Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Friday, September 28. 2018Kavanaugh's Hearings are Identity Politics Run AmokI doubt I can say anything new or add to what we already know or believe about Kavanaugh v. Blasey-Ford. But what has happened is concerning on so many levels. As a man, you worry about being viewed as 'tone-deaf' to women's needs or being hurtful of victims. As a woman, you will be questioned if you're not lined up behind the accuser simply because 'you know' what it's like. As a citizen, you worry about the clown show in Washington and the damage it is causing to the standards we have. Living in the NYC region, I see and hear things the rest of the country has to hear (media center) but doesn't really want to. I get it in double-barreled doses, though. NYC really is a bubble of tremendous proportions. A friend of mine, today, told me he doesn't think Kavanaugh is fit for the Supreme Court, but not because of yesterday. He felt the Fox interview was weak and showed someone without great knowledge or understanding. Then he added, "His emotional outburst yesterday showed me someone who can't control his temperament." Basically, yes, it was about yesterday. Kavanaugh's background puts his other concerns to rest, but this is Progressive Central - the People's Republic of New York is taking shape. Let's address the outburst. Kavanaugh's reaction was understandable. If I was held accountable for all the stupid things I did when I was 15, I think I'd probably go nuts. If I was being held accountable for something I know didn't happen, I'd be angry and ready to take on the world. Damn right I'd be pissed. The media is judging him poorly because of his emotions. His identity is now being carefully packaged as a person unable to control his anger. I think having to discuss my 15 year old farting would, on its own, piss me off. My friend said "this appointment is bigger than yesterday." Yes it was. Now it's not. Now it is about yesterday. The Democrats chose a battlefield, spent two weeks preparing that field with full media support, failing to expect what happened. They expected the Republicans to cut and run. For once, the Republicans fought back. From my perspective, and I was never a huge Kavanaugh fan, I shifted my views. I thought he was barely an OK choice originally. Good background, solid credentials, but weak in areas that matter to me. The Democratic strategy made me realize he was an excellent choice. It wasn't about yesterday until it was. It certainly changed my view on his desirability, and I was sold. His identity is one of candid and thoughtful forebearance. Anger plays a role at the right time. But Kavanaugh never attacked his accuser. He showed sympathy and concern. He lashed out at the politics of identity utilized to smear him. I feel bad for his accuser. I believe she was assaulted. I don't believe it was Kavanaugh. Based on her inability to give dates, detail, good location, her overall approach indicated that she sought to purge her memory of every detail. She did a good job of purging. So much so even her best friends couldn't help her jog her memory. The one thing she was sure of was that it was Kavanaugh. Nobody else could help her remember anything else, but of this single item she was absolutely sure? The assault may have been real, and clearly was traumatic. She fought it off, and fought off her memories. Then she allowed herself to be abused by the Democrats. She may not see it that way. I do. Sure, now she's a media darling. She'll get a movie of the week and a book deal. Her GoFundMe pages have raised plenty to cover her travel and 'security' costs. Hollywood will trot her out from time to time. She'll hang out with celebrities. I really don't think, as her supporters claim, that her life is going to be a mess. It seems to me it was a bit of a mess before. My best guess says that she may feel abused today. She should. She let the Democrats use her for their own purposes. They didn't really care for her, all they cared about is what her presence could do for them in delaying this. Her identity suited their needs, so they used it. If she's feeling bad about it all today, she can thank the Democrats. This is what happens when you tie your identity to politics, isn't it? I don't march or get overly involved in political activities. I'm not going to have my identity so closely tied to power or ideology that when it runs amok - as it always does - it causes me to suffer. She chose to use her pain for a political purpose, a very SPECIFIC political purpose. If the results aren't what you want or expect, there will be pain involved. More than you had before, and it may be deeper and more extensive. Politicians won't prepare you for that part as they use you. Why someone would want to endure the pain she went through simply to destroy another person's reputation is beyond me. Some people call it brave. If I felt she was advancing womens' causes, or the cause of women who'd been assaulted, I'd call her brave. I don't think she did. I believe she did damage to those causes, and she also damaged the process of approval for the Supreme Court. True believers will march and protest in her name for some time to come. All that is based on is emotion. No facts. No evidence, no care for the inability to tie truth of any kind to her vague remembrances. Identity Politics don't require facts. Just emotion and alignment. Are you with our identity or against our identity? There can be no in-between with Identity Politics. If you're a woman you must support women unquestionably, otherwise you're manipulated or abused. If you're manipulated or abused, then you're worthy of additional abuse which the Identity Politics require be disbursed. This may be a watershed moment in Identity Politics. This was a great example of how identity has been weaponized for political gain. Don't think this is the end of Identity Politics, though. The Democrats need identity to survive. Mao's Cultural Revolution relied on hearsay and Identity, and was implemented shortly after the Great Leap Forward had failed to propel the nation forward economically. The Democrats are failing massively. They are launching their own Cultural Revolution. I've warned friends of mine who are sympathetic to the 'cause' to be careful. Movements like this eat their young. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Next SC nominee will be a female. By necessity. Brown-skinned if possible.
But it won't matter. Same sorts of things will occur. Predictable. I believe all the female candidates on Trump's short list are white.
And if he didn't get angry "He's so cold and robotic. It's obvious he's been spending the past few days rehearsing his lies. Total sociopath. A man like that should never be placed on the court."
Yep. The Dems are doing a "Heads - we win! Tails - you lose!" scenario. Delivered in the proper unctuous tones, with the right amount of faux sadness that they simply can't vote for someone so (fill in the blank)...
True. I believe that the Dems with their idiocy have created someone who, as a SC Jurist, will be very impartial... which will be bad for them because he's going to go by the strict letter of the law.
No penumbras. No creative interpretations. No legalistic juggling... which pretty much means any 'progressive' agendas are right out. Nikki Haley for the trifecta. Not a jurist? No problem. Neither are the other dimwitted, affirmative action token-broads on the supreme court.
Nah. I'd rather have her on the 2022 presidential ballot.
Maybe something happened almost 40 years ago that left Ms Ford a case of arrested development. The real crime is what the Dem hucksters and shysters did to her in the last couple of weeks. I don't think they believed the vague obfuscations either or they would have initiated an FBI investigation in July. In any case, she made the choice to ally herself with them and became their tool. Maybe she'll realize it, or NOT.
I've seen various deceptive and sneaky click bait headlines like this, "Drink until you pass out: Kavanaugh's elite high school world" which is far more applicable to the accusers. "Arrested development" is exactly the phrase I was about to post with. She clearly had a miserable early life, then learned fairly recently that people will lavish attention on her if she serves their political purposes and adopts an infantile persona. When she stops serving their immediate purposes, I hope she grows up, because the rest of her life is going to be very tough, and so far she hasn't shown she's up to the challenge of even the most ordinary tough experiences.
It has been claimed that alcohol abuse short circuits maturation.
And, the degree to which maturation is stunted correlates to how old the abuser is when he/she starts drinking, so the younger the drinker, the greater the harm. Can anyone confirm? Well, I don't know, I'm 70 and still working on maturation. And I did drink at an early age.
I thought she was an embarrassment to mature women. I can't imagine that she could be perceived as a role model or a hero.
We are seriously expected to believe that he should not have gotten emotional, talking about his 10 year daughter telling him they should pray for the accuser? They would have attacked him for being unemotional.
I want to see the accuser's yearbook. I want to know why her presence on the internet was professionally scrubbed. If we can talk about every entry in his year book, then we deserve to know what sort of character the accuser has. A conversation I'd like to have:
Me: Sen. Blumenthal, you say that we should believe the accusations of a woman because of the pain of coming forward. Blumenthal: Yes. It's very difficult for a woman to come forward after sexual abuse - it is so difficult that the vast majority of survivors of sexual abuse don't come forward - that they should be believed on that evidence alone. Me: So, speaking hypothetically, if a woman were to accuse you of sexual abuse, should we believe it? Blumenthal: That would never happen because I would never do such a thing. Me: You mean that Republicans, whom Democrats have described as racists, misogynists, nazis, fascists, etc. over the last several decades, would not convince or pay a woman to make a scurrilous accusation like that? Sgt. Toys-for-Tots Vietnam hero, asking Kavanaugh if he understands: "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus".
"False in one, false in everything", was pretty gdamn rich. I knew of that one and I wished Kavanaugh had thrown that back at him, but I didn't want to be partisan in my conversation.
No. Right. God forbid you be partisan with Sgt. Toy-for-Tots.
Heavens to Murgatroyd. Republicans will get 10% of the black vote in 2018, 15% in 2020. That will result in close to 60 senate seats and 230 house seats. That will also end identity politics.
Lot of black folks on the #Walkaway channel.
And I'm thinking for every one, there's likely 5 to 10 who've had the same realizations but don't want to put up a testimony. We'll see in Nov - but the votes the Dems thought they had locked onto the plantation do seem to be slipping away in the night. I don't believe a single word she said and can't imagine why anyone would. You talks like a typical nutter to me. She's still insisting on investigations so may we assume she's already at the police station filing a report?
I'm going to guess that if 105 of the women that the men on this board fumblefisted 35 years ago came forth today and accused us of rape a lot of us would be in the hot seat. I tried lots of things with girls but they understood it for what it was and still is today. No kidding. I've had experiences with drunk and/or predatory guys that were both less and more serious than a drunk guy getting on top of me for a moment before I got away. I cannot imagine for one instant dragging it up in public even the day after, let alone 35 years later. At most, I might have tweaked him about it, let him know, once he sobered up, that he needed to clean up his act. But cowering? I really don't get it. if this ruined the rest of her life, she's got a lot worse problems than one rude or even moderately scary grope. Nor do I have one second's patience with the "I was afraid to complain" approach. Raped by a gang? Yeah, I get it. Groped fully clothed by a laughing drunk guy? Nope. It's irritating and unacceptable, but if you can't cope with it you're not old enough to be outside without your parents. This is sickening. I am beyond angry. I really hope this November's results are as norm-smashing as those of two years ago.
If this is allowed to stand the evil party (Democrats) will use these dirty tactics even more often. The Democrats present a clear and present danger against our constitutional republic and we need to get some backbone and charge them with conspiracy to destroy our government.
The Dem's are experts at using weak, compliant women to support their cause and then throw them away when they no longer serve their purpose. Remember Cindy Sheehan? The mother of a soldier who died in the war. They regularly trotted her out to attack George Bush about the Iraq war. In the process they destroyed her marriage and family relationships. She went to the Capital building to protest the war after the Dem's took control of congress. They threw her out of the building. She had become a liability. Now she is a pathetic nobody that nobody wants. Truly sad.
Move ahead to see if you have the needed 50 or 51 votes. If you don't have the votes, I would delay the vote and have Trump campout in the red states with blue senators to get them out. Then I'd call the vote again on the first day the new senate is seated.
All witnesses at the party that were named by Ford herself have denied this ever took place. That is the standard by which a legal case would be made. There is nothing here.
Buck Sexton made an excellent point on his radio show yesterday, the Innocence Project is a pet project of the left. They tout its wonderfulness all over the place, and guess what it says on their website: "Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide. Mistaken Identifications are the Leading Factor In Wrongful Convictions." This is why her statement holds no weight for me, and the preponderance of evidence does. That is how it works. Even the INNOCENCE PROJECT for heaven's sake, get that eyewitness testimony is often WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. That is why you use ALL available evidence. And the people she named said it did not happen, Kavanaugh's life shows he is not that kind of man, and his calendar shows what sort of kid he was at the time, plus dozens of women who knew him at the time. The idea that we need MORE to happen here is ludicrous. Ford got it wrong. She is not believable. MissT: All witnesses at the party that were named by Ford herself have denied this ever took place.
That is an incorrect claim that is bouncing around the right wing echochamber. Those not in the room don't remember the party, which is not unexpected as nothing of import happened to them. MissT: "Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide. Mistaken Identifications are the Leading Factor In Wrongful Convictions." That's right, but that statistic is for identification of strangers. If you know the person, then identification is nearly 100% accurate. Three allegations of drunken sexual assault are more than enough to justify an investigation. Wonder if we'll find out how many others Dr. I Don't Remember has accused of sexual assault.
One has the feeling that an investigation will turn up a lot more dirt on her than Kavanaugh. Zzzzatemypuppies: Wonder ...
That's why there are independent investigations. Kavanaugh falsely claimed he could legally drink at the time.
Kavanaugh gets combative when asked about his drinking. Kavanaugh (July 1, 1982): “go to Timmy’s for {brew}skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” Kavanaugh: “if Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?” Kavanaugh declines to call for an FBI investigation to clear his name. Kavanaugh rails against the Democrats, Trump-haters, the Left, and the Clintons for allegations others have raised about his behavior. Kavanaugh: “A good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy”. Real men take offense when someone maliciously slanders their name as is this case.
Somehow I feel the kiddiez haven't the slightest acquiantance with real men. Zzzzatemypuppies: Real men take offense when someone maliciously slanders their name as is this case.
Every day, people are accused of things and have to maintain their composure before courts and judges. Every day you show up, divert normal reason, invert reality, and immerse this site in your idiotic daily semantics stew. You're either a bot or the most arrogant, self-absorbed sob I've ever encountered.
I choose example #2.
#14.1.1.1.1
Zzzzatemypuppies
on
2018-09-29 16:07
(Reply)
Topic: Food, for example.
Human: I enjoy hamburgers. LiarBot: Beef is a product of [insert bullshit leftist controversy]. Human: But [bullshit controversy] is not racist and sexist. LiarBot: Sexism is [insert diversion and deflection, jerk topic to second generation of impertinence in as many remarks]. Human: But [diversion and deflection] is untrue! LiarBot: We freely offered that [allusion to something completely tangential to smear human's intellect while appearing innocent]. Human: But I like hamburgers! And I'm not dumb! [Frustration with being gaslit.] LiarBot: [Insert some wooden quip aimed at appearing to have an ounce of wit. Resume deflecting into some pedantic, utterly false premise that smears all in attendance. Hide behind tacit defense against being found out to have been lying again and actually pretend victimhood.] *** And this goes on twenty times a day.
#14.1.1.1.1.1
Watch the LiarBot argue.
on
2018-09-30 06:54
(Reply)
"Kavanaugh declines to call for an FBI investigation to clear his name."
Lie. Kavanaugh cooperated fully with 7 FBI investigations. Kavanaugh rails against the Democrats, Trump-haters, the Left, and the Clintons for allegations THEY have raised about his behavior. You keep lying, comrade. SDN: Kavanaugh cooperated fully with 7 FBI investigations.
Sure. But that was before the latest allegations surfaced. The question concerns an investigation of these allegations. SDN: Kavanaugh rails against the Democrats, Trump-haters, the Left, and the Clintons for allegations THEY have raised about his behavior. Three women raised specific allegations. They were aired by the Senate committee. Dear G"D--when are we going to acknowledge LOUDLY that the Democratic party has become the Women's Political Army? When do we acknowledge that they are well organized, without any restraint of moral or ethical concerns and focused on taking control of the entire world. They care nothing about taking down this country and will eventually destroy our constitution if we let them. If we refuse to acknowledge they have become the largest mafia we have ever seen. I pray that every Republican Senator will understand that millions of women in America do not support this kind of behavior--we are looking for white men to stand up for the country we all inherited! We--women who do not support the female mafia have no one organizing our efforts.
I agree. And as a woman, it’s horrifying to realize that the radical feminists are so focused on the destruction of our great culture. Their anger and shrillness is embarrassing, not to mention dangerous. It doesn’t seem like most of them have a clue that they are being used. I think they are sealing their own bitter fates. The film “The Red Pill” is the story of one woman’s journey from liberal feminist to a thinking, reasoning young woman. And it’s a real eye-opener!
"As a man, you worry about being viewed as 'tone-deaf' to women's needs or being hurtful of victims. "
F*** that nonsense. Not anymore. Hoist the flag and start slitting throats. David: Hoist the flag and start slitting throats.
Nothing like advocating murder for "advice and consent". Z: That is an incorrect claim that is bouncing around the right wing echochamber. Those not in the room don't remember the party, which is not unexpected as nothing of import happened to them.
It's just a LITTLE more equivocal than you say: QUOTE: Simply put, Ms Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was pres, with, or without Dr. Ford. -- Howard J. Walsh III/councel to Leyla d Keyser Why does anyone believe this was a painful experience for Ford?
lhfry: Why does anyone believe this was a painful experience for Ford?
Imagine you're an ordinary bloke. Two very large drunk men lock the door, one of them gets on top of you, holding you down, and gropes you while pulling at your clothes. When you try to scream, he puts his large paw over your mouth. If it stops there, and then I get the hell out of the room, then here's what happens next:
1. I go downstairs, pissed as hell and tell my friends and/or the person hosting the party: who the f are those two big maniacs, one of them just jumped on me and pinned me to the bed. 2. I call the cops. Right then, from the house, so they don't get away. Sure, it's just a misdemeanor at worst, but I want them to have some consequences. 3. A year later, it's a crazy story I tell my friends when the name of the party host comes up. 4. 30 years later, I might remember it if someone brings it up. Independent: 1. I go downstairs, pissed as hell and tell my friends and/or the person hosting the party: who the f are those two big maniacs, one of them just jumped on me and pinned me to the bed.
They deny it. That's he said, he & he said. Independent: 2. I call the cops. They deny it. That's he said, he & he said. Independent: 3. A year later, it's a crazy story I tell my friends when the name of the party host comes up. Research shows that many victims of sexual assault avoid talking about it, and many never report it (77%). The incidence of false reporting is very low (2%). Independent: 4. 30 years later, I might remember it if someone brings it up. Especially if the victimizer is in the news because he was named to the Supreme Court. Excuse me, but I take issue with the statement that as a man you worry about being viewed as tone deaf to women's needs, etc.
I suggest that men just need to act like men who are responsible, who treat everyone, male or female, with the respect they deserve, and then go about their manly lives with no regrets, no soul searching, and no navel gazing. "Why someone would want to endure the pain she went through simply to destroy another person's reputation is beyond me."
Well, it's not beyond me. She's a Crusader. Or a Kamikaze, take your pick. Look back to her scrubbing of her social media accounts before she embarked on this journey of character assassination. As an attorney, in the trade we call such activity "consciousness of guilt" or "malice aforethought." What do you suppose she sanitized? When people don't want you to be able to look at relevant evidence by concealing or destroying it, we're entitled to draw a negative inference. And then we get to the constantly shifting "details" - those she can remember, anyway. Any competent interrogator will tell you that the difference between a liar and a truth-teller is simple: keep asking questions, and eventually the liar will change her story. The person telling the truth can't change his. Brett Kavanaugh never changed his story. All three of these accusers who came forward with these lurid, evidence-free tales exemplify something that might be admirable on the part of the Democrats if it were put to any constructive use: their ability to find people willing to sacrifice not just the truth and reality but even themselves - their integrity, their honor, their dignity, their reputations - for The Greater Good (i.e., promoting the interests of their party). They'll lie. They'll distort. They'll play hide-the-ball with the facts. Whatever it takes. And just like the Kamikaze, they think they're heroes making the ultimate sacrifice as a last-ditch effort to stop a hated enemy. Republicans can't get people to do that. Sometimes I wish they could, but they can't. Ford, her lawyers, the Democrats on the Judicial Committee, the other two accusers, Creepy Porn Lawyer, the Media Arm of the Democrat Party... they all know exactly what they are trying to do here. These accusers aren't "victims" in any sense. They're on the offensive. Ford is going to make a lot of money with a book deal and associated movie rights, GoFundMe accounts, etc., much more than she could've made at her day job. She's going to profit from this. And she'll join Anita Hill in the Democrat Party Pantheon of Demigods. She was nobody, now she's "somebody." But she's no victim. > The assault may have been real, and clearly was traumatic.
That sentence should read "The assault may have been real, and if it happened it seems to have been traumatic." There is no physical evidence of assault given that Ford has no recollection of date or place. The other four people deny that the assault ever happened. We also cannot rely on Ford's character as a sole reference point because we know she lied about her fear of flying. Andy: The other four people deny that the assault ever happened.
Kavanaugh made a similar claim, but saying you don't remember a particular gathering where you wouldn't have seen anything is not the same as denying the assault took place. It's reasonable you might be confused on this point, but Kavanaugh is hankering for a seat on the Supreme Court, so he would be expected to understand the distinction. >"I feel bad for his accuser. I believe she was assaulted. I don't believe it was Kavanaugh. Based on her inability to give dates, detail, good location, her overall approach indicated that she sought to purge her memory of every detail. She did a good job of purging. So much so even her best friends couldn't help her jog her memory. The one thing she was sure of was that it was Kavanaugh. Nobody else could help her remember anything else, but of this single item she was absolutely sure? "
If you believe she was sexually assaulted as she claims, then you should believe Kavanaugh was her attacker, because that's the only thing she's sure of. If you don't believe Kavanaugh assaulted her for all the reasons you gave, then you shouldn't believe she was sexually assaulted. The most you can fairly say is that Ford has made an allegation of sexual assault that can be neither corroborated nor substantiated. Now, if you want to be charitable and believe that's due solely to the passage of 36 years and/or a memory purge, that's fine. I think she's a stone cold liar. Ernst Schreiber: If you believe she was sexually assaulted as she claims, then you should believe Kavanaugh was her attacker, because that's the only thing she's sure of.
That's right. You may not remember the weather last Tuesday, but as James Comey pointed out, "FBI agents know time has very little to do with memory. They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory." Ernst Schreiber: The most you can fairly say is that Ford has made an allegation of sexual assault that can be neither corroborated nor substantiated. Her account is sufficiently credible as to warrant an investigation. That would mean trying to establish the surrounding details (time and place), look for possible witnesses, whether there was a pattern of behavior (other allegations), and determining whether Kavanaugh or Ford has lied. Ernst Schreiber: I think she's a stone cold liar. Doubtful. Her account seemed credible, and she had discussed the assault several years ago. Also, it's obvious that Kavanaugh has dissembled about his boorish partying days. |