped it? How did it make you feel at the time, and how do you think about it
now?
The February 21 solicitation links to an article Bennett wrote on December 16, 2017 titled,
"When Saying 'Yes' Is Easier Than Saying 'No,'" which sheds further light on what the
Times means when it asks "what constitutes consent?" The two articles together show
the provocative and witch-hunting character of the Times ' efforts to compile a
database of sexual harassment allegations on college campuses across the country.
"For years," Bennett begins in the December article, "my female friends and I have spoken,
with knowing nods, about a sexual interaction we call 'the place of no return.' It's a kind of
sexual nuance that most women instinctively understand: the situation you thought you wanted,
or maybe you actually never wanted, but somehow here you are and it's happening and you
desperately want out, but you know that at this point exiting the situation would be more
difficult than simply lying there and waiting for it to be over. In other words, saying yes
when we really mean no."
Bennett provides two examples, one from her personal life and another from a short story
published late last year in the New Yorker titled "Cat person." In both cases, the
woman is interested in the man, they court one another, and they both agree to have sex. In the
New Yorker story, which is also linked in the February 21 announcement, the
protagonist is physically unsatisfied by her partner, who she complains is "heavy" and "bad in
bed." Later, the protagonist tells all her friends a version of this encounter, "though," the
author explains, "not quite the true one."
Bennett says "there are other names for this kind of sex: gray-zone sex, in reference to
that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don't
really want to do it but it's probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because
you're kind of 'meh' about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the 'bad' refers not to the
perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath Sometimes 'yes' means 'no,'
simply because it is easier to go through with it than explain our way out of a situation."
"Consent" is a legal term that marks the line between noncriminal and criminal conduct. Sex
without consent can, and should, lead to the filing of a complaint followed by the initiation
of a criminal investigation, prosecution and, if a jury is persuaded by the evidence,
conviction. It is a basic legal tenet that the accused cannot be punished by the state for acts
that are not proscribed by law, and in the American system, conduct that falls in a "gray zone"
by its very nature does not meet the threshold for conviction: guilt "beyond a reasonable
doubt."
But the Times 's call for young people to submit reports of "gray-zone sex" is
aimed at creating a parallel system, outside the framework of the law, in which the accused
have no right to privacy or to due process. As law professor Catharine MacKinnon wrote in a
Times column on February 4, "#MeToo has done what the law could not."
Playing the role of prosecutors in the court of public opinion, the gender editor and her
cohorts at the New York Times are creating a massive database that it can dig through
to ruin the careers and lives of students and professors based on unproved accusations of
sexual conduct that, in any event, is not illegal.
The aim of this reactionary campaign is both political and pecuniary.
First, the Times hopes to create a political and cultural climate in which a broad
array of consensual conduct is deemed punishable, even if it does not violate any legal
statute.
The Times 's appeal for accusations comes after a number of spreadsheets have
surfaced where students and faculty can anonymously submit accusations of harassment or "creepy
behavior" on the part of male collegues or teachers. The submissions will involve a massive
invasion of privacy. Individuals, without their knowledge or consent, may be placed in a
situation where their most intimate behavior is being secretly documented and forwarded to the
New York Times . Texts and even photographs will be examined and leered over by the
gender editor and her colleagues. It is not difficult to imagine the abuses of privacy that
will flow from the Times 's efforts to procure salacious material.
There are countless legal issues involved. There are many states that outlaw the
transmission of sexually explicit and lewd material over the Internet. Will the individuals who
foolishly transmit the material requested by the Times be opening themselves up to
prosecution? If the Times 's editors discover that one or another submission describes
sexual behavior that occurred between minors, will they inform the police that they have
evidence of a violation of age-of-consent laws?
If the Times receives a submission that describes a consensual sexual encounter
between a student and an older faculty member or administrator, will it decide that it must
inform the institution of a possible violation of institutional regulations? And what happens
if and when prosecutors, having initiated investigations into "gray-zone sex," obtain
supboenas, demanding that the Times turn over its files? Who can doubt that the
Times will comply with court orders, regardless of the consequences for those who are
caught up in the escalating witch hunt?
Second, the call for "gray-zone sex" stories is a shameless effort to make money. In early
February, the Times announced a 46 percent increase in digital subscriptions over the
past year, and its stock price has increased 40 percent since October, the month it published
the allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Reuters wrote, "Subscriptions in the quarter also got
a boost from the newspaper's coverage of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment story, helping
the company post the highest-ever annual subscription revenue of $1 billion." It was also in
October 2017 that the Times announced the position of "gender editor," at which point
Bennett declared that gender "needs to exist throughout every section of the paper."
However, the newspaper has had trouble attracting younger readers who are more likely to
turn to social media and independent websites for news. In 2017, the Times launched
its own Discover section on Snapchat "with the aim of capturing younger demographics,"
Business Insider wrote. The Times 's campaign to broaden the #MeToo campaign
to include "gray-zone sex" stories, with a focus on college campuses, is a part of its filthy
business strategy.
Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the
deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.
Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's
white
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a
long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of
his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey
Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support
Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South
Carolina
Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two
African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.
Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating
white men.
"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President
Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.
"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it
represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench
is necessary for the equal administration of justice."
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on
Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by
starting with their offices.
"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own
staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of
South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.
"... The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites. ..."
"... And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself. ..."
"... With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong" by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests". ..."
On New Year's Day, the economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman issued a series of
tweets in which he proclaimed as follows:
The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians
who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites.
and then, a few minutes later:
And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself.
Was I psyched to see this! With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's
the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong"
by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests".
... ... ...
Let me be more explicit. We have just come through an election in which underestimating working-class conservatism in northern
states proved catastrophic for Democrats. Did the pundits' repeated insistence that white working-class voters in the north were
reliable Democrats play any part in this underestimation? Did the message Krugman and his colleagues hammered home for years help
to distract their followers from the basic strategy of Trump_vs_deep_state?
I ask because getting that point wrong was kind of a big deal in 2016. It was a blunder from which it will take the Democratic
party years to recover. And we need to get to the bottom of it.
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
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.
Body Language - Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Accuser Dr Christine Blasey Ford
The out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary
Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters
Ronan Farrow / Reuters
Christine Blasey Ford in her school yearbook.
Brett Kavanaugh, on the right, in his high school yearbook.
What Dianne Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters
Pure motivations: Asia Argento / Reuters
